Official Report 191KB pdf
Party Leaders
14:00
Social Housing
I begin by congratulating Steve Clarke and the Scotland men’s team on our great victory against Haiti and I wish them all the best against Morocco.
Last week, I asked the First Minister about a major problem with social housing in Scotland—a loophole, whereby thousands of new arrivals from outside Scotland are able to present as homeless and must be found temporary accommodation by councils, which are then forced to place them ahead of local Scots who are already on the waiting list for permanent accommodation. In his answer last week, the First Minister did not seem to recognise that there is any loophole at all.
However, the fact remains that there has been a surge in demand for temporary accommodation in Scotland and, in Glasgow alone, 64 per cent of those in temporary accommodation came to the United Kingdom as asylum seekers. Surely the First Minister must agree that it is unfair for local Scots on the long waiting list for permanent accommodation to be shunted to the back of the queue in order to instead give temporary accommodation to new arrivals. Does the First Minister not recognise that that is fundamentally a matter of fairness and that Scottish hospitality is being abused by queue jumping?
In that question, Malcolm Offord has used language that spreads division in our society. It has to be called out for what it is, and that is exactly what I said last week in relation to the language that Mr Offord used then.
Our approach to allocation of housing is based on equality for all individuals. Nobody is put “to the back of the queue”, to use the language that Mr Offord has used. We apply the principle that people who are eligible for housing in Scotland should be treated as eligible for housing in Scotland, and we allocate houses accordingly.
Once again, the First Minister has not answered the question. My question was entirely measured and factual, and I have not had a response—perhaps the First Minister might write to me with one.
Moving from Glasgow to Dundee, the First Minister will be aware of the distressing incident last year involving a 12-year-old local girl who was arrested and widely vilified for wielding an axe and a knife to fend off a Bulgarian migrant and his sister. The legal process that that distressing incident triggered has now concluded and the sheriff has exonerated the 12-year-old girl. The Bulgarian migrant has been found guilty of assaulting the child and of behaving in a threatening and abusive manner, including making sexual remarks to her and three other local girls.
At the time, Police Scotland hit out at misinformation online but that information turned out to be true. When Elon Musk asked what kind of Government arrests little girls who try to defend themselves, the First Minister piled in, too, and accused him of spreading misinformation. The mother of the child has quite rightly demanded an apology from the police and the First Minister for the branding of her daughter as a liar, right-wing and racist. Now that the case has concluded, will the First Minister take this opportunity to issue such an apology?
The approach that I take on all those matters is to carefully follow the advice that is offered and the quality of information that is available to me. At the time of the incident, the information that was available to me, which was provided through Police Scotland, led me to the conclusion that I set out. I will certainly make no apology for taking on Elon Musk, who I do not think is a good-faith actor on these questions.
Mr Offord is absolutely right that the legal process in the case has concluded. The legal process indicates exactly what Mr Offord has indicated, so there is no reason for me to sustain the points that were put to me at the time in Police Scotland’s statements. I of course apologise to the young woman concerned and to her family, because we should all be dealing with the situation as the information presents it.
I caution Mr Offord on the tack that he is taking. I have seen too many cases in which malevolent right-wing actors have piled in on particular issues to sow division in our society, only to be proved to be completely incorrect. There was a case in Stirling in which Police Scotland had to intervene directly to counter the type of rhetoric that Elon Musk was circulating in this case—on that occasion it was being circulated by Tommy Robinson.
The lesson that we should draw is that we should all be very careful about what we say because if we are not, we will fall into the trap of the right-wing malevolent individuals who are determined to sow division in our society—and I want to have none of that in Scotland.
There is another lesson to be learned. That unfortunate case in Dundee brings into sharp focus the reality that white working-class girls across the UK have not been believed by the authorities when they have reported sexual abuse. That is illustrated by the remarks made at the time by Humza Yousaf, a former First Minister and sitting MSP, who watched the video and immediately passed judgment that
“That young person has had a significant amount of trauma in her life. I can guarantee that without knowing fully her circumstances.”
That judgment was made without even meeting her, just by looking at her.
In light of that sorry saga, I press the First Minister on the state of the grooming gangs inquiry in Scotland, which the Scottish National Party promised shortly before the election. When exactly will it begin and when will its terms of reference be released?
The first point that Mr Offord makes is in relation to the reporting of sexual crimes and the actions taken to address sexual crimes against women and girls in our society. I will address that question in general. The statistics that are reported regularly, and the discussion that we had yesterday about the record of Dorothy Bain as the Lord Advocate, show that Scotland has a formidable record of taking seriously the complaints of women and girls about sexual abuse and sexual violence. I make it clear to the Parliament that that will remain the case throughout the term of this Government.
It is vital that, when women and girls have experiences of sexual violence and sexual assault, they have the confidence to report them. It is clear from the conduct and the leadership of the former Lord Advocate—as it will be, I am certain, of the Lord Advocate designate, who will be sworn in at the Court of Session tomorrow—that the same approach is taken in relation to the prosecution of such crimes. Indeed, one issue that we are wrestling with in relation to our prison population is due to the fact that substantial numbers of individuals are serving long prison sentences because they have perpetrated sexual crimes of that nature.
In relation to the grooming gangs inquiry, the Government has established its leadership and work is under way to ensure that the terms of reference are finalised and that the inquiry can start its work at the first available opportunity.
Maternity Services (Safe Delivery of Care)
Seven months after a national review into maternity services was committed to, Professor Christine McCourt has finally been appointed as its chair. Although that is welcome, more urgency is needed.
Earlier this month, Healthcare Improvement Scotland published its report into the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. It found that expectant mothers had faced delays of up to 190 hours before being induced and that the consequences were serious. Delays increased the risk of sepsis, led to more complicated births and, in some cases, resulted in women giving birth in areas not equipped to deal with complications or provide appropriate pain relief. Between 2019 and 2025, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde alone recorded 736 serious adverse events in maternity and neonatal services. Tragically, 406 of those involved a death. What immediate steps is John Swinney’s Government taking to keep women and babies safe?
I acknowledge the importance of the point that Mr Sarwar raises. Although he is correct about the timescale for the establishment of the independent review into maternity services, the inspection of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital is part of the wider Healthcare Improvement Scotland review of maternity services in multiple locations around Scotland, which was commissioned by the former Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and which is now being taken forward.
In relation to the report on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s maternity services, I am concerned—as are ministers—about the issues that it raises. Although the report highlights a number of positive aspects of the delivery of care, it also highlights significant areas for improvement.
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care has already met Healthcare Improvement Scotland and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to relay the Government’s concern and to ensure that all 26 of the report’s requirements are taken forward urgently by the health board, and we have had reassurance on those issues. The cabinet secretary will meet the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde again before the parliamentary recess to review progress and to receive further reassurance that steps have been taken to implement the report’s requirements.
The pattern that was revealed in the report on the Queen Elizabeth university hospital was not new. Staff repeatedly raised concerns, warnings were made about unsafe pressures and concerns were raised about staffing levels and capacity, yet women continued to wait and to experience delays in treatment. The situation was the same in Lothian and Tayside. It is clear that there are systemic nationwide problems. That is why we called for a national review in November, and it is why we welcomed the Government’s announcement that such a review would take place. However, seven months on, the review only now has a chair.
Julie Keegan, who lost her baby boy, and Lori Quate, who lost both his wife and his unborn child, were promised that they would be involved in the work of the task force and the review. Seven months on, despite those promises, the families affected have heard nothing. Will John Swinney now make a commitment that the already delayed review will meaningfully involve the women and the families who have first-hand experience of the failures of Scotland’s maternity services?
I give Mr Sarwar such an assurance.
In response to the recommendations that were made in connection with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, an approach has been taken that has resulted in most, if not all, of the recommendations in the report being implemented. In addition, midwife employment has been increased to ensure that some of the other capacity issues are properly addressed.
The Government committed to the establishment of a maternity and neonatal task force, and steps were taken at the start of this year to take forward that agenda. Ministers are very happy for there to be family engagement with the review—indeed, they would think that essential—and I give an assurance that that will be the case.
With regard to the specific families that Mr Sarwar mentioned, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care has committed to meeting those families, and I know that she will undertake that engagement.
I welcome that commitment, but families are worried not only about what happened but about the fact that it could happen again. That is their fear.
John Swinney often tells us that the pressures on the national health service are unprecedented, but the women in question were not failed by a virus or by bad luck—they were failed by a system that knew that there was a problem and did not act quickly enough to fix it.
Time and again, we see the same cycle. Warnings are raised, whistleblowers speak out, patients suffer, ministers promise that lessons will be learned, a review is commissioned and then the next scandal arrives. That it has taken seven months to appoint a chair is not good enough, when every day that passes without action risks another adverse incident and another broken family.
The review needs to be more than just a process—it needs to improve services. When will John Swinney be able to guarantee that all women and babies will be safe in maternity services across the country?
The point that Mr Sarwar puts to me is a fair one, but I reassure him that, in the period in which we have been preparing the national review, a series of inspections have been undertaken at the Government’s behest. The Government has required a number of such reviews to be undertaken. As Mr Sarwar correctly identified, reviews have taken place in Tayside and Lothian. We now have the report on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and reports are being done on other health boards around the country.
Crucially, when those reviews identify recommendations, the Government discusses those recommendations with the relevant health boards to ensure that they are implemented. That is the case with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Also, the patterns of evidence that come out of those reports are drawn out and are then the subject of a focus on improvement with all health boards in Scotland. I say that to Parliament to provide reassurance to families that, when those reports are undertaken by Healthcare Improvement Scotland, they result in learning and in the application of processes by health boards around the country, to ensure that we constantly focus on improving services.
That is what the Government is trying to do in the delivery of maternity services and, crucially, the work of Healthcare Improvement Scotland helps us to scrutinise and identify weaknesses so that they can be addressed and recommendations implemented. That will be the approach that the Government continues to take.
Hyperscale Data Centres
Scotland faces a wave of applications for hyperscale data centres. If all the applications that are currently in the pipeline were approved, they would consume up to 6,000MW of power, which is more than one and a half times our entire national power use at peak time and is obviously completely impossible. There is currently no clear Government strategy or guidance for councils on how to deal with those applications, which are for something completely different from the kind of data centres that already exist in Scotland. We are not talking about socially and economically useful projects such as the University of Edinburgh supercomputer. The Government’s policy is to support what it refers to as “green” data centres, but that position was decided before ChatGPT existed, before Elon Musk launched Grok and before any of those hyperscale proposals came forward. So, what is the Scottish Government’s definition of a “green” data centre?
The Government’s definition of a green data centre is one that has been approved with due account taken of the environmental implications of all required developments. That will, of course, cover a range of the issues that Mr Greer highlighted in his question.
In defining green data centres, it is for planning authorities to interpret and apply national planning policy to the circumstances of each case. They should consider factors such as renewable energy use, energy-efficient technologies, reduced water consumption and the opportunities to reuse excess heat. The Government’s planning hub has been working with planning authorities to ensure that there is a wide and consistent understanding of those factors when coming to those conclusions.
The First Minister’s response indicates that the Government expects each data centre to be approached individually, but we need a coherent national strategy. This is not an abstract issue: huge energy demands from these data centres will mean higher energy bills for everyone else and real problems for the communities that surround them. There are multiple reports of London boroughs putting a freeze on the building of new houses because of the impact of data centres on the grid. Those centres use so much power that, if additional homes were to be built in those areas, there would not be the grid capacity to supply them with electricity.
This is urgent because some applications are set to be decided perhaps before Parliament returns from summer recess. Data centres can play an important role in our economy, but not if we allow a free-for-all of unworkable applications to continue. Will the First Minister agree today to a moratorium on new data centres of above 50MW until we can agree on a clear national strategy and give councils the specific guidance that they need before they make decisions on individual applications?
I understand the concerns that Mr Greer puts to me, but the detail of the planning policy addresses the issues that he is concerned about, particularly in relation to renewable energy use, to energy-efficient technologies and to water consumption and the generation of heat.
The planning policy is there to enable local authorities to make the determinations that they consider appropriate and necessary. There must, obviously, be extensive interaction and dialogue with individual communities before those applications are determined, but the criteria for the consideration and assessment of such developments are very clearly set out in planning policy.
I cannot reconcile what the First Minister is saying about planning policy with how that operates in practice. He says that a green data centre is one where environmental considerations have been taken into account, but there is no requirement to do an environmental impact assessment on a data centre application.
In fact, six of the proposed hyperscale data centres that are in the pipeline have not undergone any environmental impact assessment, so they cannot possibly meet the definition that the First Minister has just set out. They have not undergone such an assessment because councils are dealing with the applications in the dark and have not been given the guidance that the First Minister is implying that they have been given.
One of the proposals that have not undergone an EIA is the one at Auchtertool in Fife. The data centre there would be the size of 100 football pitches, and its 600MW of energy need would be monumental. That is the same need, for just one private business, as that of 1.3 million households.
I am not asking the First Minister to comment on individual applications—he cannot do that—but I bring him back to the point that the 24 applications that have been announced so far would require, in total, 6,000MW, which is more than one and a half times our country’s entire peak energy demand right now. The First Minister must recognise that that is not possible, so will he come back to the Parliament next week, before we suspend for the summer, to announce a pause on approvals for new hyperscale data centres until some kind of national plan is in place?
Mr Greer raises an important issue that gets to the nub of how prescriptive planning policy should be in Scotland. It is a reasonable point, but members often argue in the Parliament for local decision making within a policy framework that is set by the Government. Mr Greer is asking me to do something much more specific, instructive and determinative than that. It is a perfectly reasonable point, but it is different from the prevailing mood in the Parliament in relation to how members have argued planning policy should be undertaken. Indeed, much of the content of national planning framework 4 is predicated on the basis of what I have just set out to the Parliament. Mr Greer will be familiar with the formulation of that document.
The Government will, of course, consider all emerging planning issues, and we must monitor the implications of local planning decisions. However, if the Parliament wishes there to be a fundamental change to the way in which we determine such issues, it will have to have an open discussion about whether such powers should be exercised nationally by the Government, not locally by individual local authorities, which has been the prevailing view in the Parliament until now. The Parliament is welcome to consider that issue.
Oil and Gas Industry
A new report has revealed massive oil and gas reserves off Shetland—an estimated 4.7 billion barrels’ worth of oil—which is great news. However, our imports are at their highest levels since the 1970s and much of the gas that we use is fracked in the United States, generating four times as much carbon dioxide. The new fields could provide cleaner domestic energy for decades and support thousands of jobs. The University of Aberdeen researchers warn that their paper might serve as an obituary for the industry unless we get drilling. Does John Swinney agree that we should get drilling, or will he oversee the death of Scotland’s oil and gas industry?
What has undermined the North Sea oil and gas sector has been the energy profits levy, which was first applied by the Conservative Government. That is precisely the difficulty just now. Companies tell me that they are finding it difficult to invest because of the energy profits levy, which was started by the Conservatives and has been carried on by the Labour Government at Westminster.
There is a legitimate argument to be advanced relating to an assessment of the emissions from the activity that takes place in our domestic energy sector and the emissions from activity that arises from the extraction of fossil fuels that are then imported into this country because of our ongoing requirement to use oil and gas resources in our energy mix. As part of any assessment of the appropriateness of any new licences in the oil and gas sector, the question of the total emissions of any individual project must be considered when the United Kingdom Government makes any decision. That is exactly what Scottish Government policy says on that issue.
The First Minister did not answer the question but talked about the EPL, which his party was the first to call for.
My colleague Douglas Lumsden is Aberdeen’s oil and gas champion, and he has persistently demanded to know when the Scottish National Party Government will publish its delayed energy strategy. We have now discovered that SNP ministers have done precisely nothing about it during the first five months of this year—absolutely nothing.
For years, the sleekit SNP has behaved in the most dishonest and despicable way. John Swinney pretends to support oil and gas while still backing the anti-drilling policy of Nicola Sturgeon and the Green Party. One thousand jobs are being lost every single month. When will John Swinney start telling workers the truth?
Russell Findlay makes ever more desperate attempts to avoid the responsibility that the Conservative Government carried for the difficulties in the oil and gas sector, because Mr Findlay and his party, when it was in government, introduced the energy profits levy. His party applied it with impetus, increased it and extended it, and what is the levy doing? It is culling jobs in the north-east of Scotland. The levy is the responsibility of the Conservatives.
If Douglas Lumsden was at his work on any occasion, he could be held to account for his activities, but, for weeks and weeks, Douglas Lumsden has been skiving somewhere else. What on earth has the Conservative Party become? They are a bunch of skivers.
Cladding
This week marks the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell fire. Our thoughts are of those who lost their lives in that tragedy and with those who survived it.
The Humanity for Grenfell group is still campaigning for people who live in cladded flats, and it is right to do so. Nearly a decade on from Grenfell, too many people are lying awake at night, wondering whether their home might be at risk.
Across Scotland, almost 1,000 buildings are suspected of having dangerous cladding, yet new figures that came out this week revealed that the First Minister’s Government has got round to investigating only 149 of them. Why is that the case, and why is cladding removal under way in—staggeringly—only three buildings in this country?
One of the issues that we have had to wrestle with has been not having an effective legislative framework in place to enable us to deal with a number of issues, not least of which is multiple ownership in individual buildings. That legislation has now been put in place by the Government and, as a result of having it in place, we are able to proceed with the important work that is necessary to investigate properties and to identify the remedial action that is required and the steps that have to be taken as a consequence.
I understand the importance of our doing so with urgency, but the Government must have a legal framework within which to act. We secured that during the previous parliamentary session, and we are now taking steps to ensure that actions can be taken to provide that reassurance to members of the public.
We are nearly 10 years on from Grenfell, and the response that we have heard from the First Minister will come as no comfort whatsoever to the people who cannot insure or sell their homes or to the people who fear for their lives and want to know that their homes are safe.
The United Kingdom Government gave Scottish ministers £100 million to conduct the cladding assessments. Therefore, money is not the problem; the lack of urgency is. It appears that not a single building has been checked during the past six months.
More than two years ago, the Parliament passed the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024. Ironically, ministers said that that would speed up the process. Will the First Minister get a grip on this? Will he guarantee that, by the time we reach the 10th anniversary of Grenfell, next year, every single one of those vital checks will have taken place?
Let me reassure Mr Cole-Hamilton that a variety of interventions are taking place, some of which involve building assessments and some of which require mitigation measures in buildings. That work is under way, but it will not show up in the statistics that Mr Cole-Hamilton has put to me today.
What I am saying, essentially, is that Mr Cole-Hamilton does not present a complete picture of the activity that is under way. However, I assure him that our legislative framework, the steps that have been taken in the Government’s programme and the availability of the resources in our budget—which the Liberal Democrats supported, for which I am very grateful—will ensure that we can take the necessary action to address the issue and reassure members of the public who are affected by it. I am very happy for ministers to provide update reports to Parliament in the next 12 months, to make sure that the public’s concerns, as expressed by Mr Cole-Hamilton, can be properly and fully addressed.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. I advise members that, next week, I plan to reverse the order of leaders’ questions. We will start with two questions from Alex Cole-Hamilton, followed by two from the Conservatives, three from the Greens, three from Labour and three from Reform.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Pursuant to rule 13.1 of standing orders, and in the light of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s media access policy and rules, I ask whether any member has sought to make a personal statement to Parliament to address the questioning by media within the parliamentary estate. I ask that because—
That is not a point of order; it is a matter for the corporate body.
Perhaps, Presiding Officer, you could hear the point of order in full to determine whether it is a point of order.
I think that I have heard what you want to say, and it is a matter not for the chair but for the corporate body.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. Given the urgency of the issue, may I ask how we would raise it in Parliament—
Thank you, Mr Hoy.