Official Report 749KB pdf
Scottish Government Budget (Taxation)
Rachel Reeves has increased taxes by £26 billion. Under Labour, taxes will be at their highest levels in history. The freezing of income tax bands will force millions of workers to hand over even more of their wages. The Labour chancellor is not only screwing taxpayers; she is also borrowing even more money, leaving more debt to future generations. She did all that despite saying that she would do none of it. Does John Swinney intend to keep the Scottish National Party’s manifesto promise not to raise tax on Scottish workers?
The Government is giving consideration to the implications of the United Kingdom Government’s budget for the Scottish budget. However, this morning, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government confirmed that the Scottish Government will not increase income tax rates or introduce any new bands.
John Swinney stood on a manifesto promise not to raise income tax rates or bring in new bands—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Findlay.
The same John Swinney then stood right there and delivered a budget that raised income tax.
How can we trust you?
Let us hear Mr Findlay.
One year later, the SNP again raised income tax.
On 6 November, when John Swinney was challenged about that broken promise, he had the audacity to claim that it was not “out of kilter” with the SNP’s manifesto. Looking very much like Joe Biden, John Swinney seemed to be completely unaware of what he had done.
To make matters worse—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
To make matters worse, on 13 November, he misled the Parliament by falsely claiming to have maintained his manifesto commitment. When John Swinney suggests that he will not increase income tax, how can anyone trust a word that he says?
What a wandering lot of drivel that question was. [Interruption.]
Thank you, members.
Mr Findlay makes a habit of coming to the chamber and not reading out complete paragraphs from party manifestos that set out our position. We set out our manifesto position in 2021, but we said that we had to be mindful of the economic context. The economic context has been fundamentally changed by two things: first, the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, which led to a spike in inflation and a massive increase in public sector costs; and, secondly, the absolute rank and total stupidity of the Liz Truss budget, which Russell Findlay supported. That is what changed the landscape.
What a cheek. The master of wandering drivel speaks. He is the guy who raised income tax and broke his manifesto promise twice—we always have to read the small print with the SNP.
Scotland’s workers, families and businesses deserve to know whether more of their hard-earned money is going to be swiped by the SNP, but John Swinney cannot be trusted on any tax rises that he may be planning.
One group that is increasingly concerned is the Scottish Association of Landlords. It says that Rachel Reeves’s new
“property income tax could be the final straw”,
and that it could harm tenants by jeopardising the supply of rental properties.
Rachel Reeves has handed the SNP the power to introduce and even increase that tax in Scotland. Given the damage that has already been done by the SNP’s rent controls, does John Swinney accept that that new tax could further damage the rental market for tenants?
The Scottish Government put forward legislation, which has been approved by Parliament, that introduces rent controls but also enables Scotland to be an attractive market for housing investment. That is demonstrated by the dialogue that the Government is having with the investment sector. Of course, any decisions about these issues will be set out in the budget in January.
The SNP is forcing Scottish taxpayers to constantly pay more and more and more. Before the budget, it had already set aside around £150 million to end the cap on universal credit for families with more than two children. However, given Labour’s decision to scrap the two-child cap, the SNP can now spend that money on something else—not on more benefits.
There is another way—a commonsense way—that would reward hard work and help the economy. We believe that Scottish taxpayers deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. They deserve fairness and a break from higher bills, so will John Swinney instead use that £150 million to cut income tax?
I have made it clear that the mission and purpose of my Government is to eradicate child poverty. I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom Government has taken the decision, from 1 April, to abolish the two-child cap, which was put in place by the previous Conservative Government. It is an atrocious intervention in the benefits system, and I am glad that my Government has shamed the Labour Party into acting on it. [Interruption.]
Thank you, members.
I have also set out on previous occasions what the Scottish Government would do in the situation that we now face. I said that we would use the money that we had allocated to lift the two-child limit, which was an initiative taken by the SNP Government in the face of votes against such a proposal by Labour MPs in Westminster, to reduce child poverty even further than the decreasing levels of child poverty in Scotland under this Government.
Mr Findlay attacks me for asking people on higher earnings to pay more in tax. I am prepared to do that so that I can work to eradicate child poverty, which is the best thing to do for the future of our country.
United Kingdom Government Budget
Eighteen months ago, the people of Scotland got rid of a Tory Government that had done so much damage to our country. Clearing up its mess was never going to be easy—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
Clearing up its mess was never going to be easy, but UK Labour choices are making a difference. Yesterday, the UK budget delivered an increase to the minimum wage and the living wage, which means another pay rise for 200,000 Scottish workers. The budget will help with the cost of living, with £150 off energy bills and £300 off for those who are most in need. It reinstated the winter fuel allowance and raised the state pension, benefiting 1.1 million pensioners in Scotland. There will be £820 million more for the Scottish Government, with £10.3 billion more—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
Their constituents have benefited from £10.3 billion more since Labour came to power, and the end of the two-child cap—
Please ask a question, Mr Sarwar.
The end of the two-child cap means that 450,000 children—
Question, Mr Sarwar.
—will be lifted out of poverty across the UK, and it will benefit—
Mr Sarwar, you may put a question now or I will ask the First Minister to address the comments that you have already made.
I am asking the question, Presiding Officer.
Please do.
You have intervened twice already.
The end of the two-child cap will benefit 95,000 children in Scotland, so will John Swinney—[Interruption.] They are heckling poverty reduction—who would have thought it?
Mr Sarwar, I have asked you—
Will John Swinney—
Mr Sarwar, in future, when I ask you to put a question, put a question at that point. Continue.
Will John Swinney welcome the greatest reduction in child poverty as a result of a UK budget this century?
I thought that members of Parliament were supposed to keep up with what is said in Parliament. I have already welcomed the abolition of the two-child limit, because this Government shamed the Labour Party into action in the first place. Labour MPs have been trooping through the lobbies of the House of Commons to vote to keep the two-child limit since they came to office 18 months ago. It has been an absolute disgrace.
I am glad that the Labour Party has realised that there is an election coming in May and that, possibly, a Labour Party driving up child poverty in the United Kingdom might not be a good look for the Labour Party in Scotland. However, I am very pleased to say to the people of Scotland that child poverty is falling in this country because of the actions of the Scottish National Party Government.
The First Minister is delusional. For eight years, the SNP had the power to end the two-child cap but did nothing; UK Labour scrapped it after 18 months. The sad truth is that the SNP preferred the grievance. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
For two years, John Swinney has argued for income tax to rise in England and Wales. That would have led to a cut in Scotland’s budget, based on the fiscal framework that he himself negotiated. That proves that he has not got a clue. While he was arguing for Scotland’s budget to be cut, I was arguing for more investment, and the United Kingdom Labour Government delivered. Given that £5.2 billion was received last year and was completely wasted by this incompetent and tired SNP Government, does that not prove that we need a change of Government in Scotland so that Scots can feel the benefit in our schools, hospitals, police and public services?
Oh, he is trying awful hard today to get himself excited. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
Let me set out to Mr Sarwar the choices that this Government made. We decided to prioritise the introduction of the Scottish child payment—we were the only part of the United Kingdom to introduce such a measure; nothing similar exists in any other part of the United Kingdom—and we used the resources that we have raised in Scotland to make sure that that could be delivered, with the result that child poverty is falling in this country.
Mr Sarwar talks about the increase in resources that are being made available. He is right: there will be extra resource funding of £510 million over a four-year period. However, the one-year increase in employer national insurance contributions in Scotland is estimated to come to about £400 million. There we have it—an average annual increase in our budget of £127 million, eaten up by an increase in employer national insurance contributions that was put in place by a Labour Government. [Interruption.]
Members, thank you.
This Government will do what it always does—[Interruption.]
Thank you, members.
We will concentrate our public expenditure on the priorities of the people of Scotland. Why does that matter? It matters because that delivers for the people of our country and demonstrates, as was proven by the credit rating agencies, that this country benefits from prudent fiscal management and prudent financial planning. That is what an SNP Government delivers.
I think that John Swinney needs to cheer up a little bit. An additional £10.3 billion for Scotland’s public services is a transformative amount of money, but the SNP cannot be trusted with people’s money. National health service waiting lists remain unacceptably high, our schools are falling down international league tables, police numbers are being cut and there is rising crime on our streets. That is why Scots are asking where the money has gone. That is why we cannot risk a third decade of the SNP and John Swinney. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
Is it not the case that, in May, Scots have a clear choice: more wasted money and wasted opportunities with John Swinney, or a Government that respects their money with me—[Interruption.]
Thank you, members.
—police stuck in accident and emergency departments and courts with John Swinney, or police on our streets and safer communities with me—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
They do not want to hear it, Presiding Officer. The choice is between long waiting lists with John Swinney or an NHS that is fit for the future with me. It is the past with John Swinney or the future with me and Scottish Labour.
Okay. Let us start with waiting lists. My Government’s priority is to bring down waiting lists and, in particular, waiting lists involving long waits. Between April and October this year, the number of new out-patient waits of more than a year reduced by 17.9 per cent—for five consecutive months, waiting lists involving long waits fell. Over the same period, the size of the waiting list for those waiting for new in-patient day-case procedures for more than 52 weeks reduced by 26.1 per cent. The plan that I put in place, backed by the resources that we have invested, which the Labour Party would not vote for, is now reducing waiting lists in our country.
If Mr Sarwar wants to own the budget of the United Kingdom Government, he must own its consequences. Those consequences are that, today, people’s fuel bills are still higher than they were when Labour came into office; they are not lower, as Labour promised. There will be job losses in the north-east of Scotland, which Anas Sarwar will be responsible for, because of the actions of the Labour Government.
I will invest people’s money wisely in boosting public services and strengthening the economy, and I will leave Anas Sarwar to dream about what he might be able to do if he convinces the people of Scotland, whereas this Government is delivering for the people of Scotland.
Before we move to question 3, I remind members that people in the gallery would like to be able to follow proceedings.
Just Transition Plan (Mossmorran)
Last week, I asked the First Minister for the just transition plan for Mossmorran workers that his Government promised that it would write 18 months ago. He twice avoided answering that question. Since then, we have had three summits in as many days, which have involved the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments and Fife Council. At none of those has the Scottish Government provided the plan that it committed to write.
The Scottish Greens spent years working with the trade unions representing Mossmorran workers and the wider community to produce plans of our own, because we all knew that this day was coming. Hundreds of workers face losing their jobs within weeks, and their Government has no plan to help them. Can the First Minister please just admit that there is no Scottish Government plan to support the Mossmorran workers and apologise for the fact that his Government did not deliver on the commitment that it made?
What the Government is doing is taking what we learned from the issues that we addressed in Grangemouth, where the just transition plan has resulted in a range of business development opportunities emerging, and applying that, in dialogue with the trade unions, interested parties, Fife Council, the United Kingdom Government and the company, to the future of Mossmorran.
I very much regret the circumstances that the workers at Mossmorran face. The Deputy First Minister and the Scottish Government are working assiduously with all interested parties to deliver a future for those who are affected by the decision that has been taken about Mossmorran.
Would it not have been great if the Deputy First Minister had been able to attend the summits with the plan for jobs that her Government committed to write 18 months ago? The Mossmorran workers have been abandoned by ExxonMobil and, despite knowing about the company’s plans to cut and run, yesterday’s Labour budget contained absolutely nothing for Mossmorran. Those workers have also been let down by a Scottish Government that, when push comes to shove, has no new ideas.
The Scottish Greens have an idea that we want to put to the First Minister today. Grangemouth rightly has a just transition fund, and Unite the Union has ensured that, as a condition of getting any money from that fund, organisations must offer job interviews to anyone who was made redundant by Ineos. Will the Scottish Government now do the same for Mossmorran workers?
Yes, I am happy to confirm that. The agreement that was reached with Unite the Union was announced by me a few weeks ago, and I very much applaud the collaboration that Unite has engaged in. It has been a partner of the Government in dealing with the situation at Grangemouth and a partner of the Government in dealing with the situation at Mossmorran.
I think that I picked up Mr Greer correctly as making the point that prior notice was given of the decision about Mossmorran, but I point out that it was not given to the Scottish Government—we had about a week’s notice. The United Kingdom Government knew about the situation for months, but it never sorted it, never fixed it, never addressed it and never intervened in the way that it did in Scunthorpe or any other situation in which it decided to intervene. That just goes to demonstrate that, when it comes to industrial closures under a Labour Government in London, there is one rule for the rest of the United Kingdom and one rule for Scotland.
Autumn Statement
To ask the First Minister what impact the chancellor’s autumn statement will have on Scotland. (S6F-04479)
As I indicated a moment ago, yesterday’s budget will have financial consequences for the Scottish Government’s budget. I welcome the decision to remove the two-child limit, which the Scottish Government was already planning to mitigate in March next year.
There will, of course, be consequences for the public. Their energy bills will not be cut by the £300 that was proposed by the Labour Party. Energy bills will still be, on average, £340 a year higher than the Prime Minister promised that they would be.
Yesterday’s United Kingdom Government budget came after weeks of chaos, dithering and U-turns by the chancellor, amid an on-going cost of living crisis, the downgrading of UK economic growth every year until 2029 and public finances being in a worse state now than when Labour came to power.
Does the First Minister agree with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce that the budget’s net effect will be to further dial up pressure on businesses, risking our reputation as a magnet for global investment? Does he share my concern that, while thousands of Scottish oil and gas jobs are at risk from Labour’s tax policy after this budget, energy bills next April will still cost £340 a year more per household than the Prime Minister promised a year ago, while UK unemployment has risen by 282,000 on Labour’s watch?
On Mr Gibson’s last point about unemployment, that is now significantly lower in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. I welcome that indication of good performance in the Scottish economy. Indeed, that good economic performance in Scotland was recognised by both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s in their assessments of Scotland’s credit rating.
In addition, the decision not to abolish the energy profits levy will have disastrous consequences in the north-east of Scotland, and the Labour Party will have to own those consequences—we will make sure that it does.
In relation to energy prices, individuals were promised a cut of £300 to their energy bills, but that is not happening under the Labour Government.
Rachel Reeves yesterday made the same mistake as John Swinney, with a “Benefits Street” budget that increased tax on workers, pensioners and savers. The Scottish benefits bill is set to soar to close to £10 billion by the end of this decade. How does John Swinney intend to pay for that?
The Scottish Government will set out its budget in January, which will, of course, following the pattern of all the budgets that we have set out, be a balanced budget. Because of all the years of balanced budgets under the Scottish National Party Government since 2007, Moody’s is able to say that Scotland benefits from “prudent financial management”, and Standard & Poor’s is able to say that Scotland benefits from “prudent financial planning”. I would have thought that those assessments from credit rating agencies—those independent voices that comment on economies around the world—would be of some solace and comfort to Mr Hoy and give him something to be cheerful about. Given that we have such strong financial planning, even Mr Hoy should be satisfied with our performance.
It would be churlish not to welcome the about-turn on the two-child benefit cap—it is better late than never. That, of course, benefits children and their families, but it also puts money into the local economy, because that money helps people to pay inflationary food and energy bills. It is a good thing all round.
Yes, and it also complements the work that the Scottish Government is doing on the Scottish child payment, for example. We are putting money directly into household finances, which enables families to spend locally, to have more control over their resources and to be better able to support their families. That is exactly the type of impact that will be felt in Christine Grahame’s constituency, as it will be felt in constituencies the length and breadth of Scotland.
16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government plans to commemorate the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. (S6F-04480)
Last Friday, I launched the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence in Perth city, in my constituency. Ministers will take part in a national leadership event, a vigil and a parliamentary debate and will visit local projects. Tackling gender-based violence is not a commitment for only 16 days, however; it is a commitment for 365 days a year. That is why we will continue to implement our equally safe strategy, which focuses on prevention and is backed by £21.6 million of expenditure for the current financial year.
I welcome to the public gallery representatives from Women’s Rights Network Scotland and Beira’s Place, along with survivors of domestic abuse. Today, we held a vigil outside the Parliament, remembering the 46 women who have been killed by men in Scotland in the past five years. Behind every statistic is a real-life story of a woman whose future has been erased and whose family has been shattered.
Shockingly, the statistics continue to rise. The latest figures show that almost 64,000 incidents of domestic abuse have been recorded by Police Scotland, while there has been an 11 per cent increase in the number of reported rape cases. Let us also not forget that there are grooming gangs operating in Scotland, although the Scottish National Party Government wants to believe that they are not a problem, so it sticks its head in the sand.
Will the First Minister finally commit to backing my Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, which will better monitor perpetrators and prevent potential victims from becoming victims in the first place? Will he do the right thing and also agree to a grooming gangs inquiry, so that we can uncover the true scale of the abuse of women and girls that is occurring in Scotland?
Presiding Officer, Pam Gosal raises many serious issues, to which I would like to give substantial answers.
First, I welcome the groups that are here. I commend them for their courage and for commemorating the 46 women who have been killed by men. Every single time a woman is killed by a man in our society, it is a totally unacceptable crime and it appals all of us, regardless of our politics.
My second point is on the bill that Pam Gosal has introduced. The Government will engage constructively on the bill. We have already legislated on the issue through different measures—the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Act 2025 is an example, as is the previous domestic abuse legislation—to strengthen the legislative position so that there is absolutely no tolerance of domestic violence in our society.
The issue of grooming gangs is a very complex one, to which the Government is giving detailed consideration. On Monday, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Minister for Children, Young People and the Promise, I was briefed by Police Scotland and the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group on the prevalence of those issues in Scotland. The national group met to review those issues yesterday, and I have personally conducted a discussion on them with Professor Alexis Jay.
I hope that putting all those details on the record today will give Pam Gosal and colleagues in Parliament the confidence and assurance that the Government is looking in detail at all those questions. Nobody is putting their head in the sand. These matters are being looked at in detail. There are complexities around the interaction of the call that has been made for us on the issue with the child abuse inquiry that we have already statutorily established, so there are no straightforward ways through the issue. However, I assure Parliament that the Government is giving every serious consideration to this important issue.
The prevention of male violence in all its forms is preferable, both morally and practically. During this parliamentary session, we have an opportunity to legislate to tackle male demand for prostitution and to really disrupt the trade in women and girls, which is both a cause and a consequence of violence. Does the First Minister agree that we must do all that we can to ensure that that legislation is fit for purpose and that it passes, so that we can finally make good on a policy position that we have held for decades—that prostitution is violence against women and we will not accept the harm that it causes for a second longer?
As the Minister for Victims and Community Safety made clear to the Criminal Justice Committee last week, although the Scottish Government strongly supports the principle of legislating to criminalise those who purchase sex, we retain a neutral stance on the Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill. It is clear that a number of stakeholders have voiced concerns about the safety of women, and it is paramount that the legislation laid before Parliament must be safe for women involved in and exiting prostitution and must recognise online exploitation. It is paramount that, alongside a number of other issues with the bill that the committee has heard about, that must be addressed by the member in charge if the bill is to have the confidence of Parliament.
I assure Ruth Maguire of the sustained and detailed attention and engagement of the Government in taking forward legislation and in contributing to the discussion about addressing the issues.
One of the few areas of gender-based violence that is currently condoned by the Scottish Government is the violence of prostitution. Therefore, I welcome the Government’s support—its qualified support—for the principle of my unbuyable bill, which will give the police the powers that they need to close that gap in the law. Will the First Minister meet me and a group of survivors, so that he can hear at first hand about the horrible realities of prostitution?
As Ash Regan properly sets out, the Government is engaging constructively on the bill, and I would be very happy for the minister responsible to engage with Ash Regan and others on the bill. As I said in my response to Ruth Maguire—I say this out of a desire to be helpful—there are challenging issues with the bill that we must properly address to ensure that the legislation can be applied, and the Government will engage in that process.
Mossmorran
To ask the First Minister, in light of ExxonMobil’s announcement of the closure of the Mossmorran ethylene plant, what action the Scottish Government is taking to mitigate any damage this will cause to the Cowdenbeath area and the wider Scottish economy. (S6F-04483)
I reiterate my deep disappointment and concern at that decision, and I assure the workforce at the Fife ethylene plant that the Scottish Government is committed to doing whatever it can to safeguard jobs there and to secure an industrial future for the site.
The Deputy First Minister has engaged extensively with all who have an interest in supporting the workforce and the local economy at Mossmorran, including the trade unions, workforce representatives, Fife Council and the United Kingdom Government, which holds the levers for industrial intervention at the scale that we have seen in England and Wales. We have also joined partners, including Fife Council, in calling for a pause to the closure, to ensure that all options to secure the industrial future of the site have been exhausted. I welcome Mr Rowley’s participation in the discussions on Monday.
I acknowledge the hard work and professionalism shown by the Deputy First Minister in mobilising the key stakeholders that will be required to begin dealing with the impact of the announcement. On Tuesday, at Fife College, I attended a meeting at which ExxonMobil was very clear that the feed to the site will be shut off in February and that the closure will go ahead as announced.
Although Fife Council will chair the task force that is being set up, does the First Minister acknowledge that, if we are to achieve a new industrial future at Mossmorran that will create significant opportunities in skills and employment, the Scottish Government will have to play a major role in co-ordinating that response? Does the First Minister accept that, in order to address the impact of the closure, we must see substantial investment from both the UK and Scottish Governments?
Presiding Officer, let me correct what I said. I referred to Monday when, in fact, the meeting was on Tuesday. Regardless, I welcomed Mr Rowley’s participation in that discussion.
I confirm to Mr Rowley that the Scottish Government will be an active and critical player in the response at Mossmorran. Mr Rowley and I have worked together for long enough to remember our engagement on issues relating to previous industrial closures in the Fife communities that he has championed. We will have that again in this case, and we will work collaboratively with Fife Council.
Scottish Enterprise has a lot to contribute to the process, with many projects emerging from the work that has been undertaken on a preparatory basis in Grangemouth. That full intelligence will be available to the group at Mossmorran. I recognise that there will be resource implications, given all that is involved, and the Government will consider those as part of our budget process.
We move to constituency and general supplementary questions. Concise questions and responses give more members a chance to take part.
Scotch Whisky Duty
The Scotch Whisky Association has warned that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s decision to further increase duty on Scotch whisky will put additional pressure on a sector that is already suffering job losses, stalled investment and business closures. Does the First Minister agree that that was the wrong decision, given the challenges facing the industry, and will he highlight what the Scottish Government is doing to support the sector?
The issues that Mr MacDonald raises are very important and significant. Calls for the disparity in alcohol duty to be addressed in the budget went unheard. There will now be a rise in duty rates amounting to 18 per cent over three years.
The Scotch whisky industry is an important sector to the Scottish economy. As Mr MacDonald will be aware, I worked assiduously over the summer to try to resolve another issue that is presenting challenges to the Scotch whisky industry—the tariffs applied by the United States. I await the outcome of the United Kingdom Government’s approach to that issue. I am becoming increasingly concerned that no solution has been offered, despite the hard work that has been done on the issue. I recognise that the industry is operating in a challenging environment, and the Scottish Government will support it in any way that it can.
Sport Budget
Scottish sports governing bodies are collectively saying that they are increasingly unable to deliver core functions due to a continuing squeeze on their funding. Not only are increasing numbers of competitors being asked to pay to represent their country, but projects that are designed to increase participation opportunities and to reach out into our communities, especially in the most deprived areas, are being cut. There is much talk of improving the nation’s health through early intervention and prevention. Surely physical activity is the very essence of improving physical and mental health. Is it the Scottish Government’s intention to honour its 2021 manifesto pledge to double the sport budget by the end of this parliamentary session?
I have received correspondence from a number of sports organisations on that important question. I acknowledge the centrality of Mr Whittle’s points and the necessity of investment. The Government is investing £46.43 million in the sport and active living budget. We are operating in constrained financial circumstances, but we will do all that we can to boost the funding that is available for sport. I do not want to sour these exchanges, but I point out to Mr Whittle that his party leader has just demanded that I use £150 million for a tax cut.
Spend to save.
Mr Whittle is shouting “spend to save” at me, but the money has to be available to spend in the first place. That comes about through constructive engagement on the budget. The Conservatives voted against the budget last year. I do not know what they will do this year, but I encourage the Parliament to come to considered conclusions about the priorities in the budget, and the Government will be willing to engage with members on that question.
University Tuition Fees
The First Minister might be aware of the case of Leo Huisman, who recently completed an optometry course at the University of the Highlands and Islands. Leo is a British citizen who lived abroad with his family, but they were forced to flee to Scotland. However, because they are British citizens, they are not considered refugees. The Scottish Government allows universities to waive higher university fees for migrants and refugees who seek humanitarian protection. Leo has paid home tuition fees to UHI, but it is now asking him to pay £23,000 as an overseas student in order for him to graduate. He has a job lined up and a supportive employer, but he simply does not have £23,000. If he does not graduate, his four years at university will be totally worthless and his skills will be lost to Scotland. Leo has written to the First Minister. Will the First Minister intervene simply to allow Leo to graduate so that his qualification does not go to waste?
I have not seen that correspondence yet, but I will ask my office to put it to me when I return after First Minister’s question time. I will look at the case and see what I can do. Rhoda Grant makes a completely reasonable and understandable point. Given ophthalmology waiting lists, more optometrists might be quite handy, so I will have a look at the issue and do what I can to help.
Energy Profits Levy (Impact in North-east Scotland)
Today, people across Aberdeen and the north-east are worried about their jobs, their families and the future of their communities. Investment in the North Sea is at a record low, and a Robert Gordon University report states that 1,000 jobs a month are being lost. Despite the swathe of warnings from experts, Labour failed to scrap the energy profits levy this week and remains wedded to that tax on the north-east. Does the First Minister share my concern that Labour’s choices will cost jobs and drive a more rapid decline in the North Sea? What steps will his Government take to preserve skills, save jobs and ensure a truly just transition?
As I have already indicated, I am deeply disappointed that the energy profits levy remains in place. It is deeply damaging to the prospects for employment and opportunity in the north-east of Scotland. The Scottish Government is putting in place support to the tune of more than £120 million through our just transition and energy transition funds, which has been invested in the north-east to support the region’s transition. We will continue to be steadfast supporters of the transition in the north-east, supporting the communities as they face a very challenging situation that has been made worse by the preservation of the energy profits levy.
Maternity Services (Forth Valley)
Forth Valley royal hospital maternity service in Larbert is the latest maternity service to receive a damning report from an unannounced inspection. The report highlighted that mothers were being put at serious risk and that some had to wait up to 62 hours to be induced. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that lessons are learned from the report and that safeguards are put in place to protect mothers and their unborn babies as a matter of urgency?
The purpose of the review reports that have been undertaken for every maternity service in the country is to ensure that practices are actively challenged so that they can be improved. That is what is under way, and that is why the Forth Valley service has been inspected. It is, I think, the third inspection that has been undertaken. If we consider the example of Tayside, which was the first investigation, we can see that many of the recommendations that were made in relation to the services there have now been implemented, and that will be the position in Forth Valley.
Hospice Staff Salaries
A report this week by Hospice UK found that two thirds of hospices in Scotland have made cuts or are planning to do so within the next year due to financial pressures. Every time that there are salary rises in the national health service, hospice staff do not directly benefit, and, therefore, there are pressures on recruitment and retention. At the same time that the Scottish Government is considering the funding of proposals for assisted dying, does the First Minister share my view that we should assist hospices with funding salaries to the same level as in the NHS in future?
I am very sympathetic to the point about hospice costs. In July this year, £5 million of funding was distributed to support independent hospices to deliver pay parity for clinical staff with their NHS counterparts—that is the Government intervening to do exactly that.
What is difficult for hospices is when they get surprises, such as employer national insurance contribution increases, because those put up the costs of employment. Jackie Baillie raised with me the financial pressures, and, bluntly, that is where some of the financial pressures are coming from.
I very much want to do all that we can to support the hospice movement, for which I have enormous respect. The issues in relation to hospice care and palliative care are central to the human rights of individuals in our society. Jackie Baillie knows that my public position—this is a personal position and not the Government’s—is that I am opposed to assisted dying legislation, and I do not think that it is appropriate for the issues of palliative care and assisted dying to be in any way connected. They are separate issues. The right to palliative care for individuals in our society is absolute, and we should do all that we can to support the sector. The Government will certainly do all that it can in that respect.
HIV
Monday is world AIDS day. Despite huge progress around the world in the development of treatments to prevent and manage HIV, we cannot fully rest on our efforts until a permanent vaccine is universally available around the world.
Scotland is signed up to the ambition to eliminate all new cases of HIV by 2030 and I am pleased to say that we are making good progress on that—but it is the last cohort of people living with complex cases of HIV who will be the hardest both to find and to treat.
Is the Government fully committed to further rolling out opt-out testing for HIV and universal access to pre-exposure prophylaxis—PrEP—and will the First Minister recommit his Government to the shared ambition that Scotland can, and probably should, become the first place in the world to eradicate all new cases in the next four years?
I warmly recommit the Government to achieving that objective by 2030. As Mr Greene states fairly, the operational plans that are being delivered to achieve that are on track and good progress is being made. However, we have to sustain that focus to make sure that we can achieve that objective. It is part of a global effort and we will succeed in that effort only if we start by addressing the issues here.
The other point that I would add is that we must also tackle stigma. There is still too much stigma around HIV and, as a tolerant, respectful and courteous society, we should do all that we can to eliminate that as we work together to achieve the objectives that Mr Greene has put to me.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Jackson Carlaw. There will be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.
12:46 Meeting suspended.