Official Report 1214KB pdf
Justice System
Claire Inglis was a loving and happy young mum who was tortured and murdered by a man whom she had just begun a relationship with. The judge described Claire’s murder as “beyond sadistic”. The serial criminal who killed her had 40 convictions and was a known danger to women and children, yet he was repeatedly bailed to the home that Claire shared with her young son. Claire’s parents, Fiona and Ian, have spent four years fighting and pleading for information, and they are here today. It is their third time coming to the public gallery during First Minister’s questions. Does John Swinney agree that no family should be forced into the media glare and on to the political stage to get answers from Scotland’s justice system?
Mr Findlay has raised the tragic case of Claire Inglis with me before, and I had the pleasure—thanks to the assistance of Mr Findlay’s staff—of being able to meet Mr and Mrs Inglis on their previous visit to the Parliament. I extend my sympathy to Mr and Mrs Inglis for the tragedy that they have experienced.
I agree with Mr Findlay that no family should have to suffer as Mr and Mrs Inglis have suffered. The issues in connection with the handling of the case surrounding the perpetrator of the murder of Claire Inglis are being explored by the Crown, and the Lord Advocate has taken independent decisions on the matter.
Ian and Fiona are here out of devotion to their daughter and a determination to force the full truth from the authorities. As a result of their pressure, the Crown Office instructed a social work expert to investigate the circumstances of Claire’s murder. The expert’s report is truly damning. It says that Claire Inglis and her son were “invisible in the system” and that the repeated granting of bail to Claire’s home was “a major safeguarding lapse”. The Crown asked the expert to establish whether system defects caused or contributed to Claire’s murder, but Fiona and Ian have not been told the answer to that critical question. That is because the Crown gave them only a brief summary of the report. Will John Swinney back the release of the full report?
There will be issues in relation to the release of the full report that I am not sighted on today. The Lord Advocate has, in her period in office since 2021, brought to Government an intense focus on the awful experience of victims in our criminal justice system. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has undertaken to bring the perpetrators of heinous crimes to justice. I will therefore ask her whether there can be further dialogue with Mr and Mrs Inglis on the contents of the report in order to ensure that the issues about which they remain concerned can be properly and fully aired.
There may well be issues in relation to data handling, with which Mr Findlay will be familiar, that constrain the release of the full report. If the report can be released, I am very happy for it to be released, but there may well be reasons why it cannot be. I will ask the Lord Advocate to engage further with Mr and Mrs Inglis to ensure that they can have a fuller understanding and to help them to come to terms with the tragic loss that they have suffered.
I agree that the Lord Advocate’s focus is sincere and welcome, but the way in which the Inglis family is being treated is cruel and disrespectful. In 2022, Stirling Council held a serious incident review of Claire’s murder, which concluded that a full review was not needed. The expert disagrees, saying that a comprehensive review is “absolutely necessary”. However, to the astonishment of Fiona and Ian, the Crown Office says that it has still not decided whether their daughter’s murder merits a fatal accident inquiry.
Fiona told me:
“When we came here last year, we looked John Swinney in the eye and took him at his word that our questions would be answered, but we are still being kept in the dark.”
Will John Swinney back the family’s calls for a fatal accident inquiry?
I am trying to be as helpful as I can. I hope that Mr Findlay understands the sincerity of my engagement on the issue. The calling of a fatal accident inquiry is a matter for the Lord Advocate independently. I understand that Mr Findlay is able to call for such inquiries but, as First Minister, I have to respect the independence of the Lord Advocate. For me to act otherwise would contravene my oath of office, which I will not do.
The process of investigation that was originally conceived of in Stirling Council was not acceptable—it was not good enough. That is why I asked the Crown to look at the matter again and why Mr Findlay has the report in his possession. That was at my instigation; I judged that the initial inquiries were totally unsatisfactory.
There is a matter of further consideration as to whether a fatal accident inquiry would shed any more light on the issue than the exercise on which Mr Findlay has the report. However, I will raise these issues directly with the Lord Advocate and ask her for her consideration of the matter, to ensure that Mr and Mrs Inglis have as much support as possible to come to terms with the loss that they have suffered.
Another reason why an FAI is absolutely critical is that the Crown’s report reveals a major flaw at the heart of Scotland’s bail system. It says that
“social workers are not obligated to verify bail addresses”,
which explains why a violent criminal who was a known danger to women and children was repeatedly bailed to Claire’s home address. The report describes that as a “systemic flaw”.
My party has published a paper today setting out changes that are needed to fix Scotland’s justice system and to put victims first. Fiona and Ian have urged the Government to back that specific change so that courts must check the veracity and safety of addresses. They say that that could prevent another family from suffering such a tragedy. Will John Swinney commit to urgently ending the bail blind spot that is putting women and children in danger?
I am familiar with the points that Mr Findlay has raised and, as always with issues that relate to the criminal justice system, we will give them consideration.
I hope that this provides some degree of reassurance, but under the recent legislation that the Parliament approved, the single bail test makes it clear that the court should specifically consider the protection of the victim from the risk of physical and psychological harm before making a decision on bail. In my view, that would provide the type of protection that Mr Findlay is looking for, and it is already in statute.
I appreciate that that is of absolutely no comfort to Mr and Mrs Inglis in the loss that they have suffered, but I hope that it reassures members of the public that the Government is taking action to ensure that the type of experience that Mr and Mrs Inglis have faced will be mitigated in the future because of the steps that we have taken to change the law.
I will, of course, give consideration to the points that Mr Findlay has raised and, as always, I will be happy to see Mr and Mrs Inglis, if that would be of any assistance to them.
Justice System
John Swinney and the Scottish National Party are failing to keep Scots safe. On John Swinney’s watch, our justice system is in crisis, as Scots are paying the price of SNP incompetence. This week, Scottish Labour revealed that there are 10,000 outstanding warrants for arrest in Scotland. That includes seven warrants for murder, five for attempted murder, 40 for rape, 1,253 for assault, 72 for domestic violence and 605 for drug charges. There are potential murderers, rapists and drug dealers on our streets. With 10,000 outstanding warrants in Scotland and prison numbers outstripping capacity by several hundred, apart from letting criminals out early or not arresting them at all, what will John Swinney do to tackle the crisis?
The first thing that I would say, to give some context to the issue that Mr Sarwar is raising, is that Scotland is a safer place since this Government took office. Recorded crime remains below the position immediately prior to the pandemic in 2019-20 and is down 39 per cent since 2006-07, when this Government came into office.
I acknowledge that, at any moment, there will be outstanding arrest warrants. The execution of warrants is an operational matter for Police Scotland, which remains focused on the investigation of crime and on keeping communities safe. Police numbers are well supported in the country; the latest official statistics show that there were 16,427 police officers as of 30 June 2025, and there remains a healthy recruitment pipeline for police officers in Scotland.
The Government is taking action to address the size of the prison population, but there are significant constraints in relation to the proposals that the Government puts forward for which prisoners can be considered eligible for early release. Those standards will be rigorously applied in all that the Government takes forward.
That is a woeful answer to the fact that there are 10,000 outstanding arrest warrants in Scotland. John Swinney is unable to admit to his Government’s failure, but if he will not listen to me, maybe he will listen to people who are working on the front line. Only yesterday, the Prison Officers Association published a report that says that our prisons are at crisis point, with
“serious overcrowding and understaffing ... increased levels of violence, widespread drug misuse and self harm”
and
“plummeting staff morale”.
Unbelievably, his justice secretary said yesterday that the SNP will not build any more prisons because, in her words,
“If we build them, they will come.”
Angela Costner—sorry, I mean Angela Constance—thinks that having more prison places encourages crime, but letting criminals out early discourages crime. That might be one of the most incoherent and stupidest things that I have ever heard in my life. What are they going to claim next—that building more hospitals will somehow make people in Scotland more ill? Who does John Swinney agree with: Angela Constance or prison officers?
One of the many flaws in Mr Sarwar’s argument as he has just put it to me is that the Government is currently implementing the proposal to build HMP Glasgow to a design capacity of 1,344 prisoners, which will add 357 places to the overall prison estate. That debunks the nonsense that Mr Sarwar has just put to me in his diatribe.
There is a serious issue that the Parliament has to address, which is this: because of the successful prosecution of people who have committed serious crimes—many of them historic—in our society, people are serving longer sentences. Therefore, there are more long-term prisoners in our prison estate. Of the 8,000 or so prisoners who are currently in our prison estate, 2,000 are on remand. A proportion of those prisoners will not end up in the system on a long-term basis. Therefore, there are judgments to be made by the criminal justice system, independently, about the issues in relation to whether an individual should be on remand.
The other issue is about short-term sentences. There have been umpteen reports—indeed, a report that has been welcomed warmly by Mr Sarwar’s colleagues in the United Kingdom Government was produced by David Gauke, who was a very imaginative Secretary of State for Justice in the Conservative Government. Mr Gauke’s report indicates the issues that have got to be considered about short-term prison sentences.
There is a debate that must be had here in the Parliament—which my justice secretary is undertaking with numerous statements to the Parliament and a comprehensive committee appearance yesterday—about the appropriateness of prison in all circumstances for all prisoners.
I do not want my comments to be misunderstood. People who have committed heinous crimes and have been sentenced to long-term imprisonment should serve those sentences. However, there are debates to be had about the appropriateness of prison in all circumstances, because of the pressures on the prison estate. There must be appropriate disposals for individuals. Community justice authorities, the funding for which the Government has substantially increased, have a role to play. All those factors are relevant in a rational debate about the prison population, and I hope that Mr Sarwar is able to contribute to that.
John Swinney and the Scottish National Party have been in charge of the justice system for 18 years—nobody else. On their watch, the entire justice system is in chaos. The fact that all the SNP has to offer is bizarre comments and rank incompetence proves that we cannot risk a third decade of this incompetent SNP Government.
We face rising levels of violent crime, the legalisation, in effect—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
SNP members do not want to hear it, because that is their record.
We face rising levels of violent crime, the legalisation, in effect, of shoplifting and the existence of 10,000 outstanding arrest warrants, but what does the SNP do in response? It bills the taxpayer £1 billion for a prison that was supposed to cost £100 million; it allows hundreds of drug dealers to walk free; it cuts police numbers; it closes police stations across Scotland; it lets criminals out early; and it pushes our prisons to breaking point. So when will John Swinney finally admit that his record—the SNP’s record—on justice is nothing short of criminal?
Mr Sarwar said that everything that has happened to date is the responsibility of my Government. I accept that responsibility. I am a First Minister who stands here every week and takes responsibility—I do not dodge it for a moment. [Interruption.]
We have listened to Mr Sarwar’s explanation. On this Government’s watch, the latest figures for 2023-24 show that recorded crime is at one of the lowest levels since 1974, and that it has gone down by 39 per cent since 2006-07. Police numbers are higher than when this Government came into office. Recorded crime is at one of the lowest levels since 1974. [Interruption.]
Just a moment, First Minister. I point out that those who are attending in the gallery today wish to hear all questions and contributions.
I point out to members of the public in the gallery and to members of the public who are watching at home that, in all that diatribe from Mr Sarwar, six months before an election, he did not offer a single solution to the issues that we face.
In addition, when it comes to him putting his finger on the button to vote for a budget that would provide for police numbers, prison officers and prisons, Mr Sarwar does not vote for the Government’s provisions. What we have heard from him is just rhetoric and hypocrisy. I am proud to defend a record that includes our having one of the lowest levels of crime since 1974, and I will set that out to the people of Scotland.
Wealth Taxes
Scotland is a monumentally unequal country. There are a small number of people who are sitting on more wealth than they could spend in 1,000 lifetimes. About 420 people own almost half of our private land, but, this morning, thousands of children will have gone to school hungry because of poverty. The Scottish Government’s own recent report showed that the top 2 per cent have the same amount of wealth as more than half the population combined.
This month, Scottish National Party members instructed their leadership to begin discussions with the United Kingdom Government about wealth taxes, but Scottish Government ministers have repeatedly rejected opportunities to tax wealth using the powers that they already have. They have rejected proposals to end tax breaks for big landowners, they have rejected proposals to end the King’s personal tax exemptions and they have rejected proposals to introduce a mansion tax. It is as though they are hoping that the public will not notice that, when push comes to shove, theirs is a Government that does not want to risk upsetting the rich and powerful. Can the First Minister name one proposal that he will bring forward before the election to tax wealth in Scotland?
Mr Greer will know from his detailed experience of engaging with the Government that we set out our tax proposals in relation to the budget, and that is exactly what the Government will do. We will give every consideration to those questions.
I am absolutely at one with Mr Greer’s concern about inequality in this country. That is why my Government is driven by the determination to eradicate child poverty, in which, as a consequence of the tax decisions that we have made, we are making progress in being the only part of the United Kingdom to have a falling level of child poverty, when it is projected to rise in every other part.
On some of the suggestions that Mr Greer has made, as he knows from his previous engagement—indeed, I have been engaged with some of these questions personally—we have explored some of the practical aspects of the proposals that he has put to us, and we have not been able to find a pathway that would work effectively without consequences that would be damaging to the policy intention. We have used the land and buildings transaction tax, for example, to weight tax charges towards the higher end of the income spectrum.
As I say, we will consider those issues in the formulation of the Government’s budget.
I look forward to discussions with the First Minister about the budget, because, as he mentioned, we have options. The reason why the Government could not agree to remove the King’s personal tax exemption had nothing to do with practical difficulties—I think that we can all understand why the Government did not support that.
There are options. Land and buildings transaction tax, non-domestic rates and council tax are all wealth taxes, and they are all entirely within the Scottish Government’s control. The largest single form of wealth in Scotland is property. Property wealth has surged by almost £100 billion in the past decade, but council tax is still stuck in 1990, so the poorest pay more than they should and the wealthiest get off with an absolute steal.
In turn, our local services are at breaking point. Families cannot get social care packages for elderly relatives. Children with additional needs go without the support that they need at school because the staff are not there. Community centres and libraries have closed. The Government promised to scrap the council tax 18 years ago, and this week it launched another consultation. The First Minister knows that that farce cannot continue, so will he commit today that, whichever options find the most support through the consultation, the Scottish Government will introduce a bill to reform or replace the council tax after the election?
In relation to council tax, the Government made and consulted on proposals for replacing the council tax when we put the prospect to the public in 2007, and we were unable to command a parliamentary majority on those questions. That is why we are trying to take steps with other parties to create a broader political consensus in favour of council tax reform, and we will endeavour to do that.
In the previous budget, for which we appreciated the support of the Green Party, we were able to deliver a much better settlement that improved the financing of local government. I pay tribute to Green and Liberal Democrat colleagues for voting for the budget, unlike everybody else in here, who was not interested in giving a better settlement to local government—at least the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP were.
We will continue to engage constructively to support local services, because I share Mr Greer’s view that we rely on local services to support the population in Scotland.
Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has had any initial response from the United Kingdom Government in relation to the letter sent to the Minister of State for Food Security and Rural Affairs on 22 October regarding the fishing and coastal growth fund. (S6F-04404)
We have had no reply to that letter. Scotland previously received 46 per cent of the United Kingdom’s European Union fisheries funding allocation, compared with just 7.78 per cent of the new UK fund, which is spread over 12 years, with no guarantees beyond the current UK parliamentary session.
We are told that the UK fund is specifically aimed at revitalising the fishing sector, so allocations should reflect the relative size and importance of Scotland’s fishing sector. Scottish industry leaders have urged UK ministers to reconvene a meeting of the Scottish seafood industry action group to discuss the issue, and we plan to support that call in writing.
The recent funding announcement is yet another example of a UK Government that does not understand or care about our fishing and coastal communities.
Fishing is a hugely important contributor to the local economy in south-west Scotland, including in Kirkcudbright, where landing and processing take place. Given that, and given the pressures that the sector faces, which range from proposed cuts to quotas to dealing with the on-going impacts of Brexit, does the First Minister agree that the deal, which is an insult to and betrayal of Scotland and our fishing sector, cannot stand and must be reconsidered? What further steps will the Scottish Government take to protect and support the Scottish fishing sector?
I very much agree with Emma Harper’s point and reiterate to Parliament that Scotland previously received 46 per cent of the UK’s EU fisheries funding allocation, but the figure has now gone down to 7.78 per cent, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of fish in the United Kingdom are landed here in Scotland. That is completely and utterly inequitable.
I saw one of my parliamentary colleagues in the House of Commons asking whether the Secretary of State for Scotland had made any representations to ministers about that point. No answer was forthcoming, so it would be interesting to know whether the Secretary of State for Scotland actually bothered to stand up for Scotland or whether this is just another example of the UK Government taking a decision that is prejudicial to Scotland.
I assure Emma Harper and colleagues who represent constituencies that have an interest in fishing that we will do everything that we can to get a different outcome for Scotland.
We know that 9 per cent of all fish landed in the UK comes through Shetland ports. Given that value, what percentage of the fishing and coastal growth fund can Shetland expect to receive via the Scottish Government?
If I have my numbers correct, Beatrice Wishart said that 9 per cent of the UK’s fishing allocation comes into Shetland, but Scotland is getting only 7.78 per cent of the fund, which means that Shetland’s contribution to fish landings exceeds the allocation of funding for the whole of Scotland and beautifully makes my point about the inequity of the situation.
We will engage constructively with Shetland Islands Council. I am seeing the leader of the council later this afternoon and I am sure that we will discuss the issue. I can assure Beatrice Wishart that we will work collaboratively with the industry in Shetland, but the fundamental inequity is in the UK Government’s funding allocation, and that is the issue that must be remedied.
Babcock (Fife)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that Babcock, in Fife, has had to hire workers from overseas as a result of reductions in some college courses. (S6F-04394)
The latest data shows that there are already more than 14,000 full-time-equivalent college students on engineering courses in Scotland. We are working to support colleges to meet Scotland’s future skills requirements and are investing £750 million in colleges in the current year.
Employers in Fife, such as Babcock, are crying out for investment in local skills to drive local growth and opportunities, but college budgets have been cut by a staggering 20 per cent over the past five years and the number of apprenticeships has sharply declined by as much as a third in the past decade. The truth is that the Scottish National Party Government has categorically failed to maintain investment in the skills that local employers need to fuel economic growth.
A local college source all but confirmed that, although there is the capacity to provide many more courses, colleges simply cannot afford to offer those courses to students, given the financial situation that the Government has placed colleges in. This year’s funding allocation included a £1.3 million cut on top of a 19.4 per cent reduction in the past three years, with the principal of the college stating that
“The scale of the challenge”
is now “precipitous”.
Does the First Minister accept that the reduction in investment in skills is making it harder for young people in Scotland to access training and employment and for our businesses to recruit the local workers they need?
There are a number of issues in that question. I can confirm to the Parliament that more than 25,000 people started a modern apprenticeship in Scotland in 2024-25 and that 39,000 individuals were in training at the end of quarter 4 of 2024-25.
Regarding college funding, allocations from the Scottish Funding Council provide a 2.6 per cent sector increase in teaching funding for 2025-26 compared with the previous year, and no college had a reduction in teaching funding in 2025-26 compared with the previous year. In addition, the Government is supporting the funding of Fife College’s new Dunfermline campus, which will be available to local people. [Interruption.]
Let me make a final point to Roz McCall, because I hear that I am being heckled by her and others. It is laughable for the Conservatives to come here and ask for more money for something if they will not vote for the Government’s budget. It is hypocrisy in action. We get it every year from the Conservatives, and I will call it out every time the Conservatives ask for more money in this Parliament.
I remind members that it would be helpful if we could hear one another.
The First Minister says that there has been a 2.6 per cent increase in funding, but a 2.6 per cent increase in one year does not undo a decade of underfunding of colleges in Scotland to the tune of 20 per cent. That means, as Colleges Scotland has said, fewer students being able to access a world-class college education. It is hardly a surprise, then, that we have a growing skills shortage and that firms such as Babcock are recruiting hundreds of welders from overseas just to keep work on track. All the while, nearly 250,000 young people in Scotland do not have jobs.
The Government’s choices are denying young people chances. Can the First Minister not see that? Why is he content to manage the decline of Scotland’s colleges and, in the process, deny Scotland’s young people the opportunities that they deserve?
We are, quite simply, not doing that, because the Government is allocating more funding to the college sector. We are investing in college infrastructure and, as I said to Roz McCall, we are just completing the investment in the new Dunfermline learning campus, with premises for Fife College.
The Government will sustain our investment in the college sector. We understand its importance. We see the significance of college funding in supporting the delivery of skills in Scotland, and that is at the heart of the Government’s budget—which, I point out, Pam Duncan-Glancy did not vote for, either.
McCloud Judgment
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is regarding the reported 200,000 public sector workers who are still waiting on their pension entitlement following the 2018 McCloud judgment on pension discrimination. (S6F-04397)
We recognise that the McCloud judgment affects the administration of pensions across the United Kingdom and that timelines have been extended to reflect the challenges of delivery. In Scotland, there are approximately 215,000 members of affected schemes that are administered by the Scottish Public Pensions Agency. We should note that the vast majority of those scheme members have not yet retired and will make their remedy choice on retirement. Of the 65,000 retired members who are affected, many will already be getting the best-value pension. For those who have a choice that enables a higher pension, they will receive any arrears, including interest, to be paid for by the United Kingdom Government. The Scottish Public Pensions Agency is working to ensure that all those who are awaiting their remedy receive it, with the bulk of statements being delivered by the end of 2026.
This has been described by those who are affected as a national scandal, and that is what it is. Public sector workers including nurses, police officers, firefighters and local government workers are still to receive pension funds amounting to tens of thousands of pounds.
Seven years on from the McCloud judgment on pension discrimination, 55,000 people are still waiting on pension remedy statements, which must be received before any compensation is paid. Some people have died waiting for their pension remedy statement from the Scottish Public Pensions Agency. It has broken at least two statutory deadlines, and it will miss a third deadline tomorrow. Delays are now expected to run until 2027. Every year in which a deadline is missed represents a cost to the taxpayer in interest payments of 8 per cent.
Does the First Minister agree that, after seven years, it is unacceptable that the SPPA has not put this right? Given that it is a Government agency, what action is the First Minister prepared to take to bring forward the work that is required to issue remedy statements and pay public sector pensioners on time? What further redress will he provide for those who are impacted by this debacle? Here, I am talking about those who have already retired on reduced pensions. He could at least agree—
Thank you, Ms McNeill.
—that there is a need for urgency.
I agree with that point. What I would provide as reassurance is that, when the remedy letters are issued, they will give a choice and, if a higher pension applies, the individuals will receive any arrears, including interest, which will be paid for by the United Kingdom Government. That issue has implications for the UK Government.
Work has been taken forward by the relevant minister, Ivan McKee. Colleagues know the assiduous way in which Mr McKee carries out his responsibilities. That has involved increasing the SPPA workforce by more than 30 per cent to ensure that experienced staff, who are necessary to calculate often complex recalculations of pension entitlement, are able to do so. I hope that that reassures Pauline McNeill that the Government has increased the SPPA’s resources quite significantly to ensure that we can make timeous progress on the issue.
Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022
To ask the First Minister for what reason the Scottish Government has reportedly abandoned key provisions of the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022, including the proposed licensing system, as communities prepare for potential disorder during bonfire night. (S6F-04405)
The majority of the 2022 act has been implemented, including support for local authorities to implement firework control zones in order to tackle hotspots where disorder has been experienced. We have also introduced new offences of providing fireworks or pyrotechnics to children and of using fireworks to attack emergency workers.
The licensing system has been paused due to the cost of introducing it at present, but that will be kept under review. Anyone taking part in illegal activity or disorder can expect a robust response from Police Scotland, as demonstrated by the recent major seizures of fireworks.
The Parliament passed that law more than three years ago to protect the public and our emergency services. There have been four bonfire nights since the law was enacted, and the constituents and emergency services that I worked with to introduce the law remain at their wit’s end. With respect to the First Minister, I note that firework control zones do not work without controls on purchasing.
Only the United Kingdom Government can ban fireworks, but the public consultation on the issue was one of the most responded-to consultations that this Parliament has ever run. In constituencies across Scotland, communities on the front line—mine is one of them—have become annual bonfire night war zones. Those communities deserve the use by Scotland of all the powers that we have available to us to help them, but they are now bracing for impact. Firefighters, police officers and paramedics continuously put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public, and they deserve more than warm words—they deserve the delivery of the law. The licensing system is still undelivered, and vital fire stations such as Marionville, in my constituency, face closure. Public trust is on the line, so will the First Minister commit to looking again at implementing the law in full?
I reassure Ash Regan that a number of the law’s central provisions have already been implemented, including the prohibition on providing or making available fireworks or pyrotechnic articles to children, a new statutory aggravation for courts to use when sentencing offenders who have used fireworks to attack emergency service workers, the powers relating to firework control zones and new offences on possession of pyrotechnics in public places and at designated venues and events.
Very strong action has been taken, but I come back to the point that I made in my original answer, which is that anyone who takes part in illegal activity or disorder can expect a robust response from Police Scotland. That is what has taken place in the past, and I expect that to be the case in the future.
Animal welfare charities are raising concerns about the severe distress that fireworks cause to many animals. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has said that the delay in implementing the licensing scheme will prolong the period of unacceptable risk to animal welfare. Will the Scottish Government consider early implementation of licensing and restrictions on the days when fireworks can be used and sold in order to protect animals?
Those issues will be kept under review, as I said to Ash Regan. The Minister for Victims and Community Safety has liaised with the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission on our work to mitigate the impact of fireworks, including on how noise affects animals.
The Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 remains only partially implemented, the Female Genital Mutilation (Protection and Guidance) (Scotland) Act 2020 has not been implemented, and now the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022 has been quietly paused. That is only the latest example of the Government talking tough when passing legislation and then sneakily dropping it when it becomes inconvenient. How can the public have confidence that the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill will be fully implemented? Can the First Minister explain why the public—and, indeed, this Parliament—had to find out about the U-turn through the press instead of the minister?
I assure Sharon Dowey that the Government will focus intently on implementing the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. It has been legislated for by the Parliament and we are taking it forward, as we do with other legislation that is approved by the Parliament.
We move to constituency and general supplementary questions. I suggest that members be concise.
Nuclear Waste (Dounreay)
Last week, it was revealed that a fragment of waste found in April near the decommissioned experimental nuclear power facility at Dounreay was the most radioactive waste detected in the past three years. Despite those clear environmental warnings, United Kingdom Labour ministers are threatening to impose expensive, unsafe and unnecessary new nuclear sites on Scotland. Does the First Minister agree that Labour should see sense and abandon its nuclear obsession?
The Scottish Government has been consistent in its opposition to the development of nuclear energy in Scotland. We think that Scotland has a golden opportunity to develop renewables and should concentrate on doing so.
Vandalism Charges (For Women Scotland)
Police Scotland has ordered a director of For Women Scotland to attend a police station to face vandalism charges over a complaint about a broken umbrella. If she does not attend, she could be banned from Holyrood—a Parliament that is supposed to represent her, too. The optics of that for the Scottish Government are terrible. To many people, it looks like a threat to free speech and an attempt to silence criticism, silence women and intimidate that particular organisation. Who is protecting whom here? Does the First Minister agree that the police should focus on much more serious incidents than a broken umbrella? Does he think that Susan Smith should receive an immediate apology?
First, let me reassure Tess White that I believe in free speech and think that it should be protected at all times in our society. Secondly, I understand from media reports and the contents of Tess White’s question that the issue actively involves Police Scotland. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on a case that is under active engagement by Police Scotland. If I were to do that habitually, lots of members of Parliament would complain about my doing so.
Family Protection Plan (Maiden Life)
Insurance giant Maiden Life has suddenly announced that it is withdrawing the family protection plan that thousands of credit union members in Glasgow region have been paying into since it started in 1999. That immoral and callous withdrawal of the plan is causing widespread distress to my constituents in Glasgow and across the country. Does the First Minister share my condemnation of Maiden Life’s decision? Will he make a direct representation to the Financial Conduct Authority, along with the credit union working group, to demand immediate redress for the thousands of elderly Scots who will now be left unable to cover the cost of their funeral plans?
I am very sympathetic to the point that Mr Sweeney puts to me and will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to engage directly with him and make the representation that he asks for. Credit unions provide an essential foundation in our society, particularly for people who are on low incomes and have low savings levels. It is important that financial security is available to them.
National Health Service (Investment)
I remind members that I am employed as a bank nurse by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
This week, the Scottish National Party Government announced the largest-ever investment in general practitioner services in Scotland, through the provision of more than £500 million over the next three years to support recruitment. Latest national health service waiting list figures show that long waits are down for the fourth month in a row, while NHS activity is rising. Those tangible results show what happens when an SNP Scottish Government delivers for Scotland’s NHS. What steps is the SNP Government—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
What steps is the SNP Government taking to build on that progress—[Interruption.]
I am sorry to stop you, Ms Haughey. Members, this is a matter of basic courtesy. Surely we can afford one another that most basic courtesy.
Ms Haughey, please continue.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. What steps is the SNP Government taking to build on that progress, boost capacity in our NHS and ensure that Scots continue to have access to the highest-quality NHS services?
I am very pleased that we are seeing a decrease in new out-patient waits that last for longer than a year. I am delighted that we are seeing the total waiting list for out-patients, in-patients and day-case lists decreasing compared with that in the same month last year. I am delighted, too, that the number of treatment time guarantee waits for more than a year have decreased by 6 per cent when compared with those for last month. I am also delighted that the health secretary has managed to reach agreement with the British Medical Association’s Scottish general practitioners committee, which will see general practice receive additional funding of more than £500 million over the next three years. Given my commitment to deliver 15 walk-in GP clinics across Scotland, added to the falling numbers on NHS waiting lists, the Scottish people can look forward to a strong national health service under Scottish National Party leadership.
Offshore Wind Park (Community Representation)
The First Minister may or may not be aware of the Moray Firth floating offshore wind park project—FLOW-Park—that it is proposed should be developed off Findhorn and Nairn, and which would create wet storage facilities for offshore wind platforms. I have already met fishermen who are deeply concerned about the proposal, and on 11 November I will attend a public meeting in which hundreds of people have expressed an interest. I do not want the First Minister to tell me that he cannot comment on planning or licensing applications. However, perhaps he can help me to answer the age-old question that his Government is failing on: how can I ensure that the communities in Scotland that I represent are better heard and represented in the decision-making process?
There is a full range of different opportunities for those issues to be properly and fully considered. A huge amount of scrutiny is applied to applications of that type, and significant assessments are required, particularly for environmental reasons. Mr Eagle will be familiar with the contents of those, because they are part and parcel of statute. There are opportunities for engagement on all those questions.
Sheku Bayoh Inquiry
Will the First Minister give us an update on the Sheku Bayoh inquiry? Can he assure us that we will not spend another £50 million on it and that it will be concluded timeously?
I very much regret that Lord Bracadale felt it necessary to resign from chairing the Sheku Bayoh inquiry. I want to place on record my admiration and appreciation—and those of the Government—of the service that Lord Bracadale has given to the inquiry, which I think has been exemplary, but I respect and understand his decision to step down. The Deputy First Minister has thanked Lord Bracadale for his work and is now engaging on how to progress the inquiry. We will keep Parliament updated on the steps that are necessary to do so.
As Mr Mason will know, we have to undertake statutory consultation on the chairing of the inquiry. That will be undertaken timeously, and we will keep Parliament advised of the steps that we take.
That concludes First Minister’s question time.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Point of Order