Good morning. The first item of business is general question time.
Great British Railways
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the proposed establishment of Great British Railways and any potential implications for devolved responsibilities over rail services and infrastructure in Scotland. (S6O-04816)
I, and the Government, are clear that full devolution of rail is in Scotland’s best interests, not least to deliver the services that our communities and economy need and deserve. I am proud that ScotRail in public ownership has been a success and that ScotRail’s train performance and passenger satisfaction are consistently higher than the Great Britain average.
I welcome the intent of the UK Government’s rail reform bill—I have discussed it twice with the Secretary of State for Transport—and the commitment to protect current devolution of powers and learn from the example of Scotland’s integrated approach to track and train. I want to continue to work constructively with the secretary of state to protect and enhance Scotland’s interests, but I am concerned at the lack of clarity and detail in the proposals to date.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply, but her final point about the lack of clarity concerns me, too, given that the idea has been around for a long time. Can she assure us that the Scottish Government will resist any attempts to take decisions on, for example, ticket prices or rail investment back to London?
I have repeatedly sought assurance from the Secretary of State for Transport that any decisions made by the UK Government will not dilute Scottish ministers’ existing powers. Scottish ministers will do all within our power to protect the interests of Scottish railways in order to allow us to continue to build on the success of bringing ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper into public ownership for the benefit of the people of Scotland. However, unless and until we see text in the bill that secures accountability for integrated rail services to this Parliament and this Government, that risk still exists.
Section 37 Applications (Engagement and Decision Making)
To ask the Scottish Government what new measures it has introduced in relation to supporting improved community engagement and respecting local democratic decision making, when section 37 applications for energy infrastructure are considered. (S6O-04817)
On 7 May, the Scottish Government published new guidance on how to deliver consistent and meaningful pre-application consultation for transmission projects requiring an environmental impact assessment. That guidance creates more transparency around the process, ensuring that communities understand when and how they can best input at the various stages of development.
The Scottish Government has also been working with the United Kingdom Government on its Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which includes provisions to make pre-application consultation statutory for the first time. That will guarantee communities the opportunity to have their say earlier in the process.
Last week, the energy consents unit approved the Skye reinforcement project, overruling the decision of Highland Council and proving without doubt that it is not elected local representatives but unelected officials in Edinburgh who have the final say in large energy infrastructure projects.
Last Saturday, community councillors from across the Highlands met in Beauly for a convention chaired by local councillor Helen Crawford. In their agreed unified statement, they confirmed their opposition to what they rightly called the “unjust and unnecessary industrialisation” of the Highlands. They declared that community consultation was “inadequate”, that local democracy was “being overridden” and that local decisions were being
“disregarded by the Scottish Government.”
What is the cabinet secretary’s response to that unified statement? With further meetings planned, will she agree to meet convention members and elected local officials to hear at first hand from the people who are impacted by the intrusive energy infrastructure that her Government is forcing on their communities?
The previous Conservative UK Government showed no interest in making either community engagement or community benefits associated with developments or transmission mandatory, despite the Scottish Government asking for that to be addressed urgently. The legislation and regulations that we must, in law, abide by in Scotland when considering applications are set by the UK Government. The Scottish Conservatives know that, but they are determined to create a narrative that says that everything surrounding the issue is in the hands of the Scottish Government.
I say to Mr Halcro Johnston that I wish that we had every lever available at our disposal with regard to these matters. In an independent Scotland, we would change the regulations to ensure strict—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the cabinet secretary.
In an independent Scotland, we would change the regulations to ensure strict community engagement conditions.
Youth Violence
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its work to tackle and prevent youth violence, including any outcomes from the summit held on 12 June. (S6O-04818)
Informed by the meeting held on 12 June and by what we already know is working, we are considering what more we can do to strengthen support for young people and communities. We have also announced an additional £6 million for the next phase of the cashback for communities programme, providing a total of up to £26 million over the next three years to support safe spaces, trusted adults and a range of positive diversionary and support activities for young people. Separately, we will publish a progress report on the implementation of the violence prevention framework for Scotland later this year, which will highlight action that we have taken with our partners over 2024-25.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that information. She will appreciate my constituency interest in the summit, given recent events that have affected East Kilbride. Much progress has been made in tackling crime in Scotland under this Government, but the behaviour of a small minority of young people seems to be changing for the worse, with constituents telling me about signs of worrying behaviour being overlooked.
Will the cabinet secretary set out how the Scottish Government is working with partners to ensure that the education system, police, social work, youth workers and other relevant stakeholders can link up to get in early and prevent any signs of violent or antisocial behaviour from escalating? Could she also say what action is being taken to make young people safer, as well as the support that is available to parents and carers who are extremely worried?
I, of course, appreciate Ms Stevenson’s constituency interest in this matter, and my thoughts remain with the loved ones of Kayden Moy. His tragic death highlights the very real risks involved in violent behaviour and the need to prevent it from happening in the first place.
I reassure the member that partnership working is central to our response to children and young people. That has been the case since 2011, when we delivered the multi-agency whole-system response to preventing offending by children and young people, which brings together social work, police, health, education and other key partners.
Also, we have this week published new guidance for schools on the consequences of and risk assessments for violent, aggressive and dangerous behaviour. That guidance emphasises the need for early intervention and prevention and the importance of schools and families working together to promote positive relationships and behaviour.
This is the third summit on youth violence in two years. The first was to stop violence in our schools—that did not work. The second was to stop youth violence among young people—that did not work. Having attended the third summit, I do not have much confidence in a better outcome. Will the Government finally act and invest in youth services; increase stop and search powers to tackle youth knife crime, which is something that the Scottish Police Federation has asked for; drop the two-tier sentencing policies for under-25s; and make sure that actions have consequences?
I was very pleased that Opposition spokespeople attended last week’s youth summit. It is important that, as a Government, we openly engage with youth work leaders and hear directly from those who work on the front line in preventative work. It is also important that we do that on a cross-party basis and hear about the changing challenges facing our young people and how they are influencing some young people’s behaviour.
I make no apologies for engaging with those on the front line, because it is important that we continue to listen to those on the front line who work with our young people to ensure that we implement what works. What I am not hearing from Ms Dowey—which is very unfortunate, bearing in mind that she kindly attended the summit—are solutions; I hear only a harking back to the past. It is very clear that the evidence tells us that we have to work together. We must bear in mind that young people are the responsibility of us all, and we need to promote safe spaces, further develop the whole-family approach and utilise the peer mentor and role model interventions that we know work. Of course, police leaders have to respond where necessary, and they have the powers to do so.
I have, like other colleagues who have raised this issue, seen these kinds of incidents in my region. As the cabinet secretary knows, we had a recent incident of damage and vandalism at the united services club in Barrhead. The last social club in the town, it is run by older volunteers, and the incident was very distressing for them.
I heard what the minister said, but the Government has now had a number of summits. We need to know when the funding will come to support local authorities, community organisations and, crucially, the police in taking a focused and holistic view of the issue and to enable us to get the solutions that we need for communities.
I very much appreciate Mr O’Kane raising his constituency concern directly in the chamber, but I point to the fact that we have invested in the cashback scheme, which is focused on diversionary activities, and in the violence prevention framework. We are also investing in our police force. I do not remember anybody in the chamber other than me arguing for an increase in funding for Police Scotland. Funding for policing in Scotland has increased by £90 million, and the budget, which not everybody in the chamber voted for, increased by £1 billion the resources going to local authorities the length and breadth of the country. I remain committed to working with colleagues on what works, based on the evidence, to prevent as well as to respond to youth violence.
Concise questions and responses would be appreciated.
Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Edinburgh)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is assessing the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s capacity to provide emergency response cover and ensure community safety in Edinburgh, including in relation to meeting any needs resulting from population growth in the Lothians. (S6O-04819)
The capacity of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to provide emergency cover in any particular area is an operational matter for the service. Having said that, the emergencies that the service responds to have changed significantly over the years and it is right that it carefully considers how to adapt to the changing risks in order to remain effective and efficient, with firefighters being in the right place at the right time. The SFRS carries out detailed risk assessments based on a community risk index model that takes into account a wide variety of factors, including future population growth, industry and other hazards.
As the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service considers all of that, the population in Edinburgh, and particularly in the north and east of Edinburgh, is clearly and obviously growing. Last year, when there was a fire at Breadalbane Street in my constituency, fire engines from Marionville fire station were some of the first on the scene, probably saving lives. A few weeks ago, when Cables Wynd house in my constituency unfortunately caught fire, fire engines from Marionville fire station were some of the first on the scene, again probably saving lives. Just last week, in a neighbouring constituency, Hawkhill court unfortunately caught fire, and in many people’s view, fire engines from Marionville fire station undoubtedly saved lives. Does all of that not make a compelling case that it is essential to keep a fire station at Marionville or nearby, despite the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete issues that need to be dealt with?
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is undertaking a strategic service review, and a full public consultation will be published next week. I urge anyone with any interest in it to please engage with that. I have been kept updated on the SFRS plans for the consultation and have received assurances that supporting evidence will be published alongside the consultation. I emphasise that it is about providing an optimal service to maintain community safety and inform final decisions. Robust evidence and data will need to be at the heart of decisions concerning any possible changes following the review. I reiterate to the member that I am always happy to meet him, and I will have a drop-in session next week if he would like to attend that.
Fife College (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact of the recent changes to college funding arrangements on Fife College. (S6O-04820)
Colleges play an important role in our communities, which is why the budget for this year sees a 2.1 per cent uplift to the college resource allocation. It is also a fact that the Scottish Funding Council has ensured that no college will have their teaching funding reduced for this financial year against the previous year. Fife College will receive a 1.26 per cent increase in teaching funding and a 4.9 per cent increase in capital maintenance funding in the final allocations. Of course, next year, the college will be moving into new facilities at the Dunfermline learning campus, which has been supported by tens of millions of pounds in Scottish Government investment. Operational decisions, including those on course provision and staffing are, of course, a matter for individual colleges.
The minister is well aware that the 1.26 per cent increase in teaching funding is a real-terms cut that is below inflation and compares unfavourably with other colleges. Over the past decade, Fife College’s core budget has been cut in real terms by almost 20 per cent. The college now faces defunding of £1.3 million in annual learning and teaching investment for the coming year. There is no question but that it is one of the losers in the funding changes, which will have consequences for staffing, academic provision and accessibility. Fife College principal, Jim Metcalfe, has said:
“The scale of the challenge now created by these changes is clearly precipitous.”
Does the minister recognise that the decision risks creating for Fife College the situation that the changes seek to solve for other colleges, and that it places the college at risk?
The underlying assertion that other colleges are somehow being favoured over Fife College simply does not stand up to scrutiny given the brand-new £150 million Scottish Government-funded campus in Dunfermline that the college will take ownership of later this year.
If Claire Baker is arguing that the Scottish Funding Council should take financial resources away from other colleges to give to Fife College, perhaps she can provide a list of the institutions that she has in mind. I am sure that that would be of interest to some of her Labour colleagues who represent other parts of the country. If she is arguing that more money should be simply provided for the sector, I have to remind her that Labour made no such ask of the Government in the budget setting process. While Willie Rennie and the Lib Dems worked with the Scottish Government to secure an additional £3.5 million for colleges, Labour members sat on their hands. Therefore, they do not have a shred of credibility on the issue.
I call Annabelle Ewing to ask the briefest of supplementaries.
The minister will be aware that I wrote to him on 11 June expressing my concerns about the implications of the new funding model for Fife College.
In an exchange with Alex Rowley on 8 May, the minister indicated that he was
“open to exploring whether we could add into the mix a further premium that recognises the delivery of courses that are linked to local and national economic need”.—[Official Report, 8 May 2025; c 7.]
What is the status of that thinking?
I have not seen the letter that Annabelle Ewing has written to me, but she has raised it today.
Consideration of an additional premium sits within a wide-ranging and on-going piece of work to look at how we get colleges in their localities to better align their offerings with the needs of the local and national economy.
I will respond to Annabelle Ewing’s letter in due course.
A96 Corridor Review (Consultation)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when the consultation results of the A96 corridor review will be published. (S6O-04821)
During the round-table meeting that I held in the Parliament on 4 February, which the member attended, I indicated that it was my intention to provide an update on the public’s response to the consultation as soon as it was provided to me, once the responses had been collated and analysed and a report summarising the feedback had been produced. The 12-week consultation period ended on 21 February, with more than 1,400 responses received.
I thank the member for his question, which allows me to announce that I received the consultation report at the end of last week. I briefed Cabinet colleagues on its publication at the beginning of this week, and I can advise the Parliament that the consultation report will be published on Transport Scotland’s website this afternoon. I will share the link to the report with all relevant north-east and Highland constituency and regional MSPs.
Almost 5,000 days, 16 transport ministers and 14 years since the Government promised to dual the A96 between Aberdeen and Inverness, we finally have a publication date for a consultation report. When the consultation results are released this afternoon, will that come with a cast-iron commitment that the A96 will finally be dualled?
As I said, at the round-table meeting that I referred to, I indicated that it was my intention to ensure that the consultation report was published as soon as possible. That is what MSPs asked me to do.
In relation to our on-going commitment to dual the A96, any decision will have to be made in the context of available, planned budgets, the impact of this week’s United Kingdom Government spending review and the Scottish Government’s infrastructure investment plan refresh, which is anticipated later in the year. I did not want to delay the publication of the consultation report, given what MSPs asked me to do. I have done what I said that I would do in February.
That concludes general question time; my apologies to the members we were unable to reach.
Before we move to First Minister’s question time, I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery the Hon Raj Chouhan, speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. [Applause.]