Official Report 228KB pdf
12:00
Peter Murrell Charges (Information Sharing)
Before I start, I want to make it clear that I fully understand the law relating to live criminal proceedings. John Swinney should also understand the law, so I urge him not to hide behind it to avoid answering my questions, which have nothing to do with matters before the court.
On 19 January, John Swinney received a private briefing from the Lord Advocate that contained details of charges against Nicola Sturgeon’s husband and former Scottish National Party chief executive, Peter Murrell. That information was kept from the media and the public. Thirty-one minutes after receiving that information, John Swinney passed it to his most senior SNP spin doctor. Why?
Let me make it clear that I understand the importance of protecting live criminal proceedings. That is exactly why the Lord Advocate sent me a minute to warn me about the risk of contempt of court in a significant criminal case. It is abundantly clear that I would be asked about that case in court. She did that in order to ensure that I did not prejudice the proceedings.
The very brief minute that was sent to me by the Lord Advocate, which is a type of communication that I receive from the Lord Advocate on a number of occasions, was issued to the people in the Government who have to speak on my behalf. If it is important that I am reminded by the Lord Advocate that I must be careful and respect the live criminal proceedings, it is equally vital that those people who are authorised to speak on my behalf have the same information.
The reason why John Swinney passed sensitive information from the Lord Advocate to his SNP spin doctor is obvious. It was because he knew that it gave him and his party a political advantage in an election year. Thanks to the Lord Advocate, John Swinney and the SNP knew the precise scale of the alleged crime, while the public knew nothing. Mr Swinney was also given key information about potential timescales, which was also concealed from the public.
Yesterday, the Lord Advocate claimed that she briefed John Swinney so that he did not say anything to jeopardise the case. John Swinney says that he accepts that, but her explanation is simply not credible. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
If it really was about preventing any risk to the case, who else did John Swinney share that information with?
The Government has answered a freedom of information request on time to address exactly the point that Mr Findlay has put to me. I want to repeat the reason why that information was shared with a limited number of people in the Government. It is because those individuals act on my behalf and they have to know the information that I am privy to so that they also do not jeopardise the live proceedings.
Mr Findlay has made a number of comments that are, frankly, contemptible—utterly contemptible. On the radio this morning, a prominent King’s counsel, Mr Thomas Kerr, was asked what to make of the issues that were raised in Parliament yesterday. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
Sorry—it was Mr Thomas Ross. My apologies.
Mr Thomas Ross KC said:
“I thought it was an absolute disgrace. I mean, the current Lord Advocate has practised at the Scottish bar for 40 years. She has a stellar career. She is trusted by every practising lawyer and every judge in the country, and for her to be accused of corruption without a shred of evidence to support it was one of the most shameful episodes I have seen in that building.”
It was a shameful episode, for which Russell Findlay was responsible. He should be ashamed of himself for what he has said.
Imagine boasting about getting an FOI answered on time—absolutely desperate.
The First Minister did not answer the question, but it sounds like he did not share the information with his entire Cabinet, but he shared it with his spin doctor.
The Lord Advocate should have known that handing politically advantageous information about an acutely sensitive criminal case involving Nicola Sturgeon’s husband to the SNP leader was a gross misjudgment. The Lord Advocate was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon and retained by both Humza Yousaf and John Swinney. As a member of the SNP Government, the Lord Advocate is supposed to be scrupulously politically neutral.
I will say it again: in the real world, this smacks of corruption. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
It once again highlights the inherent conflict of interest with Scotland’s top prosecutor also being a member of the Scottish Government. John Swinney stood on a manifesto promise to address that. Five years later, nothing has changed. I wonder why. Does John Swinney now agree that the Lord Advocate’s dual role must end?
Before I address that point, I want to say something very directly to Mr Findlay, the Parliament and the public in Scotland. Dorothy Bain is an outstanding prosecutor. She is an outstanding lawyer. She has 40 years of unimpeachable service to the public interest in Scotland. She alone is responsible for more cases of sexual violence of men against women being brought to justice than any other person. I put on record my absolute confidence in the Lord Advocate in undertaking her duties. [Interruption.]
Thank you.
I am disgusted by the way that Russell Findlay spoke about the Lord Advocate yesterday. He should be ashamed of himself, and he should withdraw every word of contemptible rubbish that he put on the record yesterday and today. [Interruption.]
Thank you. Let us continue.
The Government was elected on a policy commitment to explore, examine and consult on issues related to the dual functions of the Lord Advocate. Those issues are being considered; research work has been undertaken and it awaits decisions among ministers. [Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister. Thank you.
I point out that the regulation of the arrangements for the Lord Advocate holding the dual functions of being the chief legal adviser to the Government and the head of the prosecution service is in the Scotland Act 1998, which is reserved legislation. If Mr Findlay wants to do something about that, he should support Scotland in becoming an independent country.
The Oscar for best phony anger goes to John Swinney. What a desperate deflection—unbelievable. [Interruption.]
Let us hear our proceedings.
After five years of inaction, it maybe will take this rotten episode to finally force the SNP to end the Lord Advocate’s dual role.
This scandal is typical of an SNP Government that is obsessed with secrecy and spin, personified by the First Minister. If John Swinney really does not understand why this stinks, he is in need of a software update.
The Lord Advocate’s private memo gave John Swinney political advantage. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another, colleagues.
He was Nicola Sturgeon’s right-hand man and he got a heads-up about the criminal case involving her husband. The Lord Advocate’s actions were wrong and her excuses do not stack up. John Swinney says that he has confidence in the Lord Advocate, so will he therefore support our plan to get her back into Parliament to provide a full statement about this shameful, rotten episode?
Parliament decided on that point last night in a democratic vote by its elected members.
Yesterday, Mr Findlay put on the record all his points to the Lord Advocate. I think that 14 members were able to ask questions of the Lord Advocate, in an extended urgent question in Parliament. This morning on the radio, Thomas Ross KC said:
“I hope that now everything’s calmed the Scottish Conservatives are big enough to apologise for making that slur”—
the slur against the Lord Advocate—
“because being trusted is the most important thing for every lawyer in the country, and for somebody who is trusted”—
the Lord Advocate—
“to be accused in some way of dishonesty, I thought, was shameful.”
I agree with Mr Ross. I was disgusted by the behaviour of Russell Findlay and a number of other contributors in Parliament yesterday. The most appalling level of behaviour was deployed by members of Parliament. We have a code of conduct and some standards to uphold in this Parliament—[Interruption.]
Thank you. You will stop shouting. Continue, First Minister. Let us hear one another.
The shouting and bawling from the Conservatives demonstrates my point that they do not deserve to be here, and they will not be here, because they are on their way out at the forthcoming election.
Peter Murrell Case (Public Information)
This week, we learned that the Lord Advocate disclosed to John Swinney information about the prosecution of Peter Murrell that was not in the public domain. Over the years, we have seen the Scottish National Party apply pressure to institutions to get the outcome that it wants, regardless of consequences. We saw it at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, where pressure was applied to open the hospital early and people died.
This will be in the Official Report for future reference. Did the First Minister, anyone acting on his behalf or any SNP adviser ask the Lord Advocate, or any of her advisers, at any point, to be updated on the prosecution of Peter Murrell?
No.
I thank the First Minister for putting that on the record for future reference. It was the answer that I was expecting, but let us see, in the cold light of day, where that goes. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
I remind the Deputy First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government that there have been incidents before in which members have misled this Parliament, so they should be very careful about what they say.
Yesterday, the Lord Advocate appeared to give inaccurate and contradictory information to Parliament. She said that she had not given John Swinney a political advantage because,
“From the point at which an indictment is served, there is no limitation on its terms being made public.”—[Official Report, 18 February 2026; c 77.]
However, after the Lord Advocate had notified John Swinney, the Crown Office warned the media, saying,
“We have no comment. The indictment is not a public document until it is presented in open court.”
Those two statements cannot both be true.
If The Sun had not published the story, the only people who would have known the details of the case before the election would have been the Crown Office, Peter Murrell and, bizarrely, because the Lord Advocate notified them, John Swinney and his SNP advisers. How is that acceptable and not the very definition of political advantage?
The point that the Lord Advocate made yesterday is that the minute the indictment is served on the accused, it becomes a public document. It can be made public as a consequence of that. That is why the statement is valid.
The reason why that is important, and why I have contradicted Mr Sarwar’s statement, is the contents of the Lord Advocate’s letter to Mr Sarwar yesterday.
It is a damning letter. It says—these are the words of the Lord Advocate—in response to correspondence from Mr Sarwar:
“the publication of your letter has put a number of factual errors into the public domain, and it is incumbent on me to correct them quickly and publicly in order to protect the rule of law.”
That tells us all that we need to know. Anas Sarwar is putting factual errors into the public domain, undermining the rule of law. Anas Sarwar is unfit to lead the Labour Party. [Interruption.]
Stephen Kerr, I ask you to please be quiet.
That is amazing coming out of the mouth of John Swinney.
These two sentences cannot both be true:
“From the point at which an indictment is served, there is no limitation on its terms being made public.”—[Official Report, 18 February 2026; c 77.]
and
“The indictment is not a public document until it is presented in open court.”
Those are two contradictory statements that John Swinney cannot run away from.
There are many questions. If the Lord Advocate was recused from the matter, why was she corresponding with John Swinney about it at all? If it was for John Swinney only, why was the information shared with SNP advisers, and who did they tell? Why did the Crown Office refuse to share it with the media when the Lord Advocate told Parliament that it was public information? Does John Swinney really expect us to believe that he needs a specific warning from the Lord Advocate to give his favourite excuse? It is just not credible.
Will John Swinney confirm that, after he leaked the information to SNP political advisers, none of it was passed on in any form—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
Was it passed on in any form to any other SNP politician or party official?
Is it not the truth that this is just the latest episode of an SNP Government, with a rotten culture at its heart, in which John Swinney and the SNP will always put their party before Scotland?
What this is evidence of is Mr Sarwar’s desperation. It is becoming clear, as every week goes by, that Mr Sarwar is getting more and more desperate about everything that he does.
In order for me to answer directly the point that Mr Sarwar has put to me, I say that the individuals to whom the information that was shared with me by the Lord Advocate was passed is a matter of public record. Those were the only people to whom it was passed; that was to enable those speaking on my behalf to follow the Lord Advocate’s guidance.
I have given a direct answer to Anas Sarwar, and I hope that he has the decency to accept the direct answer that I have given him. I do not think that he has because, week by week, Mr Sarwar comes here and attacks somebody’s character. He comes here and attacks my character regularly. Yesterday, he did not even have the guts to come here and say to the Lord Advocate’s face the things that he put in a letter that prompted her to say that he was undermining the rule of law by his actions. That is somebody who is unfit to lead a political party.
Why is Mr Sarwar desperate? He is desperate because he knows that, for all his efforts, his political ambitions are going absolutely nowhere. For years, he has told the people of this country to back Starmer, but he now wants us to believe that he wants Starmer out so that, somehow, the country can progress.
While Anas Sarwar goes around smearing individuals and undermining their character, I am going to carry on supporting members of the public by reducing waiting times, opening general practice walk-in clinics, keeping unemployment low and making sure that child poverty falls in Scotland. That is an SNP Government delivering, and Anas Sarwar is finished.
Graduate Teachers
It has now been six weeks since I asked the First Minister about Margaret MacGill. She has been ready to leave hospital for a year, but the lack of available carers means that she is still stuck there. Her husband, Cathal, says that the First Minister is welcome to visit them any time, because it seems that she is not going anywhere.
I turn to the issue of education. Today, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will publish figures showing that a record 400 recent graduates left teaching last year. Why, under the Scottish National Party, are people who are ready and raring to teach, and who have grafted for their qualifications, being forced out of Scottish education altogether?
I have discussed the case of Margaret MacGill with Mr Cole-Hamilton before. I would be delighted to visit Mr and Mrs MacGill, should the opportunity arise. The issue relates to the availability of particular carer support in the community. As I have rehearsed with Mr Cole-Hamilton on a number of occasions, there are challenges with staff availability to undertake that support. I reaffirm my commitment and my willingness to try to do all that we can to address the issue.
On the question of teaching, I want to ensure that we have strong opportunities for members of the teaching profession. That is the focus of the work that the Scottish Government undertakes to ensure that we have the appropriate employment and opportunities available and that they are spread throughout the country, so that they meet the needs and aspirations of individuals.
I have to say that it seems that the First Minister has done absolutely nothing to get Margaret MacGill out of hospital in the six weeks since I first raised her case.
Under the SNP, three quarters of newly qualified teachers cannot get the full-time contracts that they need to pay their bills or get a mortgage. It is absolutely brutal. One graduate has been stuck on supply lists for nine years, racking up tens of thousands of pounds-worth of debt. He even tried to take his own life. Many more are being forced to work abroad, when they want to teach here; there is a brain drain. Why cannot the First Minister admit that his Government has made an absolute pig’s ear of it, and that tens of thousands of teachers are paying the price?
I do not agree with that characterisation. I say to Mr Cole-Hamilton that there has been an increase in post-probation employment in the past year, which is welcome. In Scotland, we have a higher number of teachers per 100,000 pupils than in any other part of the United Kingdom—by a significant margin. There are 7,584 teachers per 100,000 pupils in Scotland, compared with 5,551 in England and 5,301 in Wales. That leads to a much lower pupil teacher ratio in Scotland of 13.2 pupils per teacher, compared with 18 in England and 18.9 in Wales.
The Government is supporting a much larger teaching profession in Scotland, because we think that that is important. We will continue to do that as part of the budget proposals that we have put forward, which Mr Cole-Hamilton and his colleagues have supported. I am very grateful to them for their support in that respect.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (Referral Criteria)
To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government is taking to standardise the criteria for urgent referrals to child and adolescent mental health services for an assessment, in light of reports that it is currently a postcode lottery. (S6F-04690)
The national child and adolescent mental health services specification sets a consistent national standard, requiring boards to ensure that children and young people receive timely support that is appropriate to their needs. Children and young people are added to waiting lists and are seen according to clinical need. Decisions on urgent referrals must follow clinical judgment so as to ensure fair and proportionate responses across Scotland. The CAMHS performance target has been met for the past year, with 91.5 per cent of young people starting treatment within 18 weeks. We continue to support boards to further improve access and to ensure that services remain safe, person centred and consistent.
I agree that decisions should follow clinical judgment. However, my question was prompted by a constituency case involving a child who, at home, exhibits extreme behaviour that is deteriorating. She masks the behaviour at school and in public, so the school will not and cannot make an urgent referral. At home, her increasingly violent behaviour to her family and her self-harm impact seriously on her twin sister, who is mimicking that behaviour. I am most concerned about her mother’s health as she has a heart condition and, to be frank, is at breaking point.
The girl has waited since June 2023 for a CAMHS assessment, but after three years she is now further down the waiting list. That cannot be right, and hers might not be the only such case. Does the First Minister agree with me that in this case urgency should be created by her behaviour, which consists of self-harm and harm to others, and not the locus, although it appears to have been determined by the locus here? As I have anonymised and abbreviated the circumstances in her case, may I send more details to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care so that he can look into it?
I very much sympathise with the details that Christine Grahame has put on the record. I reassure her that clinical judgment should be applied in all cases. It is difficult for me to make judgments in the absence of detailed knowledge about that particular case, but the performance level for child and adolescent mental health services has been met for the past year, with 91.5 per cent of young people starting treatment within 18 weeks. If Christine Grahame would be so good as to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, we will explore the particular case and will see whether more can be done to consider the questions of clinical judgment that have been applied. However, it is difficult for me to respond on that case at this moment.
Attacks on Teachers
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that hundreds of teachers have sought medical treatment following attacks by pupils in the last five years. (S6F-04684)
There is no place for violence in Scotland’s schools. Any incident that results in staff requiring medical treatment is deeply concerning. Most young people behave well, but we recognise the challenges that staff face. As part of our joint national action plan with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities we have published guidance on consequences and on risk assessments for violent behaviour. That guidance, which was developed with teaching unions and headteachers, prioritises safety and confirms that exclusion remains available as a last resort.
Our approach to tackling violent behaviour, including in schools, focuses on early intervention and prevention, and it has been backed by more than £6 million of investment since 2023.
No one should have to go to work afraid that, on any given day, it will result in an assault on them that needs medical attention. However, that is what is happening in Scottish schools. In the past five years, more than 5,200 incidents of pupil violence were recorded in which teaching staff required medical treatment, with at least 225 of them having to attend hospital or their general practice.
We know that Scotland has the worst rate of violent injuries to school staff anywhere in the United Kingdom. Right now, teaching staff and other pupils fear that they will be next to be attacked. Will the First Minister explain what it will take to finally prioritise their safety, restore discipline and take responsibility for that failure to act?
I agree with Roz McCall’s fundamental point that nobody should go to work in fear that they will be exposed to violence. I agree entirely with that point.
The Government is taking steps, through the measures that I set out in my original answer, to ensure that support is in place in schools on the basis of early intervention and prevention, to de-escalate in particular instances and to ensure that young people receive the support that they require in schools to address any behavioural issues.
A range of remedies are available in the behavioural guidance that has been agreed with local authorities, which run our schools. The Government will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that that guidance is applied in full to protect teaching staff.
No worker should face physical abuse or violence in the workplace. There has been a deterioration of behaviour and standards in recent years, and the present situation is the outcome of it.
I have spoken to teachers in my region, who tell me that the scaffolding of support that used to sit around children and teachers to support young people with behavioural problems or other challenges has been hollowed out by the Government—through its neglect of education, its lack of leadership and its cuts to local authority budgets. Does the First Minister accept that this behaviour problem not only has happened on his watch but has happened because of his party’s failure to support our schools?
No, I do not accept that point. The Government has strongly supported investment in education, and it has done that consistently. I have just recounted to Mr Cole-Hamilton the fact that we have a significantly lower pupil teacher ratio in Scotland than exists in other parts of the United Kingdom. We have consistently higher numbers of teachers per head of population than in other parts of the UK. I set out in my answer to Roz McCall the steps that the Government has taken to work with local authorities to put in place guidance to support our schools system.
I agree with Mr O’Kane on the point where I agreed with Roz McCall: nobody should be exposed to violence at their place of employment. That is why the Government has put in place the guidance and the resources to ensure that that can be realised.
Just Transition Plan
To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the development of a just transition plan for the north-east of Scotland, including how communities and workers have been engaged. (S6F-04691)
We are committed to achieving a just transition in the north-east, with workers and communities at the heart of it. We have already invested £120 million through the just transition fund and the energy transition fund, bringing in even more investment, creating jobs and supporting new ideas. We are also driving forward projects such as the oil and gas transition training fund and the investment zone for the north-east of Scotland. Our support is aimed at addressing directly the needs of local people and businesses. Recent site closures show the need for more proactive planning, so we are refreshing the joint transition planning framework to support more targeted action and guide a new Just Transition Commission in the next session of Parliament.
I thank the First Minister for that answer, but my constituents want to know when they will see a plan that responds to the decline of the North Sea basin. The £500 million just transition fund is not a strategy, and neither is hope.
We need a plan that provides jobs and training for oil and gas workers, creates conditions for the development of offshore clean energy, and supports job creation, economic stability and the sustainability of an effective domestic supply chain.
Specifically, when will the Scottish Government publish its overarching strategy—drawing together existing policy levers, including licensing, procurement and regional planning—which will enable the north-east to be the powerhouse of our new green economy and give workers and communities the future that they need and deserve?
I pretty much agree with Maggie Chapman about the requirements for the transition in the north-east of Scotland. All that material has been set out by the Government in the various steps that we have taken. The transition has to be managed in an orderly fashion. In a telephone call with the Prime Minister earlier this week, I made a point about the importance of our managing the careful balance of the reduction in North Sea oil and gas activity with the upsurge in renewables. I have said to Parliament before that the oil and gas sector is contracting too fast because of the issues in relation to the energy profits levy. In my call with him on Monday, I encouraged the Prime Minister to change course on that. The upsurge in renewables has not happened as quickly as we would like. A balanced, orderly approach is what will safeguard livelihoods in the north-east of Scotland, and that is what the Scottish Government is committed to.
We all want to see a just transition, but Labour’s decision to continue the Tories’ energy profits levy is being described by the oil and gas industry as taxing the sector “to death”. We know that the levy is causing hundreds of job losses, and experts are warning that it will cost thousands more, block billions of pounds-worth of potential investment and undermine the energy security that a just transition relies on. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
Does the First Minister agree that the United Kingdom Government’s reckless approach is sabotaging the chances of a fair and just transition? Can he expand on what his Government is doing to support Scotland’s energy workers?
I am certainly making the case to the Prime Minister that the energy profits levy should be ended—and ended now—because it is damaging the transition that we are taking forward. I have made that point to the Prime Minister a number of times and I repeated it in a call with him earlier this week.
In relation to other steps, as I set out in my original answer to Maggie Chapman, we are taking forward a number of steps to invest in facilities and opportunities to develop new energy sources in the north-east of Scotland. The Government is absolutely committed to that work.
My constituents are at the cliff edge of the so-called transition. According to a recent Jobs Foundation report, the truth is that the Scottish Government has no just transition plan and no energy strategy, and we have a jobs emergency in the north-east.
Will the First Minister support oil and gas workers, and finally back projects such as Rosebank, Jackdaw and Cambo, so that we can have a managed transition?
I have already said a lot in response to some of those points, but, on the issue of new developments, I have set out very clearly the Government’s position, which is that any new developments must pass a climate compatibility test. The Government is taking a range of steps to progress its just transition strategy, which is supporting individuals on the ground with investments in a range of projects, whether on the facilities of the Energy Transition Zone or the training support that is in place for oil and gas workers. The Government will continue to deliver that support in the period to come.
We move to constituency and general supplementaries. Concise responses and questions will enable more members to be taken.
Donald Russell (Closure)
The news that Donald Russell is to close its operations in Inverurie is devastating for its workers and their families across Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen city. It is yet another example of a business that is struggling to cope with sky-high energy costs, which have soared on the Labour United Kingdom Government’s watch.
Does the First Minister share my concerns that businesses in energy-rich Scotland are paying the highest price in broken Brexit Britain? Will he commit to engaging with the workforce and trade unions at the earliest opportunity?
I am deeply concerned to hear about the difficulties that Donald Russell faces. It is a business of exceptional quality and significance in Aberdeenshire. The Government is supportive of the continued operation of the business, and Richard Lochhead, the Minister for Business and Employment, is urgently seeking a meeting with the company to understand how the Scottish Government can support it. We will work on trying to create a positive outcome.
I am acutely aware of the challenging conditions in which businesses are operating because of the increase in employment costs including employer national insurance contributions, and the increased energy costs with which businesses are wrestling.
Those are some of the practical and hard realities that have been created by the actions of the United Kingdom Government. That is why we must maximise the steps that we can take—and have taken—in Scotland, to temper any impact of business rate changes on businesses, and to ensure that businesses are supported through these difficult times. That is, of course, integral to the Government’s budget.
Skye House
The First Minister will be aware of the report on the unannounced inspection of Skye house in August 2025. I share the Government’s concerns about the report’s findings regarding culture, staff resourcing and the use of restraints and other cruel practices. However, the report does not address the journeys of young people and how they entered Skye house in the first place. I am concerned that, when parents and carers raise concerns about culture in our national health service and social work departments, they are being met with a defensive response and an attempt to shut down such concerns without any accountability or willingness to improve services.
Will the First Minister now instruct a review of child and adolescent mental health services, NHS boards and social work services to discover how many concerns have been raised in respect of culture, to prevent young people from being failed and, ultimately, put in institutions that risk causing more harm than good?
I have considerable sympathy with the point that Meghan Gallacher puts to me. The Minister for Social Care and Mental Wellbeing has already been in contact with the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to request an urgent meeting to express the Government’s expectation that all 16 formal requirements and nine areas for improvement at Skye house be addressed and implemented swiftly and demonstrably.
The issues that emerged in the Skye house report make for very concerning reading. I want to signal today, in response to Meghan Gallacher’s point, the importance that I attach to those issues being confronted not just by the organisations that are responsible but by other organisations that deliver comparable services. That is the fundamental response that Meghan Gallacher requires—that all providers of such services must be able to be satisfied that they are not presiding over situations like the ones highlighted in relation to Skye house.
I hope that that gives some reassurance to Meghan Gallacher about this case. There has been another case, in which I instructed the health secretary to call in the leadership of NHS Forth Valley to make clear the Government’s expectations on improvement. That is the culture that I want to preside over.
I am grateful to Meghan Gallacher for raising the issue, because it provides me with an opportunity to signal the importance that I attach to such issues being taken seriously by NHS leadership in Scotland, which Ms Gallacher has a right to expect from those authorities.
Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis (Funding)
This week, Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis closed its waiting list for two specialist services. That decision has come as a consequence of real-term cuts in the Government’s proposed budget funding for rape and sexual support services. I do not need to remind the First Minister that sexual crimes have never been higher—the data shows that there has been an 11 per cent increase in attempted rapes. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the Government’s commitment to tackling the epidemic of violence against women and girls with
“a budget that reduces the real-terms value of the very services designed to respond to it.”
Those were the exact words of the director of the Glasgow service.
How does the First Minister justify a real-terms cut of £3.9 million to the delivering equally safe fund, when, as he keeps telling me in response to every question that I ask, it is the Government’s core programme for addressing violence against women and girls? Why does the Government believe that it is acceptable to withdraw that vital support from women and girls who have experienced rape and sexual violence at a time when the demand for those services continues to rise?
Ministers are actively engaged in dialogue with the Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis. The context is that there has been a 12.5 per cent uplift in the delivering equally safe fund in 2025-26, taking total investment in the fund to £21.6 million. A couple of weeks ago, Sharon Dowey raised issues with me concerning the distribution of that funding in relation to a project in her locality. Ministers are exploring those distribution issues in order to address them. I hope that that assures Pauline McNeill that the Government is investing substantially in the equally safe programme and that it recognises the demand for that support in the country. There might be issues with the programme’s deployment around the country, but that is the subject of active discussion with ministers.
Rail Fares (Freeze)
While Keir Starmer’s distracted Labour Party looks the other way on the cost of living crisis, our Scottish Government is freezing rail fares. Will the First Minister explain how such decisions are putting money back into the pockets of my hard-working Paisley constituents?
The Government is taking every action to tackle the cost of living challenges that members of the public face in Scotland. Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and I were pleased to announce the freezing of rail fares in Scotland for the next financial year. It comes on top of the decision last September to eliminate peak rail fares, which resulted in an average cost reduction of about 17 per cent on all ScotRail ticket types, and a 48 per cent reduction in commuting costs for commuters between Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is demonstrable evidence of the Scottish Government acting to tackle the cost of living pressures that members of the public face. I commit to Mr Adam and to the Parliament that the Government will do as much as it can to support households in these difficult days.
Raigmore Hospital (Specialist Care)
Some 12 months ago, I warned the Scottish Parliament that Highland NHS Board was intentionally—according to our vascular surgeon—running down care provision in the Highlands. Last week, the First Minister told the Inverness Courier that it is acceptable for Highlanders to have to travel for up to four hours to Perth and Aberdeen in order to access treatment, simply because there is not a critical mass of cases in the Highlands. Given the success of the national treatment centre in Inverness, which I applaud, will the Government focus on delivering specialist care at Raigmore hospital, so that Highlanders can get treatment close to their homes and families?
I have not seen the press commentary that Mr Mountain speaks of, but I spoke to a representative of the Inverness Courier at the weekend when I visited the Sutherland area with my colleague Maree Todd. I will look at the remarks to see how they have been set out.
The fundamental point that I was making—which I think that Mr Mountain will understand—is that a certain level of active delivery of cases is required in an area to sustain the safety of clinical services within it. We want to maximise the delivery of services in as many localities as we can, but they have to be clinically safe. We will work to do that in all localities.
Mr Mountain referred to the strength of the national treatment centre, which is an outstanding asset that delivers care not just to patients in the Highlands but to those in the Perthshire areas that I represent and in other parts of the country. We are taking decisions to ensure effective deployment of clinical services, but that has to be done safely. That underpins the Government’s decisions.
Fuel Poverty and Energy Policies
This week, Scotland reaches a milestone as more than 50,000 households receive support to live in a warmer home, with homes now being cheaper to heat. Meanwhile, the Scottish National Party Government published plans that could mean that communities across Scotland see more money being invested in their areas as a result of onshore renewable energy developments. What action is the First Minister taking to tackle fuel poverty? Does he agree that only through the fresh start of independence can we use Scotland’s energy to create a wealthier and fairer Scotland?
The Government continues to use the powers that we have to raise incomes and improve energy efficiency, including by increasing funding for the warmer homes Scotland scheme, investing more than £197 million in our winter heating benefits and providing a further £1 million this year to expand energy bill debt advice services. We are doing everything that we can with our budget, and I am glad that the budget is progressing through the Parliament to enable us to do that.
However, there is a contradiction in Scotland—it is an energy-rich country that has high levels of fuel poverty. I agree with my colleague that it is important that Scotland’s energy wealth works for the people of Scotland, and we can achieve that only with the fresh start of independence.
Robotic-assisted Surgery
In England, £26 billion of investment will make 90 per cent of keyhole surgery robotic assisted by 2035, which will result in access being expanded to nine out of 10 patients and waiting lists being cut. In Scotland, there is no national strategy or timetable, and there has not even been a completed review of the current robotic capacity across our national health service, despite the First Minister promising last year to expand access.
Robotic procedures released more than 11,000 bed days back into our NHS in 2025 alone. Waiting lists are soaring, women are waiting years for gynaecological procedures and, 20 minutes across the border, patients in Carlisle will soon have better access than patients in Scotland. When will the First Minister stop the delay and deliver a clear and funded national plan to expand robotic surgery in Scotland?
Let me correct some of what Sue Webber said. Operation numbers in Scotland are up, out-patient, in-patient and day-case waits are down and the Government is taking forward an investment strategy that is designed to ensure that our national health service is fit for the future. That is what the planning work that is going on throughout Scotland is all about. That is why we are delivering an increased number of operations.
I look forward to continuing that work, in the months and years to come, to ensure that the national health service delivers for the people of Scotland under a strong Scottish National Party Government.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.
12:48
Meeting suspended.
12:49
On resuming—
Previous
General Question Time