Official Report 172KB pdf
Party Leaders
14:01
We now move to First Minister’s question time for party leaders. Before we begin, I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery Her Excellency Sanja Štiglic, ambassador of the Republic of Slovenia. [Applause.]
Government Priorities
When John Swinney became First Minister in May 2024, he promised to lead a delivery-focused, unifying Government that is focused on four priorities: eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, improving the national health service and reforming public services. Why did he suddenly divert to Cardiff for a taxpayer-funded wee pretendy summit? Why has he given up on delivery and unity and instead chosen distraction and division? Which of those four priorities were advanced by his wee day trip to Wales?
One of the many elements of the Government that I have concentrated on, and on which I have given the Government leadership, is ensuring that we have a focus on four major themes: eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, making the transition to net zero and improving our public services. We are making significant progress in advancing that agenda. That might partly explain why I won the election on 7 May, which is a rather important point that I add to the mix.
The people of Scotland heard from me during the election campaign about the importance of self-determination for the people of Scotland and of Scotland being an independent country. If we had the full powers of independence, that option for Scotland—that opportunity—would help us to achieve our objectives of having a stronger economy and tackling child poverty. That is why I went to Cardiff on Monday.
Let me explain to John Swinney why he is delusional to focus on that issue at the moment. The two most recent Westminster and Holyrood elections were the worst for the Scottish National Party since 2014. Under John Swinney’s leadership, support for the separatist parties is now at an all-time low—only 1 million votes in May 2016, which is down from 1.6 million votes in indyref. [Interruption.]
Excuse me, Mr Flynn.
Mr Flynn is emitting more gas than a CalMac ferry.
In contrast, 2 million Scots voted to remain in the United Kingdom, and that was for a generation.
This so-called Celtic alliance pact is nothing but smoke and mirrors, distraction and division. Surely the First Minister must agree that he needs to focus on the day job and deal with our faltering economy, our declining education, our struggling NHS, our dysfunctional transport, our chaotic immigration and our rising welfare spending.
I have set out the Government’s programme, which covers all the key areas of domestic policy and areas of responsibility. As I said to Malcolm Offord in my first answer, the Government is making significant progress on all those issues, which is perhaps one of the reasons why we won the election.
I point out to Malcolm Offord that 58 SNP MSPs were elected and only 17 Reform MSPs, and we won the election with the biggest gap between us and our nearest rival in the history of devolution. I do not think that I need any lectures from a losing force such as Malcolm Offord, the leader of Reform.
As for the question of “a generation”, I note that, by the end of the decade, a million individuals in Scotland will not have been asked their opinion in a referendum on the question of independence. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that the people of this country have the chance to decide their own future and to opt for independence.
Based on that response, it is clear that Piddington has more chance of becoming independent than John Swinney’s Scotland. Why is that? It is because the SNP has not prepared for it. In the 12 years since 2014, the SNP could have used its devolved powers to make Scotland the most successful part of the UK. It could have spent 12 years answering the big four questions in relation to separation: currency, pensions, defence and borders.
Instead, what do we have? We have an economy with no growth; our world-famous education has been trashed; NHS Scotland is on its knees; our roads and ferries are in chaos; uncontrolled immigration is upsetting our communities; the police are starved of cash; local councils are about to be butchered; welfare is at an all-time high; taxation is at an all-time high; and we have a black hole of £5 billion, despite a record block grant of £26 billion. That is chronic mismanagement of the public finances—and I have not even quoted the Auditor General of Scotland on the missing ScotWind moneys.
All of that shame list relates to devolved matters; John Swinney cannot blame Westminster for any of that omnishambles—it is entirely home grown. This debacle was created by the SNP. How can John Swinney blame Westminster and say that Westminster is broken when Holyrood is in such a mess? Is the real reason that John Swinney went to Cardiff that he would rather grandstand to the media than face the uncomfortable truth that he is failing in his four priorities?
Scotland does not want a referendum any time soon—[Interruption.]—so will the First Minister please honour Scotland’s wish to leave this for a generation?
It is really quite remarkable that Malcolm Offord—who seems to think that he, having lost the election, knows the views of the people of Scotland better than I, who in fact won the election, do—seems to be in a very agitated state about the prospect of Scottish independence. It suggests that he knows that he has something to fear at the prospect of being able to take our own decisions on the economy, to use the energy wealth of Scotland to lower the bills for the people of our country and to make sure that our trading relationships with Europe, which Malcolm Offord and his ilk absolutely sabotaged, are good.
That is perhaps an illustration of why the people of Scotland, in increasing numbers, as demonstrated by recent opinion polls, support the concept of Scottish independence and why people in Scotland want that choice. I am going to ensure that the people of Scotland have that choice in this parliamentary session.
Scottish Government Scrutiny
Before I begin my questions, I put on record my condolences and those of the Scottish Labour Party on the death of former MSP Cathie Craigie. Cathie was a much-loved colleague. She was a woman of great determination and tenacity. She was the first woman to pass a member’s bill in this Parliament, protecting mortgage holders. As the daughter of a miner, she was a fierce campaigner for miners’ welfare and wellbeing. She was committed to our Labour movement, to the Parliament and to her constituents in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. Our thoughts are with her family at this difficult time. [Applause.]
Presiding Officer, it is another week, another court case. The Scottish Information Commissioner, the man who is tasked with holding the Government to account, is challenging the Scottish National Party in court over its refusal to release vital information. He says that the SNP Government risks undermining the public’s right to access information and would relegate him to little more than a “supervisory role”.
The SNP Government stands accused of seeking the power to decide what information the public can see and what they cannot see. The public’s right to know is on the line, so I ask the First Minister what is more important—the right of Scots to know what their Government is up to or shielding himself, his London-based former leader and his party from scrutiny?
Before I come on to the substance of Jackie Baillie’s question, although I made some remarks on Tuesday in response to the Presiding Officer’s remarks, I associate myself unreservedly with her comments about Cathie Craigie. Cathie Craigie was a very distinguished member of the Scottish Parliament. She was a generous and kind lady, but she was also a lady of good fun and good humour. We enjoyed her company, and I pay tribute to her and associate myself entirely with Jackie Baillie’s words of appreciation for Cathie Craigie. I express my condolences to her family.
On the substantive issue that Jackie Baillie raises, I am limited in what I can say, because there are live court proceedings under way in which the Scottish Government is a party. Jackie Baillie asked me what I believe is important, and what I believe is important is the rule of law. The Government believes that, in the decisions that it is taking, it is operating fully in accordance with the rule of law in relation to the freedom of information legislation and in relation to the disclosure of information on which restrictions are applied by court orders.
I would not be fulfilling my duty as First Minister if I did not ensure that the Government was operating within the law. That is the basis of the judgment that the Government has made, and, of course, that will be tested in the courts in the action that is being pursued.
I thank the First Minister for that response, but my difficulty is that I have seen how John Swinney has operated over 27 years, going from honest John to the John Swinney we now see before us, the architect of secret Scotland. This is the man who deleted WhatsApp messages to hide from scrutiny over life-and-death decisions during the pandemic. This is the man who spends the public’s money going to court to deny the people of Scotland access to the truth. This is the man who appointed a now-convicted fraudster, Peter Murrell, and this is the man who oversaw a culture of cover-up, contaminating party and Government.
Those are not isolated examples. They demonstrate a pattern of behaviour—decades of cover-up and conspiracy with John Swinney at its very heart. There is no failure too serious to be covered up by this Government. Is it not time for John Swinney to emerge from the shadows and finally put our country before his party?
It is pretty obvious that I have emerged from the shadows, because I won my own mandate in front of the electorate of Scotland on 7 May.
With the greatest of respect to Jackie Baillie, because we have rubbed shoulders for 27 years in this institution—there are only the two of us left from that first day who have been together continuously in this Parliament over those 27 years—she has been able to observe my career in government for longer than I had to observe her career in government, if I can be so indelicate. If my memory serves me right, it was 12 months for Jackie Baillie in government and it is 19 years for me in government, so we will just leave that judgment for the public to make.
My final point is this: every single thing that Jackie Baillie said there, her predecessor in that office, Anas Sarwar, said to me week after week and month after month in the run-up to the election, and the Labour Party went down to 17 seats. [Interruption.] As Mr Bibby shouts at me, having learned nothing from the failure in the election and absolutely not having learned that all that stuff does not work, the public can see the Labour Party for what it is: a party with no ideas, no hope and no direction—and that will not change at the weekend either.
What the First Minister cannot escape is that everything that I said is all true. I have to say to him to that, much as I have enjoyed these 27 years together, I suspect that, if it has anything to do with Stephen Flynn, I will outlast the First Minister—[Interruption.] The SNP would always rather hide a problem than fix it—[Interruption.]
I am about to raise a very serious matter, and I hope that members on the SNP benches will listen.
Yes. Let us listen to the question, please.
The SNP would always rather hide a problem than fix it, and that has real consequences. Let us look at one example. We have had years of promises from John Swinney on ambulances. We challenged him on the crisis in ambulance care in May last year, September last year, November last year and again in January this year. He stood on that very spot and promised to fix the problems in the Scottish Ambulance Service, but he never does.
This summer, Julie Parker was left dying on her bathroom floor, waiting for help. The police phoned 999 when they found her. They phoned again when no ambulance came. It took four hours for an ambulance to arrive, but by then it was too late. She was just 55 years old. That is the human cost of SNP failure. When will John Swinney realise that the Government’s dishonesty and broken promises have consequences?
Jackie Baillie uses very strong language, and I will treat the substance of the case as I should do as First Minister.
Before I get to that, however, I note what she said about freedom of information issues and transparency in the Government. In the past six months, the Government has received 3,218 freedom of information requests; that is a 50 per cent increase on five years ago. The Government has responded to 96 per cent of those requests within the statutory timescale, so I refute, with evidence, the argument that Jackie Baillie puts forward that the Government is not fulfilling its obligations.
I will now move on to the very serious issue of the human cost of the case involving Julie Parker. I am familiar with the case, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care has offered to meet Julie Parker’s family following the outcome of a review that is currently being undertaken by the Scottish Ambulance Service and NHS Ayrshire and Arran. Cases such as Julie Parker’s, and the case of Elizabeth Crammond, which Jackie Baillie raised with me last week, are examples of unacceptable health service performance and I make no attempt to shield from that.
We work hard to improve outcomes, but unfortunately there will be cases in which the outcomes are not what we would want them to be, and we have to learn the lessons and focus on improvements. That is what drives the Government’s agenda. We try to ensure that we deliver the improvements that are necessary, and the health secretary will engage with Julie Parker’s family to discuss the issue.
I will close by expressing my condolences to Julie Parker’s family. I read this morning, in the Daily Record newspaper, the transcript of the call between police officers and the Scottish Ambulance Service. It is profoundly disturbing and requires to be examined, and that is exactly what will be done.
Hyperscale Data Centres
I pass on the Scottish Greens’ condolences to Cathie Craigie’s family and her friends in the Labour Party. Her work in establishing a register of landlords in Scotland started an important journey, which the Parliament is still on, to protect those in this country who rent their home, and it has made a real difference to people across the country.
I start by congratulating the community groups across the country whose campaign against hyperscale data centres has forced the Scottish Government to act. There is still some confusion, however, over what the Government’s position now is. Ministers say that they will produce new guidance for councils by Christmas. That is welcome—it is what the Greens called for. However, ministers have also said that no decisions will be taken before then.
I struggle to reconcile that with the reality of the timeline. The proposals for data centres for Larbert, Greenock and Auchtertool could all be decided before then. The deadline for determination on the Larbert application is 4 October, and the developers in Greenock are working towards a deadline in November. The Scottish Government has said categorically that no decisions should be made before the guidance is produced, at Christmas. Has it, therefore, instructed Inverclyde, Falkirk and Fife councils to pause their determination of those live applications?
We do not anticipate that any applications will be determined by planning authorities before our planning guidance is issued later this year.
I struggle to reconcile what ministers said yesterday with what they voted for and what the First Minister has just said today. I and the Greens, and communities across the country who were celebrating last night because they thought that there was a pause—a formal pause—are trying to accept the Government’s position in good faith. However, MSPs across this Parliament left the chamber last night confused because they could not reconcile what ministers said with what they voted for.
The Minister for Business and Fair Work said that no decisions are expected before Christmas, based on discussion with council officials—that is similar to what the First Minister has just said. However, there is nothing in the public domain to confirm that. Today, the Falkirk Council website still has the deadline for the determination of the Larbert application as 4 October. Is the First Minister saying that, if a decision on any hyperscale data centre is made before Christmas, which some councils are still on the record as intending to do, the Government will step in, stop that and make the final decision itself, based on the new guidance that it is producing?
As I said in my first answer, we do not anticipate that any applications will be determined by planning authorities before the planning guidance is issued, later this year. Through the notification direction that we issued during the summer, we are closely monitoring live applications and their intended timescales for determination, hence the statement that I just made to Parliament.
Although Scottish ministers have call-in powers, we use them sparingly, recognising and respecting the important role of local authorities in making decisions in their areas. We can, however, take steps to call in any application where that is necessary and deemed to be a matter of national importance.
Ministers can also recall any planning appeal rather than have the decision made by the Scottish Government reporter, and we have used that power recently in relation to the live planning appeal for a data centre in Edinburgh. I hope that that provides the clarity that Ross Greer is seeking.
The First Minister’s answer does not provide clarity. It hints at something—it strongly hints that the Government would be willing to recall those decisions—and I welcome that in good faith. However, I say again that Falkirk Council still states that the determination deadline is 4 October. The Government’s private discussions with local councils appear to be quite different from what is currently on the public record. That needs to be reconciled if our communities are to have confidence in the process.
It is welcome that we have President Connolly of Ireland here in Scotland this week, not just for her leadership on solidarity with the people of Palestine, but because Ireland is a stark example of what happens when greedy technology companies are allowed to build whatever they want. A third of Ireland’s entire domestic energy supply goes to powering data centres, but that pales in comparison with what is proposed for Scotland. The first 24 applications here would require one and a half times our entire national energy demand. Our Parliament was warned, earlier this week, that that could push up energy bills. That is exactly what has happened in Ireland. Because of data centres, the energy bills of consumers and households in Ireland have gone up by the equivalent of £300 a year. Councils cannot take that issue into account when making piecemeal decisions on individual applications. Therefore, will the guidance that the First Minister’s Government is producing include a clear national strategy on how much of our electricity supply can be used by hyperscale data centres before they damage our climate and push up our energy bills?
The national guidance will set out all the relevant issues that have to be taken into account in the determination of applications. To reiterate one of the points that I made earlier, I state that, through the notification direction that we issued during the summer, we are closely monitoring live applications and the intended timescales for their determination.
Mr Greer raised the role of tech companies. The Government insisted, in its amendment yesterday, that there has to be regulation in the space around tech companies. That was a central part of the Government’s amendment to the Green motion last night. I am pleased that the Government’s amendment was carried, because it strengthens the representations that my Government can make to the United Kingdom Government to ensure that we are pressing for the appropriate regulatory environment, given the concerns that have been expressed over the weekend, particularly about tech companies. I was a bit surprised that the Greens abstained on that particular vote at the end of the debate, because that regulation is necessary. It is at the centre of the concerns that my Cabinet is wrestling with about violence against women and girls, as, because of the online environment, there is a greater need for regulation. As we make progress on some of those questions, there are big issues for us to wrestle with, and I hope that the Greens will be partners with us in that respect.
As Mr Greer made reference to the presence of President Connolly, I note that it was an absolute pleasure for my wife and I to welcome President Connolly and her husband to Scotland yesterday. President Connolly represents outstanding leadership in the world. She is a voice for peace, for dialogue and for respect. She has much to say to Scotland, and Scotland is listening very carefully to what she has to say.
Independence Referendum
I, too, express my condolences and those of my party to the family of Cathie Craigie.
John Swinney’s new friends in Sinn Féin have never denounced Irish Republican Army terrorism. They still justify the massacre of innocent men, women and children, including Scottish soldiers. Mr Swinney shamefully told IRA victims and their grieving families to “move on”, but the same politician has never accepted the decisive result of Scotland’s independence referendum, and John Swinney is now working with Sinn Féin to break up our country. Why should those maimed or bereaved by the IRA move on when the Scottish National Party refuses to move on?
: I have always expressed my sympathy to the victims of terrorism. Indeed, just last month, I represented Scotland at the first national day of remembrance for the victims of terrorism, which was convened by the Prime Minister in London. On that occasion, I met families of the victims of terrorism, many of whom were affected by the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. I unreservedly condemn terrorism and any terrorist act, and I always have done.
I also accepted, in good grace, the outcome of the referendum in 2014. [Interruption.] In the aftermath of that referendum, I also participated, in good faith, in the work of the Smith commission, which reviewed the powers of the Parliament and led to significant increases in its powers. I put forward arguments in that process to ensure that this Parliament could make more impact on the lives of people in Scotland. I did that, in good faith, to strengthen the powers of the Parliament within the United Kingdom. Mr Findlay’s point is completely fatuous, as usual.
People in this country would be surprised if I did not stick to the principled reason why I entered politics. I entered politics because I became convinced that the people who are best placed to decide the future of our country are the people who choose to live here in Scotland, which is why we need the ability to make a decision—a choice—about Scotland’s future in a referendum, and I will deliver that in this parliamentary term.
We know that John Swinney has denounced terrorism, but has he asked his Sinn Féin friends to denounce terrorism? We just heard, yet again, that John Swinney only cares about one thing: making Scotland poorer and weaker by leaving the United Kingdom. He and his party have never respected the outcome of the independence referendum, and Scotland is paying a heavy price for the SNP’s obsession—a broken national health service, failing schools, victims betrayed by the justice system, record high taxes and funding out-of-control state benefits. The people of Scotland want the Government to focus on the issues that matter to them—those issues, not independence—so why is his constitutional obsession more important than fixing Scotland’s broken public services?
It is really interesting that, today, Russell Findlay has pursued the same line of questioning as Malcolm Offord. That displays to us that the merger is under way between those two forces on that side of the chamber and, my goodness, it will be some marriage of convenience over there between the Conservative Party and Reform, with some of the stuff they all come out with. That will be a sight worth seeing. They have a lot in common, because Malcolm Offord was a member of the Government that inflicted austerity on this country—[Interruption.]
Answer the question.
Mr Kerr, let us hear the First Minister.
Malcolm Offord was a member and Russell Findlay was a supporter of a Government that inflicted austerity on this country. They represent political traditions that wanted Brexit, which has undeniably made us poorer as a consequence. Therefore, I will take no lessons from Russell Findlay or his chum Malcolm Offord—
Answer the question!
Excuse me, First Minister.
Mr Kerr, as I have already said, please stop shouting from the back. You can express a view without yelling at the top of your voice. We are trying to hear the First Minister. If I cannot hear him from here, how is anyone else meant to hear him?
First Minister, please conclude.
I will take no lessons from the new chums in the Scottish Parliament, Russell Findlay and Malcolm Offord—the people who gave us decline, austerity and Brexit. Instead, I will inspire people with a positive vision of independence for Scotland.
Thirlwall Inquiry
As other members have done, I, too, extend the heartfelt condolences of the Scottish Liberal Democrats to the Labour Party, the family of Cathie Craigie and everybody who loved her. She was a towering force in our politics and she will be much missed.
This week, Lady Justice Thirlwall published her report into the horrific murder of babies at the Countess of Chester hospital. That review was instructed following the conviction of neonatal nurse Lucy Letby. That was a shocking case. What has the First Minister’s Government learned from the inquiry?
Obviously, it is important for us all to learn lessons from the inquiry, with regard to ensuring the quality and safety of patient care. As Mr Cole-Hamilton will know, an ongoing, persistent priority of the Scottish Government is to ensure that we strengthen patient safety in every respect of our health service care and treatment. That lies at the heart of the answer to the question from Jackie Baillie that I responded to, because vital issues of patient safety are involved in that respect. That will be the focus of our interrogation of that report, to ensure that any issues that are relevant to Scotland, and particularly to maternity services, are learned about and applied.
I am glad to hear that but, although the inquiry’s recommendations stop at the border, the risk to babies does not. Parents will want to know that newborns here are given the same protection as babies everywhere else. Lady Justice Thirlwall’s recommendations include in-cot cameras with live streaming video; tighter controls on access to insulin; and a duty on every health trust to monitor all baby deaths and escalate concerning patterns.
It now falls to this Government to choose whether to adopt those vital protections, because—God forbid—should Scotland ever have its own Lucy Letby, we must have every possible safeguard in place to keep our babies safe. Will the First Minister’s Government include equivalent protections in Scotland—and by when?
Mr Cole-Hamilton raises important issues, and I expect them to be central to the work that the Government is taking forward through the maternity and neonatal task force, which was set up to promote improvements in maternity and neonatal care, and pregnancy and birth outcomes. We have established the task force to undertake that work. It would make logical and rational sense for the task force to look at the issues that arise out of the report to which Mr Cole-Hamilton refers and to identify, based on existing practice in Scotland, where there should be strengthening. I encourage the task force to undertake the work in that way, to make sure that the lessons that can be applied are applied to meet the high standards that Mr Cole-Hamilton puts to me today.
Thank you, First Minister.
When I referred to Mr Kerr earlier, I should have said that I meant Stephen Kerr. There are, of course, five Mr Kerrs in the chamber, and I apologise to the other four.