Schools (Disruptive Behaviour)
Violent and disruptive behaviour in schools is getting worse. A small minority of pupils prevent the majority from learning in peace and in safety. Some teachers feel unsafe and many feel unsupported. The Scottish National Party’s naive and weak approach fails absolutely everyone.
In response to that situation, the Scottish Government has just published new guidance on behaviour in schools. That document is exactly what we might expect from this ineffective Government: 49 pages of tedious, hand-wringing nonsense—it is complicated and confusing.
When John Swinney was education secretary, teachers said that he issued too much guidance, which made their jobs even harder, so why is he now repeating the same mistake?
It is always my priority to listen to the teaching profession. I did that throughout my time as education secretary. The guidance that Mr Findlay has cited is a consequence of the work that has been undertaken by ministers in consultation and dialogue with the teaching profession and other stakeholders in the world of education to make sure that that guidance is effective and necessary to support our education system.
The guidance is founded on an important point that Mr Findlay made in his question, which is that disruption and disruptive behaviour in schools are the product of a minority of pupils. The challenge, which the guidance is focused on, is to put in place the necessary steps and measures to ensure that any disruptive behaviour is addressed, so that the overwhelming majority of young people who behave perfectly well and engage well in their schools are able to prosper in their education.
If John Swinney really has listened to teachers, he seems to have gone on to completely ignore what they said.
What does the guidance say should happen if a pupil commits an act of violence? It tells teachers to give violent pupils a laminated paper with a set of bullet points that tell them to think about their behaviour. It also suggests that a way to tackle unsafe behaviour is to have a
“conversation to jointly problem solve with the child”.
It also says that disruptive pupils should be allowed to leave class two minutes early, which to me sounds like a reward rather than a punishment.
The new guidance ends with 94 questions that teachers are supposed to ask themselves—94 questions; as if they have the time. So, on behalf of Scotland’s teachers, I have just one question for John Swinney: is this for real?
I do not think for a moment that Mr Findlay’s presentation of the guidance is in any way, shape or form representative of what is actually there. The guidance is trying to ensure that situations in which there is violence in our schools are addressed and that problems are de-escalated and resolved.
We have to ensure that every young person who engages with our education system is able to be well supported to fulfil their potential. For some young people that involves addressing disruptive behaviour, and that is precisely what the guidance assists the teaching profession to try to do, with the assistance of other resources that the Government has put in place in our schools to address the underlying causes of unacceptable behaviour by young people.
The guidance is designed to de-escalate situations in our schools to ensure that young people can participate in their education. If young people are unable to participate in their education, they are unlikely to go on to good outcomes in our society, which will mean that we will simply repeat the difficulties that we have seen for many years in relation to young people who do not go on to positive destinations. Of course, I note that, this week, we saw that another very high level of positive destinations has been achieved by young people in Scotland.
I am very confident of my interpretation of this document and I will let the teachers and pupils of Scotland decide what is in it.
My party has long argued that a stricter approach is necessary to restore discipline in schools. We believe in exclusions for violence because they protect staff and pupils and because they work. The new SNP guidance says that exclusions should be considered only “as a last resort” and that, when they are considered, teachers still need to follow the guidance that was introduced by none other than John Swinney in 2017. That guidance has a 66-item checklist for teachers to consider while they are going through an exclusion process.
Where does the SNP actually stand on this? Has it U-turned? Does it now support exclusions to tackle bad behaviour or does the SNP not know where it stands?
The guidance is crystal clear that exclusions are part of the approach that can be taken, but I am making it clear today that exclusions can have negative consequences for young people.
Russell Findlay says that exclusions work. However, if a young person is excluded from school, they are not in the safe environment of school and are therefore likely to be out on the streets and, potentially, able to become involved in some of the criminal activity that Mr Findlay has put to me—in the past fortnight at First Minister’s question time—as being a risk to which young people are exposed. I simply point out to Parliament the inherent contradiction in what has been put to me. Two weeks ago, Mr Findlay said that we must make sure that young people are not exposed to criminal activity and, today, he is demanding that we exclude more young people from schools and put them at risk of being exposed to that criminal activity.
The most recent figure that I have available is for 2022-23, when 11,676 exclusions were recorded in Scottish education. I accept that that figure is lower than it was in 2018-19, but it is still a very high level of exclusion of young people from our schools. We have to consider the implications of not getting our approach to inclusion correct in our schools, because there can be long-term damage to young people and our society as a consequence.
That was absolutely desperate. As the First Minister knows fine well, there are different types of exclusion, rather than just putting children on to the streets, as he suggests. He virtually stopped exclusions, which is causing discipline to collapse. He turned teachers into social workers. He sent a dangerous message to disruptive pupils that they can get away with it. He fundamentally changed the classroom culture, and that is now harming children and their education.
People in the real world know how to sort out the problem. We need a tougher approach, not laminated cards and inclusive chats. If pupils are violent or serially disruptive, we should exclude them. Will John Swinney end the barrage of guidance and—please—empower teachers to take a stricter approach?
Mr Findlay has said something to Parliament that is palpably false.
Members: Oh!
I am going to explain it to Parliament. Mr Findlay said that I had stopped exclusions in Scottish education, but I have just told Parliament that there were 11,676 exclusions in 2022-23, so that statement from Mr Findlay is false. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another. [Interruption.]
Well, it is false. Let us just agree that it is false.
Members: Oh!
Let us hear the First Minister.
Secondly, last week, after First Minister’s question time, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and I convened a discussion at which Sharon Dowey, the Conservative spokesperson on justice issues, was present. Among the range of stakeholders in that discussion was a variety of people who are involved in violence reduction, such as Medics Against Violence and all those organisations that are doing really good work to avoid violence in our society and to de-escalate exactly the situations that I am talking about. In that conversation, not one of those people said to me that I should increase the level of exclusion from schools.
What we are getting from Russell Findlay today is a demonisation of young people and a failure to address the mechanisms and interventions that are required to solve a difficult issue in our society. It is simplistic nonsense and Parliament should ignore it.
Alexander Dennis
Last week, John Swinney claimed that he became aware of the issues that Alexander Dennis is facing a few weeks ago and that he was doing what he could to help the company, but that is not true. Almost a year ago, John Swinney received a letter, directly from the company, that set out how his decision to buy buses from China instead of Scotland was putting the company and jobs at risk. He did nothing for the skilled workforce.
Last week, as usual, John Swinney tried to find someone else to blame for his own failure by talking about United Kingdom procurement laws. Those laws did not stop the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, buying Scottish buses, but, somehow, they stop the Scottish National Party Government doing so. Since that warning almost a year ago, how many buses has the SNP Government ordered from Scottish companies?
Mr Sarwar is correct—I engaged with the company in August 2024, when I received correspondence from it, and I met it again in September. As a consequence of that interaction, we established work for Scottish Enterprise to do with the company to support it in securing its future. That work was taken forward as a consequence of that dialogue. The company subsequently contacted us, in the past few weeks, in relation to its more immediate situation.
On bus orders, since 2020, Alexander Dennis has secured orders for more than 360 vehicles through Scottish Government funding programmes, and Manchester has ordered 160. I hope that the fact that 360 Alexander Dennis buses have been ordered through Scottish Government funding programmes and 160 have been ordered by Manchester indicates that the Scottish Government has been supporting Alexander Dennis.
John Swinney did not answer the question. Since he received that letter almost a year ago, zero buses have been ordered from Alexander Dennis. He can try to waffle all he likes, but he cannot escape the fact that his Government has the powers and the resources to act but has failed to do so.
The Cabinet Office has clearly set out how the SNP Scottish Government could have helped to ensure that contracts go to Scottish manufacturers to support Scottish jobs. He could have applied social value criteria, which help domestic suppliers, or he could have considered a direct award. He did neither. Now that the UK Procurement Act 2023 is in place, the SNP Government can disregard bids from non-treaty suppliers, which include countries such as China. Did John Swinney not understand the law, or did he make the usual SNP attempt to pass the buck, find somebody else to blame and show no interest in actually doing his job?
If Mr Sarwar was to look carefully at what the company has said, he would see that it has expressed its appreciation of the engagement that it has had with the Scottish Government on all those questions. The company’s workforce are the only people I am interested in here. The company has expressed its appreciation of the Scottish Government’s sustained engagement in supporting its operations.
Since 2020, the Scottish Government has provided £58 million of funding for zero-emission buses through the Scottish ultra-low-emission bus scheme and the Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund. That fundamentally holes Mr Sarwar’s argument. Those funds have contributed to a situation in which, through its funding programmes, the Scottish Government has allocated 360 bus orders to Alexander Dennis—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
We have done that as part of the process of supporting and assisting the work that is undertaken at Alexander Dennis. [Interruption.]
They are built in China.
Mr Bibby.
As I explained to the Parliament last week, the Scottish Government is engaged in a sustained dialogue with the company and various other interested parties to support Alexander Dennis. Those discussions are on-going. We are talking to and engaging with the company regularly to find a way through the challenges and to encourage more orders to come to Alexander Dennis. That is at the heart of the approach that the Government is taking.
The workforce does not need engagement from the Scottish Government; it needs contracts from the Scottish Government. Jobs come from contracts, and the reality is that zero buses have been commissioned since that letter was sent almost a year ago. The SNP needs to up its game rather than provide the usual waffle, because that just proves why Scots are sick of the SNP Government and its incompetence. After 18 years, it is out of ideas and out of time.
Last week, I told members that, a fortnight ago, an SNP MSP said that John Swinney had two weeks to come up with an idea to save his leadership. Let us look at what he has come up with. One in six Scots is on a national health service waiting list—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
—and John Swinney’s big plan is an app that was promised years ago and the merging of just two health quangos. Our schools are facing a behaviour crisis, and John Swinney’s big idea is to laminate bullet points and put them on a wall. Scots are angry at the Government’s failures and the SNP is back in crisis, and John Swinney’s big plan is to say, “Quick! Press the big panic independence button to try to save my skin.”
Is it not the case that we will only create jobs, save our NHS, improve our schools—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
—and deliver for Scots if we get rid of this tired and incompetent SNP Government?
It is interesting that Mr Sarwar’s interest in the workers of Alexander Dennis lasted for two questions, and then he got on to his usual posturing, with little substance, in the Parliament. That was the performance of a weak man in front of the Parliament today. [Interruption.]
Thank you! Let us hear one another.
I will tell Mr Sarwar what I have been doing this week. I have been presiding over a Government that has put Scotland, for the 10th year in a row, at the top of the list for inward investment successes in the United Kingdom, after London and the south-east. We have been in that position for 10 years in a row under the SNP Government. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
We have seen a rise in the percentage of school leavers going on to positive destinations. This week, we confirmed that we will scrap the two-child benefit cap, ensuring that 20,000 children will be lifted out of poverty.
In the same week that we have committed to lifting the two-child cap, Anas Sarwar is toadying in behind the Labour leader in the United Kingdom to send 50,000 children into poverty through the welfare reform bill. Scotland can see that Anas Sarwar is linked to a UK Labour Government that will put more children into poverty, while my Government will lift children out of poverty. That is the Scottish Government delivering for our people.
Democracy Summit (Actions)
Nearly two months ago, the First Minister hosted a summit on opposing the far right and defending democracy. There was a clear message from many people in the room that Governments need to act to address people’s concerns, to restore the public services that we all rely on, to give local communities more power, to tackle extreme wealth and to tax the big polluters that are profiteering from climate breakdown so that we can invest in our communities.
It was obvious that, without clear action, the summit would just be another talking shop, but I have seen no meaningful change since then. Since that meeting, what exactly has the Scottish Government done differently, in practical terms, to turn promises into action?
The Government has taken forward our agenda, which is about eradicating child poverty. I have just cited one example of our actions: taking measures to lift the two-child limit, which will lift children out of poverty. That is in stark contrast to the prevailing attitude of the United Kingdom Government.
We have been working with different groups to make a rational argument for an approach to immigration that will boost our working-age population, because we recognise that, unless we do that, we will suffer extreme economic harm and have real difficulty in sustaining our public services.
We have taken the steps that were announced this morning on carbon budgets. We are following the Climate Change Committee’s advice on the setting of budget limits and are deploying a programme that will tackle climate change.
Those are some of the measures that the Scottish Government is taking to address the substance of our agenda—I agree with Mr Harvie that there are real concerns about that—in order to ensure that we address the real concerns and priorities of people in Scotland and the threat to our democracy from the far right.
It sounds as though the Government’s agenda after the summit is exactly the same as it was before the summit. There is a real sense of drift from the First Minister. He came into the job saying that he wanted to build the best future for our country. Since then, he has watered down rent controls, stalled on plans to help people to stop using expensive fossil fuels, abandoned progress on human rights and equalities laws and ditched environmental actions such as the creation of a new national park. In addition, only today, he has rejected advice from his independent climate experts.
In place of the progressive green policies that the First Minister has walked away from, what is there? I genuinely struggle to think of a single signature policy that he has delivered in his year in the job that shows ambition and leadership. In the face of the threat from the far right, a steady-as-she-goes approach puts us on a course to disaster. Does the First Minister understand that people need to see real progress towards a fairer, greener Scotland and that failure to tackle inequality and injustice will benefit only the snake oil sellers on the far right?
To be blunt, I could not disagree more with Mr Harvie. I appreciate that this is his last First Minister’s question time as co-convener of the Green Party, so saying all that to me might have been his last hurrah.
One of my central priorities is the eradication of child poverty. It could not be clearer to people in Scotland that two very different directions are being pursued. The level of child poverty is falling in Scotland, whereas child poverty rates are going up in the rest of the United Kingdom. Under my leadership, we are taking action to remove the two-child limit—that has never been committed to before. That will help us to reduce child poverty, while the Labour Government’s action, through the welfare changes that were announced yesterday, will increase child poverty in Scotland.
I make no apology to Mr Harvie or to anyone else about being absolutely focused on eradicating the scourge of child poverty in our society. It is a curse on our society, and we have to eradicate it.
Acorn Project
To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the United Kingdom Government regarding funding and timescales for the development of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. (S6F-04200)
It is welcome that the United Kingdom Government has at last listened to the calls of industry and the Scottish Government and has committed to funding the Acorn project to progress to a final investment decision. We are working closely with Acorn partners and the UK Government to understand the specifics of last week’s announcement and how we can best work together to build pace and momentum in the development phase to get a final investment decision on Acorn as soon as possible. To be clear, I firmly support the development of the Acorn project to advance our climate ambitions and create jobs and employment. We are discussing with Acorn what support will be required from the Scottish Government to progress the project further.
After years of delays, the UK Government has finally announced some funding for Acorn, but it has failed to commit to a timetable or final investment decision on the project. That stands in stark contrast to Labour’s £22 billion for carbon capture in England and a swathe of costly nuclear projects. Given that Westminster has had 20 years to hammer out the detail of Acorn, does the First Minister agree that we must now see meaningful support and funding at pace?
I agree with Audrey Nicoll; it is vital that we have urgent progress and support for the project. I welcome the announcement that was made last week. The Scottish Government will play its part in ensuring that we can progress to a final investment decision as soon as possible, because the project is central to the achievement of our objectives on climate, it will be a significant part of the just transition in Scotland, and it provides significant economic and climate opportunities for our country. It should be embraced by all concerned. It needs emphatic support from the UK Government, in particular.
The Scottish cluster needs meaningful support. Years ago, the SNP promised £80 million to help to bring it online, with no strings attached. Later, the SNP introduced a condition that it would be paid only when the UK Government promised funding, and then the Green Party blocked it anyway.
Now that the UK Government has met the retrospectively imposed criteria and the Greens are, thankfully, out of government, when will the Scottish cluster get the £80 million that was promised?
The Scottish Government’s commitment to £80 million remains intact. In the programme for government, I indicated that the Scottish Government would be open to providing additional financial support to ensure that the project is able to progress.
As I said in my opening answer to Audrey Nicoll, we are working closely with Acorn partners to understand the specifics of last week’s announcement and how we can best work together to build pace and momentum, and that is exactly what we will do.
The Scottish Government does my constituents in the north-east no favours by making promises that it will not keep. If the First Minister is serious and has been serious for several years about the use of that technology in that site, why did the ScotWind leasing round award seabed rights for the MarramWind wind farm on the very same site as the Acorn project? What is he doing to remedy that?
I will have to take away the issue that Mercedes Villalba has raised with me. The ScotWind leasing round was completed in an orderly process, with decisions made based on the evidence that is available to the Government. I will carefully consider the point that the member has made to me, but I do not think that there is any incompatibility between the approaches that have been taken.
Biodegradable Waste
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that up to 100 truckloads of Scotland’s waste will be moved each day to England as a result of the landfill ban on biodegradable waste. (S6F-04195)
I do not think that it is acceptable for a large amount of waste to be transported from Scotland to England.
The landfill ban will be a significant step in reducing methane emissions in Scotland. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is around 28 times more potent in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. Preparations have already been made for the ban coming into force and the vast majority of councils have solutions in place.
In the run-up to the ban, I accept all partners’ efforts to continue to comply with it. I appreciate that challenges exist and I assure Mr Golden that we are working closely with the waste sector and exploring several options to ensure that we are reducing any environmental impacts as much as possible.
The landfill ban has been more than a decade in the making, with an extra four-year delay already, yet Scotland is still not ready. The 2013 recycling targets remain unmet, even though recycling is the solution, in my view. Sadly, incineration has become the default for the Scottish Government.
Next year, up to £75 million in landfill tax will be lost to the UK Treasury, £75 million in revenue will be lost from the Scottish Government, and tens of millions of pounds in cost will be lost, primarily to Scotland’s small and medium-sized enterprises. It is the ultimate farce. How is that failure to plan, invest or deliver standing up for Scotland?
Incineration is not the default position. At 62.3 per cent in 2022, the overall recycling rate in Scotland is at its highest level since records began in 2011, so significant progress has been made. Waste sector emissions were 73 per cent lower in 2023 than in 1990. Steps have been taken to address the issue, and I want to ensure that progress is made. That is exactly what ministers are focused on and what public bodies should be focused on, too.
In 2019, my colleague Willie Rennie warned the then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, that meeting our landfill ban would result in waste being shipped across the border to England. His concerns were dismissed. It pains me to say it, but Willie Rennie was right. How would the Scottish Government respond if hundreds of truckloads of waste from England were dumped in Scotland daily?
As I said in my answer to Maurice Golden, the Government is focused on working with public authorities to ensure that the terms of the landfill ban are delivered and secured. That is what ministers are working with the sector to ensure is the case, and that is what will dominate our approach in the weeks to come.
Higher Education (Funding)
To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s position on the funding of Scotland’s higher education institutions. (S6F-04201)
The Scottish Government engages closely with the higher education sector on a variety of issues in relation to its financial sustainability. I know that the member, alongside other party spokespeople and the minister, met Universities Scotland last week and agreed on the need for cross-party collaboration to support a thriving and financially sustainable university sector. One of the key points in that discussion was the importance of protecting free tuition—a commitment that the Scottish National Party Government has made to ensure that students studying in Scotland do not incur the additional debt of up to £27,750 that they would incur if they happened to be educated at universities in England. The 2025-26 budget includes more than £1.1 billion of investment in teaching and research in Scotland’s universities in recognition of the hugely valuable contribution that our universities make.
Today’s report from the Royal Society of Edinburgh says:
“there remain significant challenges in ensuring those undertaking initial education ... can access the right opportunities to fulfil personal aspirations as well as contribute to the future success of Scotland.”
That challenge to fulfilling aspiration is laid bare in data that came out this week that shows that the gap in university attendance between the most and least deprived grew and that the proportion of young people from the poorest communities going into positive destinations fell.
Yesterday, Glasgow Kelvin College, 40 per cent of whose learners are from the poorest areas, told the Education, Children and Young People Committee that it is having to turn away two in three people. The SNP’s managed decline of universities and colleges is leaving Scotland’s most disadvantaged pupils behind. Why is the First Minister’s Government stifling the potential of Scotland’s greatest asset—our young people?
The most recent data that I have available shows that 16.7 per cent of full-time first-degree entrants come from Scotland’s most deprived areas, which is an increase on 16.3 per cent in the previous year.
Since we embarked on the work to widen access, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that young people from the most deprived areas are able to access university courses. That is exactly at the heart of the Government’s commitment, and I am pleased to reaffirm that today.
Since 2019, there has been a 42 per cent increase in 18-year-olds from the most deprived areas entering university, which demonstrates the progress that has been made on widening access to our higher education institutions.
From the comments that university principals made at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, it is clear that the university sector in Scotland has become overreliant on international students. Given the increasing global uncertainty, what assessment have the First Minister and the Scottish Government made of the financial exposure and risk that our institutions face?
These issues are discussed with the higher education sector. I met senior figures from Universities Scotland to discuss those questions a few weeks ago, and my ministers are engaged on that question at all times.
As well as global uncertainty, the other issue that has to be borne in mind is the United Kingdom Government’s approach to immigration policy, which is not helping one little bit in all this. It is clear to me, in my dialogue with the university sector, that a more rational approach to immigration, rather than the folly that was started by the Conservative Government and is now being reinforced by the Labour Government in the UK, would help our university sector to navigate its way through these challenging times. A more sensible approach to immigration would help us to attract international students and support our university sector, which remains world class.
We move to general and constituency supplementary questions. The more concise we are, the more members we will be able to take.
Ardrossan Harbour
It has now been more than four months since the Scottish Government committed to exploring the purchase of Ardrossan harbour from Peel Ports, but talks appear to be deadlocked. Until the future of the harbour is resolved, Arran will not receive the lifeline ferry service that it needs and deserves, while Ardrossan will struggle.
This afternoon, constituents from both communities are protesting outside the building. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport will meet the protesters this afternoon. Will the Scottish Government now inject some urgency into the process to break the stalemate? Will the First Minister also confirm that there are no plans to remove road equivalent tariff tickets from island visitors, which would inevitably damage our island economies?
On the road equivalent tariff point, the answer is that there are no such plans. The RET has been an essential part of the steps that we are taking to improve connectivity with the island communities, and it has played an essential part in lowering the cost of travel to our islands over a number of years. That was introduced by an SNP Government as part of that agenda.
In relation to Ardrossan, I entirely understand Mr Gibson’s concern. This is a negotiation with a private organisation, Peel Ports, and any such negotiations take time. It has the focus and attention of ministers and of Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd. The transport secretary has made clear to the Parliament the steps that have been taken, and we will, of course, update the Parliament when the negotiation progresses.
I assure Mr Gibson—he can convey this to his constituents, and I know that the transport secretary will do that in her discussions this afternoon—that the Government is absolutely focused on achieving a long-term solution for Ardrossan harbour, which, from the Government’s perspective, remains the key port for the connection to Arran.
No ferries have been running from Ardrossan harbour since January, and that will become permanent unless there is redevelopment. There has been no progress in redevelopment, despite that being agreed on more than seven years ago. This is a disaster for the local community. Does the First Minister agree that, if there is no progress, the process for a compulsory purchase of the harbour needs to start by the summer recess, so that redevelopment work can start?
I will explore the point about compulsory purchase, but it has been indicated to me that we would not have the basis on which to do that. I assure Katy Clark, as I assured Mr Gibson, that the Government is actively engaged in dialogue to acquire Ardrossan harbour to enable the long-term commitment that Katy Clark seeks. I give that long-term commitment; I understand the challenges about access to the port and the necessity of redevelopment. The Government has concluded, after years of engagement, that the only way to progress that is acquisition. That is what the Government intends to do, and we are taking every step to enable that to be the case.
Migration to Universal Credit
The Department for Work and Pensions assured people that the managed migration from legacy benefits to universal credit would be smooth. My constituents in Motherwell and Wishaw have contacted me regarding being threatened with sanctions if they do not provide a general practitioner fit note within seven days, despite previously receiving employment and support allowance. That should not happen. It is causing needless pressure on primary care and fear and anxiety for my constituents with long-term health conditions. Will the First Minister engage with the United Kingdom Government on those reported issues and on the delays in migration from legacy benefits to universal credit?
The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice recently wrote to the UK Government to highlight a number of issues with the delivery of universal credit, including those caused by conditionality and sanctions. We are deeply concerned about the personal impact that the move to universal credit is having on individuals, and we will continue to work with the DWP to address all those concerns.
The situation is indicative of the agenda that is being taken forward by the Labour Government, which is now trying to balance the books on the back of sacrificing the poor and the vulnerable in our society. I do not think that people in Scotland expected that of a Labour Government, but that is what they are getting.
Urgent Care Services (Skye)
It has been just over a year since John Swinney publicly apologised to Eilidh Beaton for what he described as her “terrifying experience” at Portree hospital on Skye. He said that it was “not good enough” and that Sir Lewis Ritchie’s recommendations on restoring urgent care “must be implemented”—he claimed that that is what would happen.
However, a year later, incidents keep happening and, last week, NHS Highland admitted that the current model for urgent care is not working. Skye SOS national health service campaigners told the West Highland Free Press that it was “shambolic”. One said:
“They have been pulling the wool over our eyes all this time.”
John Swinney was in Skye on Monday, pressing the flesh for a Scottish National Party by-election campaign. To their disappointment, he did not meet local health campaigners. Why did the First Minister not find time to meet those who are fighting to get urgent care restored at Portree hospital? Does he accept that the promises that he made to the people of Skye, which were made in this chamber, have not been delivered? When will they be delivered?
As a matter of factual accuracy, I was in Portree on Saturday, and I met Eilidh Beaton there on Saturday. I heard about her experience, and it was a pleasure to meet her. I was able to express to Eilidh and to other members of the public who asked me about the issue that the commitments that I gave in this chamber on the delivery of the model that was designed by Lewis Ritchie will be fulfilled.
I accept that there are challenges for NHS Highland in the practical delivery of that, often because of the availability of personnel to do it. It is part of a wider and deeper problem, which also relates to the point that I made to Mr Briggs a moment ago that we are being constrained in the delivery of our public services by the approach to immigration and the size of our working-age population. That is a very hard reality that the Parliament is going to have to come to terms with and which is troubling me enormously.
I say two things to Mr Halcro Johnston. First, I appreciate the engagement that I had with members of the public in Portree on Saturday about the issue. Secondly, I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the model that was designed by Lewis Ritchie and which I expect NHS Highland to implement.
Professor Sir Geoff Palmer
Last week, Professor Sir Geoff Palmer, Scotland’s first black professor, passionate advocate for equality, and my friend, passed away. Sir Geoff was not only a leader in science and human rights; he was a kind, wise man who inspired me and many others. He will be deeply missed. Will the First Minister join me in paying tribute to Sir Geoff, a giant of modern Scotland, and will he continue Sir Geoff’s legacy by helping to build a Scotland that is free from prejudice? [Applause.]
I associate myself unreservedly with Mr Choudhury’s comments about Sir Geoff Palmer. Sir Geoff was a pioneer—that is how I described him on his death. He contributed enormously to making Scotland the country that it is today: the tolerant, inclusive and welcoming country that is epitomised by the approach and the values of Sir Geoff Palmer.
Mr Choudhury described Sir Geoff as a kind, wise man. I utterly accept that. That is exactly the right description of him. We need more kindness and more wisdom in our society, and Sir Geoff Palmer embodied that. I take this opportunity to make clear to the Parliament my absolute commitment to making sure that Scotland is a tolerant, welcoming and inclusive country that Sir Geoff Palmer could be proud of.
Economic Growth Forecast
This week, the Confederation of British Industry has downgraded its growth forecast for the United Kingdom, warning that rising costs, including the Labour Government’s national insurance tax hike, are set to cause weak business investment, reduce recruitment and reduce economic growth over the next two years. Does the First Minister share my concern about the impact that Westminster economic mismanagement will have on the ability of this Scottish National Party Scottish Government to grow our economy?
The points that Michelle Thomson puts to the Parliament are absolutely valid. The warning from the CBI should not be ignored. When the decision was taken to apply employer national insurance contribution increases, I said that I thought that it was an illogical move, given the focus on growth in the United Kingdom Government’s agenda. I reiterate that point: employer national insurance contribution increases will stifle growth and they will inhibit our ability to grow the economy.
The survey from the CBI comes in a week in which EY has confirmed that Scotland is the best-performing part of the United Kingdom for inward investment, outside London, for the 10th year in a row. Despite all the obstacles put in our way by a Labour United Kingdom Government that does not act in relation to growth and opportunity in our economy, the decisions of this SNP Government are delivering prosperity and opportunity for people in Scotland. That record on investment—10 years in a row of being the most successful part of the United Kingdom for inward investment, outside of London—is a testament to the efforts of this Government.
Train Cancellations
Numerous trains have been cancelled across my region in the past year. That has a massive knock-on effect on individuals, organisations and businesses. It has been more than three years since the Scottish National Party Government took over responsibility for ScotRail, but, unfortunately, we have yet to see real improvements.
If the First Minister wants to reduce carbon emissions, and get people out of their cars and on to public transport, the Scottish Government must provide a reasonable and reliable service. When will that dream become a reality?
I cannot believe half of what has been put to me in that question. ScotRail is one of the best-performing rail networks in the United Kingdom, and its performance has improved since it was taken into public ownership by the Scottish Government. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
I will say those things again. ScotRail is one of the best-performing rail networks in the United Kingdom, and its performance has improved since it came into public ownership.
We have just taken a decision to abolish peak rail fares in Scotland to encourage more people to use the train. Why can Mr Stewart not find something to welcome in the Scottish Parliament, rather than coming here with bogus information that runs down the rail network, which is actually performing very well?
That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will now be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.
12:45 Meeting suspended.Previous
General Question Time