Official Report 285KB pdf
Justice
Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is justice. If a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question. I remind members that questions 3 and 4 have been grouped together and that I will take any supplementaries on those questions after both have been answered. Questions 5, 6, 7 and 8 have also been grouped together, and I will take any supplementaries on those questions after question 8.
Vietnamese Children (Trafficking)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of a recent Police Scotland freedom of information response indicating that there have been 342 referrals involving south-east Asian children since 2020, including 31 cases of sexual exploitation, what action it is taking to ensure that Vietnamese children at risk of trafficking are identified at an early stage, protected from exploitation and provided with appropriate support. (S7O-00220)
Child trafficking is a horrific form of child abuse that can have a devastating impact on children and young people. In all cases, the child’s safety and wellbeing must be paramount, and support is provided through Scotland’s child protection system.
Tackling human trafficking requires a co-ordinated response involving the Scottish Government, the United Kingdom Government, Police Scotland, local authorities and specialist support services. The Scottish Government provides more than £2 million annually to guardianship Scotland, which provides specialist support to all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, victims of trafficking and children who are vulnerable to trafficking who arrive in Scotland.
What assessment has the Scottish Government made of whether the current systems for identifying and recording child trafficking adequately capture the specific circumstances of Vietnamese children, including those who may initially be treated as missing children or immigration cases? What action will it take to improve early identification and information sharing between agencies?
I am grateful to the member for that question and its focus on partnership working. There is data that tells us, year on year, how many children from Vietnam appear to have come here through trafficking. That data indicates that those children may be subject to forced criminality. That has been the primary reason for referrals since 2020.
Regardless of the type of exploitation involved, a child who is suspected of being the victim of trafficking or exploitation should receive an appropriate protection response, and the work with statutory safeguarding partners that the member alluded to is absolutely key in that regard.
Counterfeit Cigarettes
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address the criminal trade in counterfeit cigarettes in local communities, including what support it provides to trading standards departments. (S7O-00221)
I recently met the Scottish Grocers Federation to discuss the impact on legitimate traders of illicit trade. I fully recognise the harm that is caused to businesses by such illegal activity.
We are committed to doing everything that we can to disrupt that damaging activity. We work with trading standards and law enforcement partners, and we are engaging with a range of stakeholders, as well as with the United Kingdom Government’s high street serious organised crime unit. In addition, we are considering what further action can be taken to tackle high street criminality. That includes reviewing the framework for closure orders and any changes to the law that may be required to strengthen enforcement.
I thank the minister for that response and for her prior engagement on the matter. I am aware of one shop in my constituency that has no planning consent that is selling counterfeit cigarettes at a third of the normal retail price, undercutting legitimate businesses. The trading standards department is aware of the situation, but it has told me that it lacks the powers to shut down the shop in question. Will the Scottish Government’s review include giving more powers to local authorities to shut down such shops and take organised crime off our high streets?
It is important for the member, trading standards or anyone who has such concerns to report those crimes to Police Scotland. Trading standards officers already have a wide range of enforcement powers available to them. They can seize illicit tobacco, take enforcement action, seek prosecutions and apply for banning orders, working closely with HM Revenue and Customs and Police Scotland to tackle organised crime.
Tackling illicit tobacco remains a priority for the Government and our partners. Through operation CeCe, for example, partners including Police Scotland have seized more than 1.8 million illicit cigarettes and more than 1,100kg of hand-rolling tobacco in Scotland during 2025-26, which demonstrates the significant enforcement activity that is under way.
In addition, the Scottish Government is currently reviewing antisocial behaviour legislation, which includes the framework governing closure orders and whether changes there would strengthen enforcement.
I pay tribute to the minister, who has been an advocate on the issue of vapes as well as on counterfeit tobacco.
My colleague Mr Barratt is absolutely right that there is a role for trading standards departments here, but the reality is that trading standards departments have been hollowed out over many years, and we do not have as many staff. I ask the minister to work across Government, particularly with her colleagues in the education department, to ensure that more apprentices are going into regulatory standards so that we can empower trading standards officers to shut down the types of shops that are selling counterfeit tobacco.
I am grateful to Mr Linden for his focus on this area. He will know that responsibility for workforce planning rests with individual local authorities and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in their role as employers. Nonetheless, it is an important point, and there has been a conversation on progress there. The Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform asked Consumer Scotland to make proposals under section 3 of the Consumer Scotland Act 2020 to help inform the Government’s approach to trading standards services in Scotland. That report has now been received, and we are looking at recommendations in order that we can be as effective as possible in this area.
Does the Scottish Government accept that the growth of counterfeit tobacco is a sign that organised crime is gaining a foothold in local communities?
Organised crime is of serious concern to the Scottish Government, and it affects communities in Scotland and further afield. That is why the record funding that has been provided to Police Scotland by the Government is so important, given Police Scotland’s ability to make the best operational decisions in order to deal with criminality where it exists. The connection that the member has made between organised crime and the problem of illicit tobacco is a very valid one, and I would assure him that it is a matter of ongoing consideration for the Government.
Back in March 2024, Fife Council’s trading standards team made use of detection dogs provided by Consumer Protection Dogs UK. That resulted in the confiscation of nearly 3kg of suspected counterfeit roll-up tobacco in one operation. Can the minister confirm whether the Government has considered providing more detection dogs to all relevant bodies that investigate the manufacture and sale of those dangerous items?
I recently visited some of the detection dogs that the member speaks of, and I was very impressed by their effectiveness. I have been given other evidence to indicate that, as one of a range of measures, they provide a helpful tool to help us detect and deal with that particular kind of crime. The actions of local government, trading standards and Police Scotland in their operation are really for them to determine, but the member makes a valid point, highlighting the value of that as one element that we can use.
Domestic Abuse Victims (Rural and Remote Communities)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address any barriers faced by victims of domestic abuse in rural and remote communities. (S7O-00222)
Our equally safe strategy recognises that women in rural and island communities may experience distinct barriers to seeking support. Therefore, our programme for government commits to ensuring that every woman and girl, regardless of where she lives, has access to safe and sustainable services. That includes developing a new multiyear fund for specialist organisations, responding to what they need to sustain vital services and deliver critical preventative activities, and allowing them to respond flexibly to local needs. Further details will be set out in the next equally safe delivery plan, which will be published later this year.
Victims of domestic abuse in rural communities can face additional barriers in accessing specialist support, particularly where those services are spread across vast geographical areas. As part of the cabinet secretary’s plan, will he commit to a specific rural domestic abuse delivery plan that will be backed up by secure long-term funding for local women’s aid services and other specialist services, so that where a woman lives does not determine the support that is available to her?
The equally safe delivery plan that will be published later this year will have at its core the elements that Mr Baxter is asking for. He should take confidence in the fact that the delivering equally safe fund has benefited from a 5 per cent increase in funding this financial year, which takes funding to £23 million per year, with total investment being almost £46 million. Of that, £5.6 million is going to projects that support women and girls in our most rural and island communities. I am more than happy to continue a conversation with Mr Baxter about how we can ensure that the delivery plan meets the needs of women and girls in rural and island communities.
Domestic Abuse and Gender-Based Violence Support (Rural and Coastal Communities)
To ask the Scottish Government how it will ensure that women and girls in rural and coastal communities who experience domestic abuse and gender-based violence have equal access to specialist support and protection, including through the criminal justice system. (S7O-00223)
Our programme for government commits to ensuring that there is equal service provision for women no matter where they are and recognises the vital role of the criminal justice system in responding to such behaviour. I welcome the fact that more women are coming forward to report crimes, including historical ones, and the fact that there has been an increase in prosecutions and convictions, especially for current and historical sexual violence. Through the implementation of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, we will establish a sexual offences court as well as introducing statutory rights of anonymity and access to independent legal representation.
The Parliament heard evidence that Grampian Women’s Aid workers had to make up to 60 calls to find one legal aid solicitor for a woman who was experiencing domestic abuse. For a woman who is already in crisis, that is another barrier and another delay to accessing justice. With the Government consulting on legal aid reforms, how will the cabinet secretary ensure that women who are experiencing domestic abuse can access timely legal advice and representation regardless of where they live?
That was a topic of conversation during my meeting with Dr Marsha Scott from Scottish Women’s Aid this morning. We discussed the work that Scottish Women’s Aid is taking forward in its project to embed legal advice in Orkney and Shetland as well as in Edinburgh, which the Government is providing funding for. We considered how that might be spread more widely, as well as the fact that we are consulting on reforms to legal aid, and I encouraged Scottish Women’s Aid to feed into those discussions.
I recognise the concerns that Karen Adam has raised on behalf of Grampian Women’s Aid about the difficulties that someone who has been experiencing domestic abuse faces in accessing timely legal advice and representation. We remain committed to supporting women who have been affected by violence and abuse, including through the provision of funding for the Scottish Legal Aid Board, the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre and other organisations.
The cabinet secretary will know that the Scottish Greens and others have repeatedly called for multiyear, inflation-proof funding and for full cost recovery for the life-saving services that support survivors of gender-based violence. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether that will form part of his budget discussions with colleagues? Will he consider the introduction of a set of core minimum service standards that every survivor of gender-based violence would be entitled to access?
That goes to the heart of the violence against women and girls section in the programme for government, which I know that Maggie Chapman has taken a keen interest in. It talks about ensuring that we have multiyear funding available to support services and the need to shift our justice posture towards a more preventative approach. That would mean that we have services available in the community for women and girls, as well as better wraparound family support and a public protection posture to ensure that there are fewer victims in the first place. That will form part of the budget discussions that I expect to have with my Cabinet colleagues.
“Criminal courts backlog follow-up”
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report by the Auditor General for Scotland, “Criminal courts backlog follow-up”. (S7O-00224)
We welcome the Auditor General’s report and its recognition that justice partners have made progress on reducing the criminal courts backlog since the original audit. The report also highlights the increasing volume and complexity of serious cases that are entering the justice system and the challenges that that creates. We recognise the distress that undue delay can cause and the need for further action to ensure that victims see justice happen as quickly as possible.
We accept the recommendations and we will continue to work closely with justice partners to strengthen collaboration, improve delivery and support the long-term reform that is needed to ensure that Scotland’s justice system remains effective, resilient and focused on the people that it serves.
In 2023, Audit Scotland recommended that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service developed equality impact assessments for all change projects within 12 to 18 months. Forty months on, despite a legal duty to carry out those assessments and the importance of considering in advance how reforms could affect groups such as women and children, the Auditor General told the Public Audit Committee last week that they are not being carried out as they should be. Can the cabinet secretary explain to the people who those reforms are meant to be helping why the Government has failed to properly consider them and carry out that basic legal requirement?
The report recommends strengthening equality impact assessment arrangements and ensuring that they are applied consistently across reform programmes. Assessments are routinely carried out and published in relation to new legislation, but we recognise that the practice is less consistent in other areas of policy development and delivery. We therefore accept that recommendation and will continue to build on the existing work to support best practice in that area.
Court Proceedings (Backlog and Waiting Times)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce the backlog of cases in Scotland’s courts and reduce waiting times for court proceedings. (S7O-00225)
We recognise that the shape of criminal court business is changing, which places renewed pressure on the system, and that we need to respond accordingly and in recognition of the distress that delays can cause. From January, High Court capacity will increase to 26 trials a day, compared with 16 at the start of the decade. We are also responding through changes that we are taking forward with justice partners and stakeholders. We are supporting the delivery of modern user-centred digital services, including expanding digital evidence-sharing capability and providing targeted investment to support a more efficient trauma-informed justice system.
The High Court backlog has continued to rise to more than 1,000 outstanding scheduled trials, which is almost three times the pre-pandemic level. Audit Scotland found that the Scottish Government’s justice programme board has not met since summer 2024 and that its own modelling shows that High Court backlogs and waiting times are projected to continue growing until around March 2028.
In the light of Audit Scotland’s findings that the progress in criminal justice efficiency projects has been mixed, with some initiatives having still not started, limited evaluation and no equality impact assessments having been completed, what urgent steps will the Government take to address those issues and ensure that victims, witnesses and accused individuals are no longer subject to prolonged delays?
I have already set out that, as of January, the number of High Court venues will increase by four so that, in addition to the current 10 venues, the High Court will sit in Airdrie, Dunfermline, Edinburgh and Glasgow sheriff courts. We also have strong lessons to learn from summary case management improvements. In his report, the Auditor General sets out significant improvements that have been made on reducing the court backlog of summary cases.
However, I am very aware that we have more work to do in relation to solemn cases. Because of the increased successful prosecution and police investigation work, for which I pay tribute to Police Scotland and the Crown, we are seeing more and more complex cases coming forward that need to be dealt with. I will continue to work with justice partners to ensure that they have the resources that are required to get through the backlog as quickly as possible.
High Court Trials (Waiting Times)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that waiting times for High Court trials are expected to almost triple by 2028. (S7O-00226)
As I said in my earlier answers, from this January we will increase the number of trials to 26 trials a day, compared to 16 at the start of the decade. I have met the Lord President and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to discuss the issues at hand on a number of occasions. We will work with them, and with other justice partners, to explore what more can be done to address the challenges that our justice system faces. We will also invest £11.6 billion across justice from 2026-27 to 2028-29 to support front-line services, safer communities and victims and witnesses.
One of my constituents has now been waiting years for her case to be heard in the High Court. Despite facing multiple serious charges, the accused remains at liberty in the community on bail, while my constituent is left in limbo. When she sought answers, the response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service was that the delay was, in their words, “understandably disappointing”. However, for victims of rape and serious sexual offences, it is not merely “disappointing”.
The offences themselves, the years of uncertainty, and the knowledge that the accused remains free are traumatic, exhausting and deeply distressing. The Scottish Government repeatedly promises a trauma-informed justice system, yet many victims feel that, currently, the very system that is meant to support them is letting them down. Will the cabinet secretary meet me and my constituent to hear directly how those failures have affected her? Does he accept that, right now, with victims left waiting years for trials while accused people remain on bail, the system is not trauma-informed but retraumatising?
First, I recognise the trauma and distress that Finlay Carson outlined in relation to a victim seeking justice. I, of course, understand that. He will also understand that the scheduling of business is for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and that decisions around bail are for the judiciary to take. I know that he is aware of that. I would be more than happy to meet him and his constituent to discuss that case, recognising the independence of the organisations that we are talking about.
High Court Trials (Waiting Times)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that waiting times for High Court trials are set to triple by 2028. (S7O-00227)
As Ms Mochan has heard, we are aware of the potential and predicted waiting times for trials. Sexual offence cases now make up around 70 per cent of High Court trials, and the number of cases continues to increase due to increased reporting and prosecution, which I think that we would both welcome.
I recognise that it is vital that we find a sustainable way of managing those cases and improve on current waiting times, as well as mitigate any future delays. In time, the sexual offences court—an initiative that was not supported by the Labour Party—will play a key role in helping us to manage the growing pressure on the courts and the impact that it has on victims.
The cabinet secretary mentioned that sexual offences crimes account for 70 per cent of High Court business. A recent report by the Scottish Women’s Convention found that only 8 per cent of surveyed respondents felt that women have fair access to justice in Scotland. In last night’s debate about violence against women and girls, we heard that access to justice and support services can be extremely challenging and that geographical inequalities persist. Given the Government’s commitment to tackling those issues, will the cabinet secretary tell us whether the Scottish Government will lodge a draft misogyny bill in Parliament before Christmas recess?
In direct answer to the last part of Ms Mochan’s question, we have a programme for government commitment to progress the misogyny bill as a year 1 bill. I will also continue to work to ensure that women are well served in our justice system.
As I said in answer to Ms Mochan’s first question, the fact that we are seeing a higher rate of police investigation and charges being brought, a higher rate of prosecutions being taken forward and longer sentences demonstrates the improvements that are being made in our justice system to ensure that women are being better served.
There is more work to do. Indeed, exemplary contributions in yesterday’s debate highlighted the gravity of the situation that we face. That is why the First Minister has made violence against women and girls such a prominent issue in his time as First Minister and has ensured that it is central to our programme for government.
One of the highlights of the report on the summary case management project in the summary courts, which the cabinet secretary has already touched on, through which we had earlier resolutions without trials and 18,000 fewer witness citations, including 11,000 fewer police witness citations, which obviously freed up police resources. Could that be rolled out in solemn courts as well?
I welcome Alan Brown’s question, which highlights the incredible measures that my predecessor took to improve summary court management. Some areas of learning can be taken into the solemn cases, but solemn business is a bit more complex. I am looking to work with justice partners to make similar improvements in how we work in solemn business to those that have been delivered through the summary case management project.
Question 9 has been withdrawn and a reasonable explanation has been given.
Policing and Community Safety Initiatives (Rural Areas)
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to increase funding for policing and community safety initiatives in rural areas, in light of recent data indicating upward trends in criminality in Dumfries and Galloway. (S7O-00229)
Police and police staff play a vital role in keeping our communities safe, which is why we are investing record funding of more than £1.7 billion in policing in 2026-27.
Although decisions on the deployment of officers and staff, operational policing priorities and the allocation of resources across local areas are matters for the chief constable, Police Scotland continues to place significant emphasis on community policing and engagement with local communities, including in rural areas such as the member’s.
As is set out in Police Scotland’s 2030 vision and three-year business plan, community policing remains central to keeping people safe, and our record investment is ensuring that Police Scotland has the resources that it needs to respond to local demands across the country.
Overall crime rates in my local policing division have hit 552 per 10,000 residents, which is 3.5 per cent higher than in the previous year. In 2023, police numbers in Dumfries and Galloway were the lowest in Scotland, but, in recent weeks, local officers, led by chief superintendent Claire Dobson, have been touring towns and villages with a recruitment van to generate a pipeline of new officers, and I commend them for that positive and visible initiative.
Does the minister accept that it is more difficult to recruit officers in rural areas? What more can the Scottish Government do to support Police Scotland, both financially and practically, as it seeks to attract new recruits in hard-to-hire areas such as Dumfries and Galloway?
I am grateful to Craig Hoy for his focus on the importance of police officer numbers. Of course, we have more officers per head of population in Scotland than there are in England and Wales. Our officers also receive the best basic pay in the United Kingdom at the minimum and maximum of each rank, which is really important when we think of recruitment decisions.
Our record investment in policing continues to allow Police Scotland to recruit new officers, with more than 160 new recruits in July 2026 and further recruitment planned throughout the year. Police Scotland has confirmed that there is a healthy recruitment pipeline. I commend Craig Hoy for his focus on and support for Police Scotland as it goes about the important work of ensuring that we have a proper pipeline of recruitment in place.
In recent months, there has been a worrying rise in the number of reported incidents of vandalism across my constituency. In Tain, a high street shop and the much-loved rose garden suffered significant damage. In Thurso, homes and cars were vandalised and even the entrance of Thurso police station was targeted. What action will the minister take to ensure that local officers have the resources that they need to tackle such crimes? Will she heed calls from across the Highlands to restore the local control that was lost following the centralisation of policing?
It is really important that policing has a local focus in more rural areas, as the member has described. Rural crime can impact on individuals, communities and businesses, which is why the local focus that Police Scotland has is so vital as it goes about its business.
There is also the focus of the Scottish Partnership Against Rural Crime, known as SPARC. That organisation is chaired by Police Scotland and brings together key justice, enforcement and rural sector partners to ensure that there is a co-ordinated, multi-agency approach to preventing and reducing crime in more rural areas. SPARC also supports intelligence gathering and enforcement, in order that there is practical crime prevention activity taking place in communities such as the member’s.
I will take a brief supplementary question from Jamie Langan.
Would the minister concede that the closure of more than 200 police stations has disproportionately affected public safety in rural areas such as the Scottish Borders and South Lanarkshire?
Police Scotland’s important focus on making its own operational decisions so that the chief constable is able to determine where and how best to deploy officers is central to both preventing and detecting crime. In all localities, significant partnership working is going on between partners and Police Scotland, which ensures that we have a local focus while appreciating that deployment is a matter for the chief constable.
Health and Care
The next portfolio is health and care. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question.
I will give the members on the front bench a moment to take their places.
Grampian’s Radiology-Assisted Chest X-ray Evaluation Project
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of NHS Grampian’s GRACE project and its use of artificial intelligence in detecting lung cancer. (S7O-00230)
NHS Grampian is responsible for delivery and evaluation of the GRACE project, which was developed through the north of Scotland innovation hub. It is worth putting on record that NHS Grampian is the first board in Scotland to use AI in a cancer pathway.
The Scottish Government has considered learning from the GRACE project as part of the development of a national approach to delivering an AI-enabled chest X-ray pathway across NHS Scotland to support earlier diagnosis of lung cancer. That work is being progressed through our accelerated national innovation adoption pathway, which brings together Scottish Government and NHS Scotland partners to assess evidence and take collective decisions on innovations for national adoption.
Given the obvious success of the GRACE project in NHS Grampian, as the cabinet secretary has touched on, and its integration into the lung cancer pathway, can the Scottish Government commit to a full national roll-out of that transformational project and give members an understanding of the phasing of that roll-out?
In July, the Scottish Government and national health service leaders approved a national chest X-ray AI programme. Work is now progressing with NHS boards to establish the national reporting hub and put the necessary clinical, digital and governance arrangements in place over the next 12 months. We are shortly moving into that 12-month pre-implementation phase to finalise the clinical pathways. That supports the once-for-Scotland approach to a wider roll-out, helping to identify lung cancer earlier and speed up treatment.
The Scottish Government and partners have also been developing a policy framework for AI and recently published interim guidance, following discussions with trade unions, on how AI can better support staff to deliver high-quality care, in addition to the plan to develop an AI hub to accelerate safe adoption of AI in health and care settings.
Musselburgh General Practitioner Walk-In Clinic
To ask the Scottish Government when it anticipates that the GP walk-in clinic in Musselburgh will be operational. (S7O-00231)
As a Government, we have made a clear commitment to expand walk-in services, including in Musselburgh. That is part of improving access to care and reducing pressure on accident and emergency services. Although I have approved the inclusion of a service in Musselburgh as part of the expansion of the pilot, it is for NHS Lothian to design and deliver the walk-in service, and to determine when a safe operational date will be.
I welcome the Musselburgh clinic, which will be a lifeline for the local community. However, the issue of access to healthcare is coming up in other parts of the constituency that I represent, in areas such as Tranent. That demonstrates the huge demand for such services.
On Monday, I met representatives of Queen Margaret University, which is keen to support community health on campus and would like to maximise the use of its facilities while supporting learning. Will the Scottish Government support that type of innovative approach? Will the Government continue to look at opportunities to expand community healthcare across a range of settings?
Ms Campbell raises an important point about improving access to same-day primary and community care to respond to local population health needs. I welcome the interest that Queen Margaret University and other local partners have shown. We are always willing to explore opportunities that could improve access to community-based healthcare.
As the member suggests, it is important that we continue to think about how we make best use of community facilities and local assets. As set out in the new “Health and Care Improving Flow Plan 2026-2031”, we are developing a national vision for community infrastructure, which includes the role of community hospitals, GP surgeries and other local facilities that can play a vital role. We will set out further detail on that soon.
The British Medical Association has described GP walk-in clinics as
“short-term, headline-grabbing … non-evidence-based initiatives”.
The cabinet secretary has said that those clinics will take the strain away from acute services such as accident and emergency. However, A and E data shows that Scotland had its worst summer on record for those waiting more than eight hours for treatment. Can the cabinet secretary explain why she is continuing to pursue that policy against the expert advice of GPs, when the money could be better spent and invested in improving access to existing health centres?
I am well aware of the BMA’s views, and I am also aware that there are a range of views on the matter. I stress that it is not either/or. We are investing heavily in GP care through £1.3 billion of core funding and £531 million of additional funds over three years, all of which is part of a bigger package of investment in primary care.
We have 900 GP practices across the country. The walk-in services are about complementing the work of GP practices and supporting them to do what they do best in terms of continuity of care and the family doctor role. However, same-day access is crucial to preventing problems from becoming a crisis, and we have to respond to the need.
The member is right to raise the challenges around accident and emergency—those are the reason why we are taking a whole-system approach and looking at health and social care together.
National Health Service Boards Reform (Neurodivergence Assessment and Support)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers that its proposed reform of NHS boards will make it easier to access appropriate assessment and support for neurodivergent people, particularly adults. (S7O-00232)
The proposed reform of NHS boards provides an opportunity to think differently about how services are planned and delivered, including for neurodivergent people. We will work closely with NHS boards during the reform process to support joined-up approaches across health and social care and community services, ensuring that patients remain at their heart.
Just last week, we announced a £7.6 million neurodevelopmental support fund for children and young people to help to strengthen local support for children and families. That is part of work that is being taken forward with local government and partners across Scotland. As the member is aware, we have committed to adopting the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ national pathway for neurodevelopmental conditions for adults, and we will publish our route map in the autumn, setting out how that will be taken forward so that adults with neurodevelopmental conditions—with or without a formal diagnosis—can be better supported.
I thank the minister for that comprehensive answer. In NHS Borders, there is currently no pathway for adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism assessment unless someone is in a mental health crisis. I hear from constituents who have struggled to access treatment after moving to the Borders, because diagnoses that are recognised elsewhere are not accepted. I recognise the steps that are being taken to address that, including an NHS Borders workshop this month to look at demand for and capacity in neurodivergence services. However, we need reassurance from the minister that improving access to assessment and support for neurodivergent adults will be a priority as the reforms progress.
I am absolutely willing and happy to reaffirm today our commitment to supporting the needs of people with neurodivergence, including adults.
I recognise and am sympathetic to concerns that have been raised about access to adult pathways in NHS Borders and the challenge that is faced by the board. NHS Borders is responsible for taking decisions on planning and delivering services. We fund the national autism implementation team—NAIT—to support all health and social care partnerships to meet their responsibilities on neurodevelopmental pathways and services, and that activity is complemented by our plans on the national route map.
I also recognise the issues around private diagnosis. I would be more than happy to correspond with Calum Kerr or to hear from him on particular issues. Those are clinical matters that take account of patient safety, professional guidance and local governance arrangements. Through NAIT, we have published guidance on prescribing ADHD medication to adults following private sector diagnosis in Scotland. That was drafted in consultation with professional bodies and clinicians and shared with all health boards.
I thank Calum Kerr for raising the question and the minister for her comments on the topic at the Health, Care and Sport Committee this morning. What level of resource has the Scottish Government identified as necessary for the sustainable roll-out of improved neurodevelopmental assessment and support pathways, and will that be in December’s budget?
There will certainly be investment in mental health and in child and adolescent mental health services in December’s budget. We are at an early stage of development; as we discussed this morning at committee, we are at a relatively early stage of building an entirely new system that is necessary to respond to the needs of the vastly increased number of people who are coming forward to seek diagnosis and support. I mentioned some of the funding that we have put in to develop cohesive services for children and young people—the £7.6 million that was announced last week—and I look forward to updating the member on further investments as we develop the system.
Charities and organisations that support people in Scotland who are neurodivergent have expressed intense disappointment that the learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill was not included in the programme for government, and today we have heard that there is no vision for what the Scottish Government wants to do. People across our country have been left in limbo, as members have highlighted. Will the minister confirm today whether, under Government reforms, we will see the development of a pathway for adults and children in the NHS?
Let me be absolutely clear: the fact that we are not progressing with the LDAN bill does not mean that we are deprioritising learning disabilities or neurodevelopmental disorders. We are fully and absolutely committed to responding to those issues.
Part of the challenge is that there has been a sharp increase in the number of people who seek diagnosis and support, which has overwhelmed our current systems. We are having to build, from quite a low baseline, an entirely new system that can cope with a very high volume of referrals.
We are absolutely committed to ensuring that children, young people and adults get the right support, in the right place and at the right time—at the point at which they request it. At the moment, the focus is very much on diagnosis, because that is seen as a way of getting support. However, what people actually want is support, which is what I am focusing on building in our communities.
IVF Treatment (African and Asian Donor Eggs)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the availability of African and Asian donor eggs for in vitro fertilisation—IVF—treatment within the national health service. (S7O-00233)
I recognise that there has been interest previously in findings by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in relation to the underrepresentation of Asian and black egg donors in the donor population.
The availability of donor gametes for use in national health service in vitro fertilisation treatments is a matter for NHS boards. I expect boards to meet the needs of all people who are eligible for NHS IVF treatment and who require donor gametes for their treatment. However, we are looking more broadly at the availability of gametes in Scotland, and I would be happy to consider any specific concerns that Alan Brown is keen to raise.
The underrepresentation that the minister speaks about has been illustrated by the experience of my constituents James and Nkechi, whose NHS-funded IVF treatment is currently on hold due to a lack of donor eggs of African ethnicity. That means an unknown wait for them, and possibly age restrictions kicking in for the mum-to-be. They have come up with a solution themselves, as they have offered to buy donor eggs, but NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is advising that they cannot undertake a mix of private and NHS treatment, even though they want to use a partner clinic of the NHS assisted conception service. Is there any way that a compromise can be found for couples such as my constituents in those circumstances?
I absolutely appreciate your constituents’ concern, and I confirm that the Scottish Government expects NHS boards to meet the needs of all couples who are eligible for NHS fertility treatment and who require donor gametes, whether that be eggs or sperm, for that treatment. We have always been very clear that couples should not pay for any aspect of their NHS IVF treatment, and that includes the purchase of donor gametes. That is the responsibility of NHS boards, and I am happy to pursue the matter further with the relevant board if Mr Brown would care to write to me with more details.
Day Centres for Older People (Glasgow)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Glasgow health and social care partnership regarding funding for day centres for older people. (S7O-00234)
I recognise the value of day centres for older people and the important role that they play in wellbeing and socialisation. I understand that there is a review under way as part of a wider programme of work that Glasgow health and social care partnership is undertaking to secure future financial sustainability. I understand that staff and unions are currently being consulted on the future shape of services, but no decision about those specific services has been made at this stage.
Of the 10 day care centres for elderly people in Glasgow, two are in my constituency, in Baillieston and Springboig; I visited them in recent weeks. The minister is right to recognise that the decision is one for the health and social care partnership. However, any decisions that might be taken on the future of those services would have an impact on loneliness and isolation, not to mention removing the vital middle step between living in the community independently and the crisis of going into permanent residential care. Would the minister therefore back my calls to the HSCP to keep those things in mind as it makes those decisions?
I note that the member’s constituency has two services, in Baillieston and Springboig. I also have a service in Dumbreck in my area, so I am not averse to discussions on the matter. I note that Glasgow health and social care partnership has published figures showing that 661 service users were attending per month, against a capacity of 1,500 places. However, I note what the member says about consultation and involvement and the importance of the services to the local community, and I have asked my officials to keep in close contact with Glasgow health and social care partnership to understand any changes that it seeks to make.
Energy Costs (People with a Terminal Illness)
To ask the Scottish Government what model of financial support it is considering as part of its programme for government commitment to provide additional support with energy costs for people with a terminal illness, including its plans and timings for delivering this work. (S7O-00235)
We are determined that everyone receives compassionate and high-quality care, and that should be no different at the end of a person’s life. In our programme for government, we have committed to working with key stakeholders on how we will best deliver further support for the energy costs of those with a terminal illness. Supporting that outcome will be a cross-Government priority; delivery plans will be developed over the coming months and Parliament will be kept updated.
It is important, of course, that I point out to the member that he may also wish to engage with his United Kingdom Labour Government colleagues on the steps that they could be taking more widely to reduce energy costs for households.
The need for good palliative care was a real point of cross-party agreement at the end of the previous session of Parliament. What assurance can the minister give me that the palliative care delivery plan is leading to better end-of-life care and that services are receiving more support?
Work is already under way to deliver on the actions that are set out in the strategy delivery plan. For example, in January 2026, we launched Scotland’s first palliative care learning hub, which provides free palliative care education resources. In addition, palliative care guidelines have been developed by a multidisciplinary group of professionals and are available on the right decision service website and application. Work continues in that area.
Gender Identity Services (Waiting Times)
To ask the Scottish Government whether the commitment in the programme for government “to ensure that, by the end of 2031, no one waits more than 26 weeks for treatment” applies to all forms of healthcare, including gender identity services. (S7O-00236)
It is important to recognise that waiting times for accessing gender identity services remain unacceptably long, and I am fully aware of the impact that that can have on people who are waiting and on their loved ones.
The 26-week target that is set out in the programme for government relates specifically to elective in-patient and new out-patient waits. It covers about 40 specialty pathways that patients follow in accessing acute surgical and medical specialist services on a scheduled basis, including orthopaedics, ophthalmology and cardiology. To support that work, we have announced a further £90 million of funding to help patients who are waiting the longest for elective treatment.
We continue to support specialist gender identity services. Since December 2022, we have invested almost £8.5 million, including more than £7.2 million that has been provided directly to health boards that deliver those services in order to improve service delivery and reduce waiting times.
Many of my constituents who have been waiting years will be deeply disappointed if an apparently clear statement in the programme for government simply does not apply to them. As the minister will know, in Glasgow, waiting times even for a first appointment can be more than five years and waiting times for treatment are measured in the decades. It is simply unrealistic to imagine that we can go on in this way. Does the minister accept that nothing less than transformational change is necessary and that that must include the decentralisation of those services?
I recognise the situation that Patrick Harvie has described, and I agree that we need to think about a different way of delivering care. We recognise that performance is not yet at the level that we all want at certain gender identity clinics, particularly those run by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
Over the summer, I had the privilege of visiting NHS Highland gender identity clinic, which is functioning really well. I was delighted to hear about the reconvening of the managed clinical network, which will provide an opportunity for areas to share expertise and good practice in order to improve performance across the country.
Questions and answers should be briefer.
Can the minister speak about the specific staff recruitment challenges with gender identity clinics? Does she agree that, as parliamentarians, we should all be mindful of the language that we use so that people who access those services feel supported?
Gary Bouse is absolutely right. Gender identity healthcare services are specialised, and clinics across the United Kingdom have reported challenges in workforce recruitment and retention. As I said, since December 2022, we have provided more than £7.2 million of investment directly to health boards that deliver such services in order to address those challenges.
In the background, such services have been the subject of highly polarised discourse, at the centre of which are real patients and the hard-working staff who support them. The clinics have cited toxic media discourse as a factor in recruitment difficulties, and I profoundly agree that all politicians here should be mindful of that when speaking about the matter.
Given the continued pressures on the national health service, can the minister confirm that reducing waiting times for patients with life-threatening and clinically urgent conditions will remain the first priority in meeting the 26-week target?
It is not a case of either/or. We know that, relative to the wider population, trans people continue to suffer poorer outcomes in mental and physical health. We are committed to promoting, protecting and realising the right to health of everyone in Scotland, including trans people. In my answer to Patrick Harvie, I gave details on who is included in the waiting time target and where the funding is going.
Question 8 was not lodged.
Type 1 Diabetes Services
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the provision of services for people with type 1 diabetes across Scotland. (S7O-00238)
Improving outcomes for people living with type 1 diabetes is a priority for this Government. The health secretary wrote to all national health service boards in May to ask them for an update on their provision of hybrid closed-loop systems, as we provide baseline funding of £14.4 million for that each year.
I expect NHS boards to ensure that they are delivering on national policy and providing hybrid closed-loop systems in line with clinical guidance and individual clinical need, including for children and young people living with type 1 diabetes.
My constituent Christine Esson has been in contact with me to raise concerns about the withdrawal of central funding for hybrid closed-loop systems for those living with type 1 diabetes and the migration away from the support provided by the national team. Although Ms Esson will not lose access to the system, what she has highlighted raises questions about others gaining access to it.
Can the Scottish Government reassure Ms Esson that those living with type 1 diabetes do not see a reduction in their support and care due to the changes, and will it ensure that diabetic patients are not subject to a postcode lottery of care?
Let me make it absolutely clear that we have not withdrawn funding and that we have not instructed NHS boards to cease the provision of this technology—in fact, absolutely the opposite. We have provided £14.4 million of baseline funding from this year onwards to support provision.
The centre for sustainable delivery is looking at the expansion of access to hybrid closed-loop systems, but I want to take this opportunity to make it clear to the chamber that we have not asked anyone to cease prescribing those systems while we wait for the centre to report on its work.
The member has mentioned the on-boarding system, which has proven to be very effective. That system, which has ensured equity of access and treatment across the country, is also part of the centre for sustainable delivery’s work.
Following on from Adam Harley’s question, I want to ask what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes who have been assessed as clinically eligible for insulin pump therapy have timely and equitable access to that treatment, regardless of which NHS board they receive their care from, as that has been a bit of an issue for some of my constituents. Moreover, what oversight does the Government, in general, have of NHS board funding and waiting times for insulin pump provision?
I recognise that, over the years, there have been challenges with equity of access for a number of people across Scotland. Baselining funding in the way that we have is meant to provide certainty to every health board area that the funding is and will continue to be there, and that should iron out some of the inequity of access. We are also using the centre for sustainable delivery to improve delivery of and access to the support that is required to on-board people on to the system, and we have asked it to do a further piece of work on introducing this approach and expanding access to it.
The challenge probably highlights one of the most crucial issues facing our NHS at the moment and one of the strongest reasons for reforming how we deliver our NHS—that is, tackling the geographical inequities and unwarranted variation that we have in Scotland. The opportunity of reform gives us an opportunity to improve that.
I must ask for shorter answers from the minister to allow more back benchers to ask questions.
Around 35 per cent of adults with type 1 diabetes in Dumfries and Galloway are currently using insulin pumps, and a further 251 patients are clinically suitable for the therapy. However, some have been waiting for more than 12 months for it, because demand is outstripping available resources.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that it would be a false economy to allow access to insulin pumps and hybrid closed-loop systems to stall because of local budget pressures, when evidence shows that those technologies improve outcomes and reduce the risk of costly long-term complications? If so, will the Government guarantee that NHS boards have sufficient funding to meet rising demand for type 1 diabetes technology?
I thank Mr Carson for the promotion. I am delighted to be addressed as the cabinet secretary.
All the work that I have outlined, and the £14.4 million baseline funding, are intended to ensure that health boards have certainty that the funding is there and will continue to be there, year after year, to support provision. Closed-loop systems are now an established part of diabetes care for people with type 1 diabetes in Scotland. Guidance from the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network and the Scottish Health Technologies Group has set out the position that closed-loop system technology should be the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes who wish to use it, and we are targeting our funding to ensure that it is absolutely in every part of Scotland.
Kidney Dialysis Services (Argyll and Bute)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Argyll and Bute health and social care partnership and NHS Highland regarding the provision of kidney dialysis services to ensure that people are receiving treatment close to home. (S7O-00239)
I appreciate Ms Minto’s campaigning on that issue. We engage regularly with NHS boards and health and social care partnerships on the planning and delivery of renal services, including dialysis provision.
Decisions on the location and configuration of dialysis services are, however, for NHS boards. We recognise the importance of providing care as close to home as possible and support a range of approaches, including satellite dialysis units and home dialysis, where appropriate.
Our programme for government commits to shifting more healthcare closer to home through a community-first approach that maximises the opportunities for people to get the care that they need in their home or local community.
As a result of the dialysis unit in Campbeltown being temporarily closed due to staff recruitment issues, constituents are having to travel to Glasgow for their dialysis. There is also a campaign, which I am supportive of, to provide dialysis in Lorn and Islands hospital in Oban to avoid people having to travel to Fort William. It concerns me that, at crucial points in people’s health journeys, decisions are being made that do not put people at the heart of them, as the minister indicated they should.
As the reform of the NHS in Scotland progresses, how will the Scottish Government ensure that concerns about perceived reductions in care are not ignored as we rightly move to a sustainable health service?
I understand Jenni Minto’s concerns about the people in Campbeltown who are affected by the changes to their services and about the impact that the changes are having on their lives.
We will actively engage with patients, carers, communities and staff as the reforms are developed, which will ensure that local experiences help to shape those future services. A key objective of the reforms is to strengthen community-based care and improve access to services closer to home, wherever it is safe and clinically appropriate to do so.
Hyperscale Data Centres
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01177, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on hyperscale data centres. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak button now.
15:02
I want to be clear from the outset what this debate is and what it is not.
In this country, and around the world, a wide debate about the use of artificial intelligence is taking place. There are concerns about risks, there is hype about opportunity and there are proposals for regulation, kill switches and a development slowdown.
Today’s debate does not assume a position that is either pro or anti the technology itself. It is also not about blanket opposition to data infrastructure. We recognise that it has a role to play in our modern society and economy, but that must be within limits and it must serve the public good rather than just developers’ profits.
Today, we ask the Parliament to recognise the scale of what is being proposed and the policy vacuum that it is happening in. In March, the Scottish Government’s AI strategy made it clear that the phrase “green data centre” has not been defined; it still has not been defined. The strategy also addressed the need for guidance, but the Government is pressing ahead with data centre development zones before that guidance even exists.
Communities around the country are really concerned about the local impacts, including the sheer physical scale of these developments, noise impacts and local air pollution, but it has taken until today for the Government to require environmental impact assessments.
Our biggest concern is about energy. That includes heat that will go to waste unless heat networks are built, with serious financial contributions from the developers. Nonsense phrases such as “heat network ready” just will not cut it.
However, even before we get to that point, the scale of electricity demand that we are talking about is staggering. The first 24 proposals—
I do not disagree with many of the points that Patrick Harvie is making. What frustrates me is that we are trying to cram all the key points that he mentioned into a very short debate in which many of us would have liked to speak, but there is simply no time. We had a full debate on this topic only two weeks ago, when members from across the chamber expressed their views. Not a single member of the Green Party turned up for that debate. Why not?
We have brought a motion for debate and vote, which others did not.
Just the first 24 current proposals would equal one and a half times Scotland’s peak electricity demand, and the Government wants to attract even more developments of that kind. That scale is clearly implausible, especially at a time when Scotland’s clean energy should be used to cut people’s bills and decarbonise our heating and transport. However, no strategic approach is being taken—
Is it not the case that part of the solution to the energy consumption of AI data centres involves the use of small modular nuclear reactors, which will be used elsewhere in the world to power such developments?
If the member wants to come back in a few decades’ time, when that is remotely plausible, he is welcome to do so.
No strategic approach is being taken to determine how much of Scotland’s energy can be given over to that one industry, sustainably and without harmful consequences.
Will Patrick Harvie take an intervention?
I will take one more intervention.
A multibillion-pound hyperscale data centre has been proposed at Blackdog, just north of Aberdeen, in my North-East Scotland region. The proposal is for an initial capacity of 600MW, with ambitions to scale that into multigigawatts in the future.
Does Patrick Harvie agree that it is simply not possible for Aberdeenshire Council—or, indeed, any local authority—to make informed and strategic decisions on an application of this scale, especially when we still do not know what the eventual impact on the electricity grid will be?
Absolutely. It is simply impossible for local planning decisions, made on a piecemeal basis, to take account of national strategic issues, whether around fossil fuel back-up, grid stability or prices.
It is not just we Greens who say that it is time to press pause on the roll-out of that infrastructure. Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Action to Protect Rural Scotland and the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland are saying the same thing.
It is not just the environment movement, either. In Parliament this week, academic witnesses shared many of our concerns about energy prices. Councils in local authority areas such as Edinburgh and East Ayrshire want clarity as well, instead of being left to make decisions in isolation. In July, the Scottish National Party’s national council backed a motion from its Kirkcaldy and Inchkeith branch, which called on the Scottish Government to introduce a moratorium. SNP MSP David Torrance described that decision as
“a very welcome and important step”.
Stuart McMillan MSP wrote an article in his local paper to “welcome the decision”, saying that it
“provides the Scottish Government the time to clearly define green data centres and to devise a strategy that works for Scotland.”
I ask SNP members to ask themselves today how they can justify voting against what their own party has decided and what their own communities are asking for. Let us press pause and take the time that is needed. Indeed, let us give the Government the time that it needs to do that work and put Scotland’s interests ahead of those of the big tech giants.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the introduction of a moratorium on planning applications for new hyperscale data centres until a national strategy and updated planning guidance are produced, which takes into account the cumulative impacts on energy demand and the environment.
15:08
I welcome the opportunity to give the Scottish Government’s opening remarks in this debate on data centres. As the minister with portfolio responsibility for Scotland’s planning system, I fully recognise the vital role that that system will play in considering applications, harnessing economic opportunities and finding solutions that align with our climate goals.
The debate concerns challenges that many countries are now facing: the economy that we want to build, how we meet our climate objectives and, as will be vital, how we ensure that local communities share in Scotland’s future prosperity.
I acknowledge the issues and questions that members have raised with me, and previously in the chamber, about the potential impact of large-scale data centres. Those include valid questions about the implications for our energy infrastructure and for water use, the environmental impacts and, of course, the potential impacts on host communities. Those are all reasonable points and legitimate concerns, and I hear the voices of communities. That is precisely why I have taken substantive action on the matter over the summer and will take more such action.
Over the summer, I issued a planning direction requiring planning authorities to notify the Scottish ministers of new data centre applications with a power capacity beyond 50MW, which will mean that any such application will come across my table within seven days of its being submitted, so that I can ensure that the Government has strategic oversight of the matter. I also recalled a planning appeal for a ministerial decision relating to a proposed data centre in Edinburgh.
That is why, today, we have gone even further, in confirming that we will issue a new direction that will require an environmental impact assessment to be undertaken for all applications, new and existing, for new data centres with a power capacity that exceeds 50MW.
I hear what the minister says about increasing strategic oversight for the Government and giving more control to ministers, but can she explain why no guidance exists for planning authorities, which have been having to deal with such applications up until now? In the absence of such guidance, there has been no comfort or certainty for communities.
This is an opportunity to get things right from the start. Whenever there is a new industry, we always try to retrofit planning in hindsight, but we now have an opportunity to get things right at the start, to ensure that we bring communities with us, to set the definition of a green data centre and—
Will the minister give way?
I am still answering, and I will continue with that answer.
The Scottish Government is being asked to do two things: to take a national perspective on the issue and to ensure that our planning process and planning guidelines enable local communities to take decisions as well. Therefore, we need to strike a careful balance in the national guidelines that will be produced.
We are minded to support the Labour amendment, but we think that we can be more ambitious. We want to come back with guidance on the issue in three, rather than 12, months’ time—by Christmas. We want to be more ambitious in providing guidance and direction.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will give way to Adam Harley.
I am glad that the Government has finally committed to providing clear guidance. Will it publish that guidance as a matter of urgency? Does the minister agree that inappropriate sites such as Westerhill in my constituency—speculation is leading to applications for data centres on such sites—should be ruled out, full stop?
It is a question of having the right site in the right location and with the right connection to grid, along with the potential for using waste heat. That is exactly why I want to have strategic oversight of the issue. Adam Harley raises an important point. I have therefore issued guidance that means that I must be notified of any application for a data centre with a capacity of more than 50MW. That will enable me and my colleagues to look at the issue in the round.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I would like to make some progress, if the member does not mind.
Today, we are going further by confirming the issuing of a new direction that will require EIAs to be carried out across the board, which will come into effect by tomorrow.
Therefore, I assure the Parliament that the Government absolutely recognises the need for careful scrutiny of planning applications and of their likely impacts on the environment and our communities. We recognise that people expect decisions to be taken transparently and on the basis of robust evidence. It is essential that the public and the Government have confidence in the process. That is why I have taken steps to secure that and why the Government is being ambitious by saying that we will come back with guidance by Christmas.
However, I do not believe—
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister take an intervention?
I knew that this was going to be quite a topical debate. I will give way to Mr Barratt.
The Greens’ motion asks for a moratorium on planning applications until the planning guidance is developed, while the minister’s amendment sets out that the guidance will be in place by the end of the year. Is the practical difference between those two positions whether a handful of speculative applications are lodged in the intervening period? Is the reality not that no decisions will be made before the end of the year anyway? Is the outcome not the same?
I have been engaging heavily with my planning officials and with local authorities on this matter. It is important to state that, in any business development, in any origination of any industry, a number of speculative applications are always put into the system. It is highly unlikely that we will see decisions taken before Christmas.
Will the minister take an intervention on that point?
It would be speculative to give a number that would progress to the capital expenditure and operating expenditure stages.
I will make some progress, as I am well aware of the time.
We do not agree that there should be a moratorium. That is not necessary, it is not appropriate, and it would send the wrong message to anyone looking to invest in Scotland. We cannot prevent planning applications from being lodged, nor should we. Applicants have a right to receive a timely decision. Rigorous scrutiny of a proposed development by capable planning professionals, backed up by environmental assessment, is more appropriate than a blanket suspension of all developments regardless of their merits.
It is important not to lose sight of why these developments are being proposed. The world economy is becoming ever more dependent on digital infrastructure. Data centres support cloud computing, research, advanced manufacturing, financial services and the delivery of public services themselves. Scotland’s digital ambitions recognise the strategic importance of the infrastructure. For several years, Scotland has sought to position itself as a location for low-carbon digital infrastructure, building on our own renewable energy resources, connectivity and skilled workforce. The Scottish Government believes that economic growth and environmental responsibility must go hand in hand.
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister take an additional intervention?
The minister cannot take any interventions. She is already in additional time, and she must begin to wind up her speech.
I am very happy to continue this debate and discussion outwith the chamber, but I have already taken a substantial number of interventions, so it is fair enough that I should continue and then conclude.
Our objective is to ensure that we have in place the proper and effective planning here. The reality is that all major infrastructure presents both opportunity and challenges. I am very clear that this is an opportunity for Scotland. I was once taught the phrase that you measure twice and you cut once—and that is exactly what we are doing. We are committed to coming back before Christmas with guidelines that will give business and communities confidence.
I move amendment S7M-01177.5, to leave out from “agrees” to end and insert:
“believes new hyper-scale data centres in Scotland will only be approved where they have met robust environmental impact assessments, which will take account of any impact on the amenity of any neighbouring communities; welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to the swift creation of national planning and spatial guidance by the end of the year for the determination of conditions, under which data centre development should be permitted; believes that, in order to gain planning approval, any proposals for data centres should demonstrate how they would minimise emissions for their energy usage and not impact on water usage and how community wealth benefit will be built in to the business case; notes that best practice for the creation of data centres includes steps to support decarbonisation and to recycle waste heat for wider community use; recognises the increased utilisation of AI and further development of such technology, and calls for strong domestic regulation of and international collaboration on the development and use of AI systems to ensure its safe and ethical use, and to address the scale and seriousness of potential threats the use of AI may pose now and in the future.”
15:18
Just under two weeks ago, I brought a members’ business debate on AI data centres to Parliament. That was the first chance that MSPs had had to debate the issue, and the consensus was overwhelming. With the exception of the Greens, who sadly boycotted the debate, everyone, across the parties, agreed that the Government needed to produce guidance on what constitutes a green data centre and on what the parameters should be in approving or rejecting applications for them. That is what is needed, and it has been needed for months now. The minister has had all summer to produce that piece of work, and she has not done it. She has managed to bring out a book on wild saunas, but she has not produced what communities up and down the country and potential investors in Scotland need, which is certainty.
I would like to think that the debate two weeks ago sent a signal to the Government that it needs to pull its finger out. It may have helped to focus minds. Most members recognise the opportunity for Scotland in attracting AI and hyperscale data centre investment, but the opportunity must come with limits, standards and scrutiny. Communities, councils and investors need certainty about where those developments should and should not go, and how many data centres Scotland needs. Let us be clear: Scotland should not turn its back on data centres, but nor should we allow major developments to proceed unchecked. The scale of what is proposed underlines why national guidance is needed, and quickly.
Twenty-three hyperscale data centres have been proposed across Scotland, with 21 already in the planning system. Many of those are in the central belt, including Central Scotland and Lothians West. If approved, the proposed centres would use 7.3GW of power, compared with peak winter power demand in Scotland of around 4GW. Data centres already consume around 2.5 per cent of the United Kingdom’s electricity, and demand is projected to rise significantly by 2030. Data centres are critical national infrastructure and support banking, healthcare, transport, public services and the wider digital economy.
The developments that have been proposed in Scotland could support thousands of construction jobs and apprenticeships, as well as hundreds of long-term jobs. The Intelligent Land Investments—ILI—Group says that its proposals in Fife, North Lanarkshire, and East Ayrshire could create one of the world’s largest hyperscale data centre clusters and position Scotland as a global digital infrastructure hub.
The region that I represent is at the epicentre of the hyperscale data centre rush, and people are worried. I have been clear throughout my political career that massive developments in the green belt should not be supported, just as they should not be supported on prime agricultural land or areas of natural beauty.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Do I have time to take an intervention?
Yes.
I am grateful to Graham Simpson for securing the debate a couple of weeks ago. It is important that communities believe that the Parliament is listening, so I thank him for his work on the issue. I heard the minister say that it is highly unlikely that decisions would be made before Christmas, but that is not a guarantee that there will be a pause. For communities who are concerned, including those in the member’s region, does he agree that an official pause, as proposed by Labour’s amendment, would provide comfort that we can take the time to get the guidance right?
We do not have much time, so interventions must be shorter.
Interventions must be short. Well, my response is short. We need the minister to do her job and produce the guidance, which will give people the certainty that they require. I heard what the minister said, but she needs to be emphatic and crystal clear that the guidance will be produced before the end of the year. She needs to say that. She can intervene on me, if she wants to.
[Made a request to intervene.]
She does not want to intervene on me.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Members: Oh!
Unfortunately, Mr Simpson, you agreed to only four minutes with your business manager, so you cannot take any more interventions.
How sad.
The Government has moved on environmental impact assessments, which is good. The Parliament has pushed it in that direction, but the Government needs to go further and produce the guidance that everyone who spoke in the debate two weeks ago called for and that all sides in this polarising debate want. I wish that the minister would stand up at some point—
I did!
—and promise that, because if she does not deliver, she will not be forgiven, and we will be back here.
I move amendment S7M-01177.1, to leave out from “agrees” to end and insert:
“recognises the importance of data centres to Scotland’s digital economy; notes however growing concerns regarding the cumulative impacts of hyperscale developments on energy demand, water resources, agricultural land and local communities; believes that greater certainty is needed for communities, planning authorities and investors alike, and calls on the Scottish Government to urgently publish national guidance defining what constitutes a green data centre, setting clear environmental standards and prioritising development on appropriate brownfield and industrial sites.”
I call Paul Sweeney to speak to and move amendment S7M-01177.3. Mr Sweeney, you have only four minutes.
15:24
I welcome the opportunity to contribute on the critical issue that is being debated. When we talk about the cloud and the digital economy, there is a tendency to treat them as something that is ethereal or abstracted from our daily lives, but the reality is that they are inherently physical. Data centres are vast engineering undertakings. As economic enablers, they underpin everything from the national health service to our world-leading university research, as well as the day-to-day operation of Scottish businesses. They are increasingly important national infrastructure.
The UK sovereign AI fund’s £100 million rapid AI research and development procurement competition is a welcome initiative for founders to take on four national challenges: a national health service with more time for patient care; defence that keeps Britain safe; computing power to underpin British AI sovereignty; and ideas that keep our country cyber resilient.
However, in Scotland, today, we are leaving the architectural and industrial footprint of the 21st century entirely to private interests. In Scotland, the Government’s failure to urgently and proactively engage with the economic potential and risks of data centre development means that council planning authorities’ decisions on private sector planning applications are ad hoc and not led by good national guidance. We are allowing our industrial landscape and our grid capacity to be dictated by speculative private landlordism, with an inherently discretionary and reactive planning system. That is a profound abdication of strategic responsibility by the Government, and that is not a new problem. Three years ago, I asked the Government what its policy was on data centres, and it described the current picture as 10 data centres. We now have 15 in Scotland, with 23 proposed, so we need to rapidly catch up with the planning infrastructure to underpin it all.
My colleagues in the UK Government grasped the scale of this industrial transition, and Darren Jones MP rightly articulated that we must move from a legacy bureaucratic state to a modern digital state, leveraging this technology to upgrade our industrial base, secure better jobs—freed from tedious time-consuming tasks—and transform public services. Similarly, the Minister for Artificial Intelligence has underscored that domestic data centre capacity is a matter of national sovereignty and economic resilience. We cannot simply leave the physical engines of our future economy to overseas control.
However, to deliver on that, we must face the stark engineering realities. Data centres are major consumers of power and water. To understand the scale of what we are dealing with, running at its full terawatt hours, the proposed Cato data centre would consume nearly 8 per cent of all electricity generated in Scotland in 2024. Plans for new data centres should balance our future data needs, energy sufficiency, environmental impact, economic potential and job creation. Would the minister require current proposals to be retrospectively subject to environmental impact assessments?
Instead of developer-led chaos, we need coherent national infrastructure planning. Energy firm RWE recently highlighted the necessity of co-locating data centres at existing power station sites to bypass grid bottlenecks, reduce constraint payments to renewable generators and ease transmission congestion. That is exactly the sort of spatial and industrial master planning that the Government must lead on. It is obvious to me that the locations for the first wave of new data centre developments in Scotland are staring us in the face: our established coastal and thermal power station sites at Hunterston, Torness, Cockenzie, Longannet and Chapelcross. Those locations already possess the industrial profile required: high-voltage grid connections, abundant ambient cooling water along the coastline, flat brownfield industrial land sited well away from residential amenities, and communities with an existing established heritage in the energy industry.
Given that we seem to be in the same space with regard to spatial and national planning, I am very surprised that the member will not commit to joining us in our ambition to publish this guidance in three months’ time. Why the need for 12 months?
We have not had clarity from the Government on the detail of what it is proposing. We need clarity on exactly what it is proposing in the guidance and on its scope. We have precedent for this in Scotland. A century ago, Britain’s electricity supply was a fragmented parochial mess, much like our current approach to hyperscale data centre planning. It took a Glaswegian industrialist, Lord Weir, to sort that out, through the creation of the national grid. He did not rely on piecemeal decisions but delivered a synchronised national system. After the second world war, it was a pioneering Secretary of State for Scotland, Tom Johnston, who led the creation of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to realise the vision of power from the glens, refusing to leave rural electrification to private speculation. That sort of unified civic-minded planning is what we need today.
Scotland has great strengths in data science and energy, but a codified coherent industrial development plan is urgently required so that we can maximise the economic benefit, in terms of both jobs and wages, as AI centres develop, as well as have community benefit from economic returns. We have the opportunity to build the industrial architecture of the future, but it must be done by national design, and not by private speculation, so I urge members to support the Labour amendment.
I move amendment S7M-01177.3, to insert at end:
“believes that Scotland has great strengths in data science and energy, and as such, a clear industrial strategy is required to maximise the economic benefits of AI data centre developments, including jobs and wages; calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward a clear definition of what constitutes a hyperscale data centre and to issue national planning guidance, alongside robust environmental standards and assessments, to inform national and local decision-making on current and potential hyperscale data centre planning applications; notes that such guidance must provide clarity on spatial, community and social impacts of any such developments and that decisions must be based on community consent; agrees that consideration must be given to implementing community benefit schemes and adjusting the non-domestic rates regime or other tax measures to ensure that economic benefits are accrued by communities in which such data centres are sited; calls on the Scottish Government to report back to Parliament on the development of national planning guidance by the end of the current calendar year and to publish this guidance in full within 12 months, and believes that no decisions on planning or consenting in relation to such applications should be made until this has been completed.”
15:29
I recognise the concerns that have been discussed today, and that we are all facing, regarding data centres in our communities across Scotland, including two in my constituency in the Borders.
Residents want to know what these developments will mean for them, their landscape, their road connections, their water usage, their electricity and their communities. How will it affect their communities? They deserve clear answers before we endeavour to make any planning decisions. More important, I am very concerned about speculative planning applications for data centres that are not currently subject to full planning. I wrote to the Government on 31 July; I have the letter here. However, I am still waiting to hear back.
I understand and recognise the concerns. However, I am also cognisant of the economic opportunities and benefits that data centres can bring, including to Scotland’s sovereignty over AI and to our digital economy. Almost everything that we do depends on our ability to work online, and Scotland should be a place where we encourage investment and create skilled jobs in the process.
However, instead of implementing robust guidance that would encourage investment, the SNP Government has dithered all summer while dozens of these hyperscale applications have piled up; and, instead of being clear with the public by addressing their concerns with belt-and-braces guidance, it has shirked its responsibilities. Over almost 20 years in government, the pattern has become familiar: it publishes a strategy, then drifts for years, and leaves councils, communities and investors without the certainty that they need.
I really appreciate Rachael Hamilton speaking on behalf of her constituents; indeed, we share some of the same constituents. People are asking for a moratorium in order that we can pause and ensure that we get this right. Would she say that that is the request of the vast majority of her constituents?
The answer, quickly, is no.
In June, the First Minister said that he was giving active consideration to guidance. However, 12 weeks on, none of that has been published.
Will the member take an intervention?
In a second.
Gillian Martin admitted that ministers had not undertaken a wholly national assessment of cumulative impacts and, five years on from publishing its green data centre strategy in 2021, ministers still cannot provide a formal definition of a green data centre.
We therefore welcome today’s announcement that all data centres will be subject to an environmental impact assessment. We called for that: we asked for an EIA as an interim safeguard while national guidance is being developed. That is a sensible and proportionate step that gives communities greater protection very quickly.
I will take the intervention now.
The member is in additional time, and so cannot take an intervention.
I will wind up.
I am confused by the Labour amendment, which is about giving time to publish guidance. However, the Government is saying that it will publish guidance within three months while not saying that any applications will be paused. I find that a little bit of a dichotomy in relation to the motion.
15:33
Scotland, like society more widely, is at a crossroads. Every online purchase, bank transaction, streamed programme, healthcare appointment and cloud-based business service now depends on data at a large scale and, as that demand grows, our digital infrastructure must keep pace. We have a responsibility to be honest with our constituents. Data centres are critical national infrastructure. They are vital not only to economic resilience and innovation but, increasingly, to the public services on which we all rely.
Nor can we simply expect other countries to host the digital infrastructure that Scotland needs. As the Ministry of Defence has warned, Governments and businesses will increasingly depend on access to data to make decisions. Data sovereignty is therefore a matter of national security, and outsourcing our data infrastructure overseas risks leaving our defence and intelligence capabilities vulnerable.
Does David Green agree that, with the way that things stand at the moment, it is multinational corporations who will own these data centres? The sovereignty of the data is therefore not part of this debate.
I do not think that we can come to the chamber and have a serious debate about data centres if we do not recognise that, as I have just said, they underpin our defence and intelligence capabilities and the public services on which we all rely. Although there is a debate to be had about data ownership, which we should take up with Government, we must not lose sight of that point.
The issue before us is not whether Scotland needs digital infrastructure but whether Scotland has a planning framework that is capable of delivering it in the right way. That is the question that the Government must urgently address.
Let me be clear: none of that means that the current system is working, because it is not. Scottish Liberal Democrats share the worries and concerns that communities have raised across the length and breadth of the country. They are right to say, as we have heard in the debate, that some sites will be appropriate for data centres and some will not.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take my colleague’s Duncan Dunlop’s intervention.
The point about appropriate sites is key because, in principle, some are correct and some, as we can see, are not. In the South Scotland region, which I cover, a data centre is proposed in the Lammermuir hills, which would essentially mean the industrialisation of great big chunks of unspoilt countryside—
Interventions must be short; they are not speeches. They need to be crafted in such a way that they make a point to which the speaker can respond.
The point is that we have heard that Chapelcross, which is the site of a former power station, is an entirely appropriate place for us to invest in. Does my colleague agree that members right across the chamber should be clear about which proposals in their constituencies and regions they support and which they do not? Otherwise, we will see seas of mistrust.
My colleague has put his view on the record at great length. I will have to make progress.
You should have taken Mark Ruskell’s intervention!
There might be an opportunity.
I warn Government that the sense of powerlessness across communities will never lead to good outcomes. We need meaningful engagement with local communities, not for the sake of it, but because local knowledge leads to better outcomes.
Although I firmly believe that the Scottish Government has, to date, fallen far short of setting out the clear policy direction that is needed, I welcome the minister’s engagement this week in addressing the concerns that Scottish Liberal Democrats have raised. She will know that we have called on the Government to produce a comprehensive, transparent and effective data centre strategy and planning framework by the end of the year, because that will be essential to giving communities, local authorities and businesses the certainty that they need. That approach will not kick the issue into the long grass—it will deal with it now. I welcome the Government’s commitment to do so in its amendment, and I confirm that my party will support that amendment.
That framework should draw on international best practice and align new development with available grid capacity, set robust minimum environmental standards and protect community interests.
Does the member acknowledge that planning guidance on its own will never be enough to enable local authorities to decide the overall level of data infrastructure that Scotland needs and that they might just continue to judge cases on a piecemeal basis?
That is why I also urge the Government to commission an independent assessment of the projected energy demand from data centres. That measure should be expected. As I said, above all, communities that host development must have ownership of clear and tangible benefits.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I am sorry, but I have to make progress.
Jobs, skills programmes and apprenticeships should be treated as key in that process. Better co-ordination will also be needed, which is why I urge the Government to show some leadership. Communities, local authorities and businesses need to have a data centre strategy and planning guidance that are fit for purpose. By backing a clear deadline of the end of this year, Liberal Democrats are holding the Government’s feet to the fire and ensuring that communities, businesses and planning officials will get the certainty and guidance that they need. Anyone who is watching the debate should be under no illusion: our expectation is that decisions about planning should wait until national guidelines are produced at the end of this year. I hope that today’s debate will give those assurances.
We move to the open debate.
15:39
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate as it has relevance to my Inverclyde constituency as well as to the Climate Action Committee, which will, I hope, sign off tomorrow on the remit of the inquiry that we have agreed to undertake into data centres. However, I am speaking in this debate as a back-bench MSP and not as convener of that committee.
The issue of data centres has affected many of my constituents. Ever since a potential data centre was proposed for Inverclyde, I have received many emails from constituents highlighting their concerns, and there are more than 1,600 submissions on the outline planning application on the Inverclyde Council planning portal. Last week, more than 250 residents attended a joint community council meeting on the single-issue discussion about the application.
I have made it public that I am taking a neutral stance on the planning application at the moment, given my role as convener of the Climate Action Committee and the inquiry that we are about to undertake. However, I cannot speak in today’s debate without making some observations about the members’ business debate that Graham Simpson led on this very topic only a couple of weeks ago. It was a genuinely helpful debate with contributions from members of parties across the chamber—except the Scottish Greens, who did not take part and were not in the chamber. The debate was very open and it allowed members from across the chamber to raise a lot of different points, issues and concerns, some of which have been raised again and reiterated today.
The Climate Action Committee’s inquiry will be extremely important. I note again that it is the reason why I am choosing to remain neutral. Many of the issues that we have heard about today have been touched on in our discussions, and I dare say that they will come up again as we undertake the inquiry.
Artificial intelligence is becoming an increasingly important part of everyday life. It supports innovation, public services and economic growth, and anyone who uses social media platforms or engages with online banking or other online services effectively uses data centres.
The member will have heard me say in my opening remarks that the motion for this debate is not in opposition to the technology, but in opposition to the policy vacuum. He welcomed the SNP national council’s decision to call for a moratorium. Is it possible to support that decision but oppose our motion today, which says exactly the same thing?
I will come on to that point in a moment, but the answer to Mr Harvie’s direct question is yes.
As AI technology develops, demand for the data centres that provide the computing power behind those services will continue to increase, and our strong renewables sector makes Scotland attractive to the tech giants that are looking for new places to build hyperscale data centres. However, as the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee heard yesterday, an increase in their number could result in increasing energy prices for our constituents. From an economic perspective, although our economy will stand to benefit from this emerging sector, any expansion is not without risks and challenges.
That is why I believe that the volume of applications that have been submitted across Scotland demands careful scrutiny. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s recent planning direction requiring planning authorities to notify ministers within seven days of validation of any application for a new data centre that would exceed 50MW. That also provides the pathway to call in the application—
[Made a request to intervene.]
I apologise to the member. I have already taken one intervention and I have only five minutes.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s amendment, and specifically the statement that
“new hyper-scale data centres in Scotland will only be approved where they have met robust environmental impact assessments, which will take account of any impact on the amenity of any neighbouring communities”.
I also welcome today’s announcement from the Scottish Government regarding the need for environmental impact assessments for each and every development whether it is old or new. That is extremely important, particularly in the Inverclyde context.
I recall that national guidance was asked for during Mr Simpson’s members’ business debate, and I note that Labour’s amendment calls for that. It would be helpful if the minister, in closing, could clarify that no application will be processed before the end of the year, while the work that the minister refers to in her amendment takes place.
The issue of balancing economic and environmental demands was raised in the members’ business debate and it has been raised again today.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have nearly finished.
That goes further today with the mention of community wealth building ambitions and the interests of the community in the Scottish Government’s amendment. Wherever applications are agreed, public benefits must be secured and the voices of affected communities must be at the heart of decision making.
I am over my time, so I will leave it there.
15:45
As we debate the future of hyperscale data centres in Scotland, it is worth remembering that this story began with one of our greatest scientific minds: Galloway’s James Clerk Maxwell. Maxwell’s work transformed our understanding of electricity, magnetism and light and laid the foundations for the digital technologies on which the modern world depends. Every artificial intelligence model that is running today owes something to his discoveries. Therefore, it is right that Scotland shows leadership in shaping the future of the technology.
The bar should be high, because Scotland’s ambitions should be high. Too often in our history, Scotland has supplied the resources while others have taken the rewards. Vast wealth has been generated from Scotland’s seas and mines, yet decisions about what to do with that wealth were largely taken elsewhere and too many communities were left without a lasting share of the benefits. As we enter the age of AI, we should be asking whether we are about to repeat that mistake. Will the Scottish Government lead a nation that once again supplies the resources while the great rewards flow elsewhere?
From Duns and Coldstream to Ochiltree, Hurlford, Hamilton and Annan, my constituents are frustrated by a lack of strategy and vision, and complete incoherence in the planning expectations for what are significant engineering projects. We must get the balance right. Scotland needs a strategic approach that considers cumulative impact. Our countryside is a national asset, and decisions that affect its future must be guided by long-term planning and not short-term convenience at the expense of our rural communities, productive farmlands and environments.
Does the member accept that, although many communities are concerned about AI data centres, they are also very concerned about the huge amount of renewables infrastructure that is co-located nearby? Does she back our call, and the call of many community councils across Scotland, for a moratorium on all onshore renewable technology so that we can examine issues such as cumulative impact in Dumfriesshire?
I will not back that call, for the simple reason that there is a national strategy for that. We have coherent planning guidance, a plan and proposals. It is clear that that is not at all what we are discussing today.
If we do not get the rules right from the start—as we have done with renewables—we risk having little more than a digital equivalent of the old extractive model, with Scotland providing the assets while others capture the value. Already, some of Scotland’s largest landowners, including the Duke of Roxburghe and even the King, are positioning themselves at the centre of this emerging industry. In the 21st century, we should not be making public policy through private conversations between powerful men.
The member is being a bit hypocritical. The Greens were part of the SNP Administration when national planning framework 4 was developed and adopted, and NPF4 clearly lacks the safeguards to stop the industrialisation of rural Scotland through battery energy storage, wind farms, solar and major energy structures. We cannot just pick and choose where NPF4 works. It was the Green Party that brought in that policy, which does not have safeguards.
The national planning framework was created more than three years ago, and the world of AI data centres has developed hugely. I would appreciate shorter interventions in future.
Decisions of such scale should be guided by a clear national strategy, democratic oversight—I am giving Finlay Carson what he wants—and the interests of the communities that will live alongside the centres. That is why councils such as East Ayrshire Council are looking for leadership, clarity and guidance from the Scottish Government.
The communities that I represent are just asking for a fair deal. They want a framework through which data centre operators compete to use the least energy; innovate to heat the greatest number of homes through heat recovery systems; and vie to train the most local workers, use local suppliers and create lasting economic value. That is the kind of competition that we should encourage.
Will Scotland simply offer up our land, water and power to some of the wealthiest corporations on earth, or will we build a Scottish model in which the communities that provide those resources share directly in the rewards? We can honour the legacy of James Clerk Maxwell not by embracing the technologies that his discoveries made possible but by ensuring that the wealth that they create is shared fairly and widely.
I ask the MSPs across the chamber who have expressed to me their concerns about the proposals to listen to their constituents and the campaigners who have repeatedly come to the Parliament to voice their fears. Today, Scotland has a choice to make—one that will shape, for decades to come, its future and how its people view its Government and what it wants for the country. Do members wish to wave the saltire for a repeat of bad choices that were made under the union flag, or do they wish to act as if they were living in the early days of a better nation? As our makar said at the opening of the parliamentary session,
“don’t be feart, bear the weight, do what’s right.”
15:50
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a serving Falkirk councillor.
When considering the issues that are presented by hyperscale data centres, I see the dual roles of being an MSP, with responsibility for representing all the people of the Falkirk West constituency, and of considering our collective responsibility to the people of Scotland and their interests as being interconnected, yet, at times, having distinctive aspects. I intend to address both in my contribution.
As the MSP for Falkirk West, I strongly oppose the application for the hyperscale green data centre, as it is called, in Larbert. The proposed development is in the wrong place. It would border a care home on two sides and is close to a nursery and local housing.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will, when I finish this section.
In addition, Forth Valley royal hospital is in the locality.
There remain several technical questions that, to date, have not been adequately answered, including questions about conservative estimates of operational emissions and the recycling of coolant.
Most importantly, the voice of the local people must be heard. It is the wrong development for the location, and I have always asked for a formal pause—not a moratorium, as people know; I have made the argument many times. The decision from the minister on where we are going today, what she did a couple of weeks ago and the support for the Labour amendment bring me to the position of a formal pause, which I have argued for. I have even argued for it a couple of times with the minister. I am really pleased about how that has gone. I was never in favour of a moratorium—I notice that Patrick Harvie did not read out my name earlier.
Multiple members have asserted that no decisions will be made before Christmas. There is a pre-determination hearing tonight in Larbert, and that decision is supposed to be taken by 5 October. Are the Scottish Government and the SNP willing to let down the people of Falkirk by not taking a decision quickly to issue guidance and have a formal moratorium?
I am not being pedantic, but the determination date is 4 October, although that may be extended, as Gillian Mackay knows full well. A formal pause can start literally as the ink is drying—very quickly—whereas a moratorium needs to go through a legal process, which would be a much bigger problem.
In general, I welcome what has happened today, and I welcome the minister’s amendment, although I have questions about terms such as “best practice”, which are not yet clear to me. I look forward to scrutinising the detail of that best practice, particularly given what has, to date, been a bombardment of speculative planning applications from developers.
We now have AI and, like many members, I do not oppose 50MW data centres that will support industrial progress, medical advancement and wider innovation. However, controlled development must be the way forward. Given the warnings from leaders in the field about the pace of AI development, I am reassured that a safe and ethical approach is being proposed that takes seriously the potential risks that AI presents to society as a whole. That question is now being asked across Scotland and the rest of the world.
I ask the minister to outline—with the way things have been going, it should be reasonably easy—what specific interim guidance will be given to planning authorities, and to set out the effect of the Government amendment, when combined with the recent ministerial statement and the decision to support the Labour amendment, on considering applications in the short and medium-term. That covers exactly what Gillian Mackay asked about.
We are very short of time, so members will have to complete their speeches within the time allocated.
15:55
I was struck by the comment from a Green member that we have to discuss the development of the technology. I know that the debate is about data centres, but it strikes me—and probably a lot of the public—as passing odd that we are not talking about some of the things that have been happening in the past two or three weeks in relation to AI. I am thinking about the discussion about extinction-level events and so on. It seems very odd that the Parliament has not yet, as best I know, spoken about that. I hope that, before we get to the end of the year, we will have a full discussion, in Government time or otherwise, of AI and what we can do about the potential threats.
There is no question but that artificial intelligence has the potential to transform our economy, improve public services, accelerate scientific discovery and create entirely new industries, and we should be ambitious about securing our share of the opportunities. We have a highly skilled workforce, internationally respected universities, significant renewable energy resources and a climate that is well suited to data centre operations. However, ambition must be accompanied by responsibility, and that applies both to the development of artificial intelligence and to the physical infrastructure that is required to support it.
In June, I wrote to the Minister for Public Finance to highlight reports that around 24 large-scale data centre proposals were at various stages across Scotland. It should not be assumed that, just because we differ in our views, we have not spoken to our constituents. I have spoken to many of my constituents about that point.
However, individual applications are properly considered by planning authorities. There has been a bit of a hint of contempt for planning authorities—
Will the member give way?
I will develop my arguments first. If I can take an intervention later, I will do so.
Planning authorities are the legitimate place where such decisions should be taken, and we should not have contempt for that.
Of course I agree—I made this point way back in June—that it is very difficult for a planning authority to take a sensible decision without knowing the full implications if 15 or 20 AI centres were agreed to, such as the impact on our energy consumption apart from anything else. Without knowing that, they cannot take a sensible decision. No single council can determine how much data centre capacity Scotland’s electricity network can sustain or how that demand should be met, or what the collective impact might be on water supplies, land use and the environment and our climate.
I therefore welcome the commitment to produce national planning and spatial guidance by the end of this year, which will set out the conditions under which data centre development should be permitted. The guidance should also ensure that proposals are subject to robust environmental assessment, including assessment of their effect on neighbouring communities. Local people should not be expected to accept unacceptable noise, disruption, pressure on local infrastructure or a loss of amenity as the price of development, and proposals should demonstrate how they will minimise the emissions associated with our energy use and avoid adversely affecting water supplies. They should contain a clear commitment to community wealth building so that the economic benefits do not flow solely to developers and multinational technology companies.
As a suggestion—it may be unworkable; I do not know—if we are paying to have renewable energy switched off at certain times because we cannot store it, why not channel that energy in, charge the multinational companies the requisite market-level price and ensure that rebates go back to people in that area for their energy use? We could ensure that the wealth that can be generated from this technology is, at the very least, shared more widely.
There are genuine opportunities to establish Scotland as a leading location for environmentally responsible data hosting, and data centres that are powered by renewable energy could support economic development while the considerable waste heat that they generate could potentially be used to heat homes, public buildings and other community facilities.
Will the member give way?
I will take an intervention, if the member can be quick.
Planning permission for the South Gyle data centre was refused unanimously by the City of Edinburgh Council, but the developer appealed the decision and, given the Government’s EIA requirements, the proposal is being considered again. Does Keith Brown agree that nothing in the Government’s proposals will strengthen local decision making?
I absolutely do not agree. The member should have listened to what I said—I talked about the various things that the Government should include in the renewed guidance to strengthen the arm of local authorities. If that does not help to strengthen their arm, I do not know what they are doing, because they should take account of the guidance.
I will use my remaining time to make a point about AI and address some of the comments that have been made in the past couple of weeks, particularly by leading figures in AI. It may be the case—this might be why we have not discussed the issue—that the Scottish Parliament and even the UK Government feel powerless to stop the headlong race involving AI going into very dangerous areas, but we should not feel powerless. We should work with the European Union and countries around the world that are willing to put in place defences against rogue AI—a coalition of the willing.
If AI agents are escaping a sandbox, doing things that they were explicitly told they should not do and then lying about it, that should raise concerns for everybody. That is probably a much bigger issue than the data centre issue, even though that is, of course, important. The issue of what AI could do to us all is extremely important, so we should discuss it.
We move to closing speeches.
16:01
There has been consensus on the need for data centres, if I have read the room correctly, but our constituents have raised concerns covering all the issues that we have talked about. I do not need to repeat them.
I have a huge concern relating to the amendments. I have been listening to the debate, and I did not articulate myself clearly to Paul Sweeney earlier, so I will try to do so now. Hannah Mary Goodlad said that the Government will support the Labour amendment, but her amendment commits the Government to publishing planning guidance in three months, so there is a mismatch in the timelines. Does that mean that the SNP is, once again, leading us up the garden path? Will all applications be paused or chucked out within that timeframe? Will the Government come back in a few months and say that its support for the Labour amendment gives it a get-out-of-jail-free card and means that it has a further nine months to produce the guidance? Will applications then be paused or chucked out? This so-called pause sounds like a de facto moratorium, but even the Government’s own planning officer has said that a moratorium could be unlawful.
We find ourselves in a very precarious position. On behalf of my Conservative colleagues, I was minded to support the SNP amendment, and I still will if the minister can say, in their closing speech, whether there is a mismatch and whether we are being led up the garden path.
I will address the Conservatives’ concerns about the issue once again. The Scottish Government has offered a credible solution that would give our local government colleagues greater certainty when making difficult planning decisions. As it stands, a planning application is not planning permission. I want the Government to give an assurance that proposals will be subject to an environmental impact assessment, could be challenged by communities and will undergo a full planning process, as is right. The Government has not yet given communities reassurance that that will happen.
The Government could go further by defining a “green” data centre and by properly addressing the issue that the Greens have raised relating to the cumulative impact of the generation of energy—particularly renewable energy—especially in rural areas.
We need stronger safeguards. The Scottish Conservatives will support the Government on the issue if it can provide clarity that it will produce the guidance and that the pause is not a de facto moratorium.
16:04
I have been back only three weeks, and we have had a members’ debate on this issue, courtesy of Graham Simpson; a public rally outside; and now this debate in Scottish Green Party time. I agree with others in the chamber, including Keith Brown, that we need a Government debate not just to look at the planning implications but to take a full look at the matter.
I think that there is a lot of agreement across the chamber. People do have genuine concerns, and they want a more strategic approach; more leadership; clarity on what the vision is and what Scotland wants; and detailed guidance. It is difficult for those in planning authorities to look at such applications and know what to do with them when this sort of vacuum exists.
It sounds as if we are building up to a very exciting Christmas. Everyone is talking about guidance coming in time for Christmas, so perhaps we will see the minister dressed as Santa in the chamber.
Will the member be one of the little elves?
There are a few little elves in here today, by the sounds of it.
There are some really serious points to make. We have all been a bit freaked out by some of the media reports that we have seen, even in the past couple of days, but we are here to talk about how we deal with this issue in planning terms. On days like this, I miss my old job as a planner, because it can be very rewarding and exciting. Planners often think long term and well beyond election cycles about what the country needs and seek to strike a balance between the economy, the environment and what society needs.
I gently say to the minister that this is not day 1; my colleague Paul Sweeney was asking written questions about data centres three years ago, and I know that colleagues across the Parliament have been raising the issue during what I will call my sabbatical. [Laughter.] This is not day 1. I do not know whether the minister can answer this now, but if there is a decision tonight that alerts planning authorities to the possibility of guidance coming in time for Christmas, with a big Christmas bow on it, what will they do with the applications that are on their desks right now? Do they just put them in a drawer or file them away somewhere and just sit back and say, “We’re not going to look at them”? Are they still obliged to actively consider those applications? Indeed, one of the minister’s own colleagues asked whether there was a need to continue looking at them. There is a difference between continuing to do the work—
Will the member give way?
I will gladly take a brief intervention from Graham Simpson.
I wonder whether the member can clear up some confusion about the Labour amendment. At the end of it, it says that the Government should
“publish … guidance in full within 12 months”
and then goes on to say that
“no decisions on planning or consenting in relation to such applications should be made until this has been completed.”
Does that not mean a moratorium of up to a year?
The key point is that, as the majority of Scots—and certainly those who have emailed all of us—feel, we need to have a pause to get that robust guidance. What we are saying is that we want the Government to report back to Parliament before the end of the current calendar year—again, let us say Christmas—and for that full guidance to be published within 12 months. We do not want this to roll on and on.
I will not apologise for saying that we do not have full confidence in the Government, unlike the Liberal Democrats, perhaps, and colleagues across the chamber from me. The Government will come back with guidance, and there will be no scrutiny of it. The important thing that I heard today, and which I welcome, was Stuart McMillan’s comment that the Climate Action Committee was about to launch an inquiry to scrutinise data centres and to do the work that, frankly, should have been done by the Government. I think that it would be prudent of this Parliament to let the committee lead on that issue and do the work, and then we can come back and look at the guidance. Is the Government going to work on the guidance without listening to the committee?
[Made a request to intervene.]
I think that Stuart McMillan wants to come in. I know that he is not speaking as a convener, but I am keen to hear what he has to say.
I thank Monica Lennon for taking the intervention. Just for absolute clarity, I should point out that the committee is looking only at the environmental impact of data centres, not at other aspects.
I thank the member for that clarification. I know that all members in the Parliament will want to engage with that inquiry, and I am sure that they will be made very welcome by the convener.
My time is coming to an end, but even from what has been said just in the past few seconds, it is very clear that there are still lots of unanswered questions. We do not know what planning authorities are meant to do between now and Christmas—perhaps they should put their feet up. That would be very nice for our planning colleagues.
The Climate Action Committee has an inquiry coming up, and we will all want to engage with that. We also do not know what the guidance will say. Paul Sweeney was right to say that we do not know the scope of it. That is why a short pause is sensible and reasonable.
I hope that colleagues will support our amendment.
16:10
I agree that there has been quite a bit of agreement on many issues related to AI. However, during the past couple of debates, some confusion has erupted about what the Government is proposing. I hope that the minister will clarify that in their closing speech.
Most members recognise the opportunities that AI presents in Scotland. We know that there is an AI revolution, and it is here to stay whether we like it or not. It is transforming the way that we live, work and do business. It is providing many opportunities to improve healthcare and public services, and it is helping businesses to innovate and creating new opportunities for them.
The UK ranks third in the world for AI. Admittedly, we are way behind the US and China, but our AI industry is still bigger than those of the next five largest European countries combined. That is because we have the right talent, the right business environment and the right regulation. Scotland, with its tremendous history and its pedigree of innovation and technology, has a great opportunity to play a part in leading on that innovation. We must continue to get the framework for AI right. If Scotland and the UK are to realise the full economic benefits of AI, we must all support the infrastructure that makes progress possible.
Members also recognise that we will need data centres to be the backbone of the digital economy. David Green set that out well and fully in his speech. Simply put, if the centres do not happen here, they will still happen elsewhere in the world. We know that there is an opportunity for Scotland in data centre investment, but that opportunity needs to come with limits, standards and scrutiny—as we outlined.
Communities, councils and investors need certainty about where the developments should go, where they should not go and how many Scotland needs.
There are a lot of challenges, including the impacts on local communities, issues related to land use and, in particular, energy use. These new digital technologies are going to be incredibly energy intensive, and they will require high reliability.
There are opportunities, too. Some locations might allow us to use stranded power and therefore save on huge grid build-outs. In an electricity network where demand has been falling due to lower energy use, grid operators such as the National Energy System Operator have already taken into account some of the increases in demand that will result from new data centres, and that is welcome.
Nevertheless, there is a massive system challenge. How best to power the data centres? Where are the best locations? What should the power sources be? Can our system cope? Can intermittent generation marry up with the need for firm demand? Will there be any impact on the cost of electricity?
We should acknowledge that most of the projects will not happen until well into the 2030s, but we need guidance now. We have talked about it, and the Scottish Government must publish the guidance as a matter of urgency. I welcome the Minister for Public Finance’s commitment to do so by Christmas, but, simply put, the Government must deliver on that. We must have strong guidance that gives communities reassurance, gives the planning authorities a framework and gives investors confidence that developments will happen in the right place, to the right standards and at the right time.
I hope that the minister will clarify all that in their summing up. Scotland should always be open to the right investment, but not to unmanaged development. That is the correct course of action. Our amendment gets the balance right, and I urge members to support it.
16:14
I thank members across the chamber for their contributions. I recognise that this will likely be the first of many debates that we have on all aspects of artificial intelligence and data during this session of Parliament. I also recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed by members in this debate and by communities. Although this will be no consolation to those who have concerns, we are all aware that communities not just across Scotland and the UK but internationally are having similar conversations in community halls, Parliaments and other fora.
It is incumbent on us, as elected members with a duty to represent our constituents, to ensure that their views are articulated in the chamber. We also have a responsibility, given our privileged position as 129 legislators with extensive lawmaking powers for a nation of 5.5 million people and oversight of a budget of more than £60 billion.
The reality is that we are in the early days of a parliamentary session in which it is quite possible that we will have to contend with artificial general intelligence. I do not consider it hyperbolic to say that this may be one of the most profound moments not just in recent history but in human history, as we develop technology that is cognitively equal to us, if not superior to us.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Will the minister give way?
I am going to make some progress. I hope to take an intervention later. There are points that I want to come back to.
We must recognise that this is a profound moment for all of us, and that the implications of AI, artificial general intelligence and, potentially, artificial superintelligence are of such gravity and magnitude that we will be wrestling with issues across every facet of society.
The focus today has been on planning with regard to infrastructure for data centres, which have wide-ranging applications. Their expansion has been driven by consumer demand across a range of uses and, of course, by the growth of artificial intelligence. A number of points must be considered in relation to how we respond to that.
Although we will wrestle in many other areas with how to respond to the opportunities and risks that AI presents, when it comes to spatial planning, we benefit from an established planning system with nearly eight decades of experience. I pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of our town and country planners the length and breadth of Scotland.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Will the minister give way?
I am going to make some progress.
Considering the complexities and challenges that any major infrastructure proposal presents is what they do on a regular basis. That involves balancing a range of interests.
We recognise that the pace of progress and development in demand for compute, as manifested in data centres, will continue to evolve rapidly.
The Minister for Public Finance, in her capacity as planning minister, has set out important interventions. First, there is the requirement for notification to the Scottish ministers of all applications where the projected capacity is beyond 50MW. Secondly, there is today’s announcement about the direction on environmental impact assessments. Thirdly, there is the commitment to issuing guidance by the end of the year, as set out in the Government’s amendment.
Those are important steps. The practical consequence of that is that it allows and facilitates ministers to have oversight of the pipeline of applications that are coming in.
Will the member give way?
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will come to a point that Rachael Hamilton raised, which was prompted by Stuart McMillan. She wanted to know what the practical effect of that is. It allows us not only to have oversight of applications as they come in, but to have an understanding of the pace with which those applications will be considered.
I can confirm that we do not anticipate any planning authority decisions being imminent before the Scottish Government guidance is in place. I reiterate that point because officials are in close contact with local government planning departments.
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
Let me make that point clear: we do not anticipate any planning authority decisions being imminent before the Scottish Government guidance is in place.
I want to turn to David Green’s contribution, which I thought was excellent.
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
I am afraid that I am limited for time. I have listened patiently to every member and I am responding to what I have heard.
David Green made a very considered contribution.
Minister, you have not taken any interventions, and you are over your five minutes, so please wind up now.
I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion, Presiding Officer.
David Green made a series of important points, and I want to thank him for his close engagement with the Government on these matters. A key point that he highlighted was about national security, data sovereignty and sovereignty of infrastructure, which are paramount.
In the light of such considerations, we do not support a moratorium on data centres—
Thank you, minister.
Rather, what we have set out is a proportionate process—
Thank you, minister. You are well over your time.
I call Mark Ruskell to wind up the debate. You have four minutes.
16:20
Perhaps the line that the Government does not support a moratorium on hyperscale AI data centres was a good one for the minister to finish on. That is the outcome of the debate. The Government is not listening to the communities that are raising concerns.
We have had good contributions from members across the chamber. Hannah Mary Goodlad spoke about the Government getting it right from the start, but the reality is that we are way beyond the start. The Government is now painfully behind. It has been overtaken by events—by the dozens of speculative applications for data centres across Scotland, in relation to which no guidance is in place.
Even today, despite the welcome clarity that Tom Arthur has just provided, there is a lack of clarity on the Government’s definition of a pause, which seems to be a temporary pause before it comes up with and approves guidance, rather than a moratorium. I think that there is even a lack of clarity on what the planning minister said about the application of the guidance in relation to environmental assessment. I am currently not clear about whether every planning application for a hyperscale AI data centre will be required to have an environmental impact assessment carried out. I am not talking about the ones that will be submitted between now and Christmas time. I am talking about the ones that are already in the planning system.
Let me be clear: the guidance that I have issued today pertains to applications that are already in the system and any new ones that come in.
I welcome the fact that developers will have to at least look at and understand what the environmental impacts of an application would be, and that there will be a degree of transparency, but that does not affect the decision making.
I want to thank the communities that have been calling for a moratorium. Members of those communities have had to become experts and lawyers, they have had to fundraise and organise, and they have had to galvanise people in the hope that the Government will do better to protect them.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member give way?
No, I do not have time.
Listening to the debate, those communities will be bitterly disappointed at the lack of clarity from the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Tories and Reform, which refuse to back a moratorium and refuse to back a pause in the determination of planning applications ahead of the guidance being agreed.
I appreciate that this is a difficult issue for the many SNP members in whose constituencies applications have been made. We have heard from Gary Bouse and Stuart McMillan. We have not heard from David Torrance—I do not think that he is even here yet. I recognise that he will have to explain his position, not just to his constituents in Auchtertool but to his local branch in Kirkcaldy, which was successful in getting its call for a moratorium passed as SNP party policy.
Will the member give way?
I need to make some progress.
A pause is hugely important. I will tell members why that is the case. There are three applications for hyperscale data centres that are likely to be determined this year, before the Government gets round to revising its guidance. Gary Bouse reminded us that the deadline for consideration of the Larbert data centre application is 4 October, and the predetermination hearing for that application is actually taking place tonight.
Stuart McMillan told us about the application for a data centre in Greenock. The deadline for submissions in relation to that planning application is today. That is the reality of what is happening in our council areas. Planning applications are progressing through councils today. An environmental impact assessment has been done for the Greenock application, but the developers thought that it was appropriate to do an environmental impact assessment relating to a mixed-use housing development. I do not understand whether that will be captured by the new guidance that the minister intends to provide.
Will you wind up, please?
It is quite clear that hyperscale AI data centres have lost their social licence. The call for a moratorium is an early test for the Parliament and for the Government to be clear with the public and with the communities that are calling for action. They are calling for a pause ahead of the issuing of strategic guidance. Members will have the opportunity to vote for that at decision time tonight.
Thank you.
I say to members that they do not have to take an intervention—it is entirely up to them if they wish to do so. However, please do not say that you are not taking an intervention because you do not have any time, as time for interventions, when they are made and responded to, is added on.
That concludes the debate on hyperscale data centres.