Chamber and committees

Residents of Bothwell in my region have been left shaken by the spate of targeted firebombing attacks on restaurants in the area. Four premises have been targeted by arson attacks over the past six years, with two taking place in September. People living in Bothwell have expressed fear and frustration, with one individual saying:

“it feels like it is becoming a no-go area socially.”

There are now empty plots where restaurants once stood; jobs have been lost; and families have been impacted by recent events.

Bothwell residents deserve not just answers but reassurance. What reassurance can the First Minister give my constituents that Police Scotland is taking those events seriously? Will he ask the relevant minister to make inquiries to ensure that all information that can be made public is being circulated within the community?

I, too, thank Jamie Hepburn for bringing this celebratory event to the chamber. In planning terms, 70 years is practically adolescence, but in Scottish political terms, it is several boundary reviews, a few economic cycles and at least one argument about whether the A80 was finished properly.

Cumbernauld was founded in 1955 as a bold experiment—a vision of post-war optimism that was designed to house Glasgow overspill and create a forward-looking, pedestrian-friendly community. Opinions will differ as to whether the town centre looks like a modernist masterpiece or a crash-landed concrete spaceship, but nobody can deny the ambition or the personalities that reside in Cumbernauld. The town’s achievements are far greater than its architectural quirks, and it has produced remarkable people including musicians such as Jon Fratelli, actors, athletes and artists. Jamie Hepburn mentioned a few of the local legends in Cumbernauld—they are, of course, the folk who can find their way out of the town centre on their first attempt.

However, Cumbernauld’s greatest strength is not concrete. It is community, and nowhere is that community more alive, vibrant and vital than in Cumbernauld theatre. For decades, the theatre, in both the old and new buildings, has been the cultural heart of the town—a home for local drama, youth arts, live music, pantomimes, poetry and civic pride. It has nurtured talent, inspired generations and kept culture alive in the town, yet today this vital institution faces the threat of closure. A funding package involving the Scottish Government, Creative Scotland and North Lanarkshire Council hangs in the balance.

Without real, practical financial support, the doors of this beloved theatre may close. Shutting Cumbernauld theatre would not be an efficiency; I believe that it would be an amputation within the town. It would silence one of Scotland’s most community-centred cultural venues at the very moment when we should be celebrating its contribution and investing in its future. A town that was built on bold ideas deserves better than to have its creative lifeline cut. Frankly, if a town centre with a confusing landscape can survive for 70 years, surely a theatre full of laughter, creativity and hope can survive a funding shortage.

I hope that colleagues across the parties, councils and agencies will recognise the value of this cultural cornerstone. We all need to come together to ensure that Cumbernauld theatre not only survives but thrives. It has to be a place where young people can discover confidence, where older residents can find community and where everyone, regardless of their background, can come together to create something meaningful.

As Cumbernauld celebrates its 70th year, this debate allows us to show that the spirit of the new town—the spirit of optimism, innovation and sheer determination—is still alive. Let us commit ourselves to safeguarding the theatre that embodies the spirit of the town. In 50 years’ time, when Cumbernauld marks its 120th anniversary, I want future generations not only to say, “What’s it called?”—I apologise to Jamie Hepburn—but to say, proudly, “That’s a town that kept its culture alive.”

I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on lodging the motion and securing a debate in the chamber on this important issue.

I must be honest: I believe that the proposal is 100 per cent daft. An SNP-led Scottish Government abolished the last remaining bridge toll in 2008, yet here we are in 2025 with an SNP-led council trying to introduce tolls on the Clyde tunnel, alongside an at-city-boundary charge, as many members have mentioned. You could not make it up. I have no idea how the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will try to square the circle, because these charges will have a profound impact on constituents across the central region.

South Lanarkshire, North Lanarkshire and even Falkirk are commuter communities, and the thousands of people who choose to live there depend on travelling to Glasgow or Edinburgh for work. If this idea ever becomes a reality, my inbox will be full of motorists angry at being told that they must pay yet another tax just to get to their jobs.

We should step back for a second and remember what motorists already fork out for the privilege of owning a car. They have to pay for road tax; insurance; servicing and MOTs; repairs; parking permits; costly paid parking in certain local authority areas; petrol and diesel; and for many people, monthly payments on the car itself. The local SNP Administration wants to slap an additional charge on to what motorists already fork out simply for crossing from one local authority area into another, but to me, that is just not common sense.

We should also take into account yesterday’s budget, because the chancellor now wants to tax electric vehicles, too. I am under no illusion why motorists are fed up, because it is just tax upon tax upon cost upon tax.

Going back to the at-city-boundary congestion charge, I think that the most ridiculous aspect is that our public transport network is still not good enough to give people a genuine alternative. That point has been mentioned by Jamie Hepburn, Patrick Harvie and others in the chamber—it is not a genuine alternative. The at-boundary charge just prices people out of owning a car, and provides no workable solution for how they are supposed to get around.

Moreover, Jackson Carlaw is 100 per cent right to suggest in his motion that Glasgow City Council’s plans could trigger a domino effect. If one local authority introduces such charges, others might retaliate. It will become a tit-for-tat spiral, and the only losers will be the ordinary, hard-working people who are left to pay the price.

I am beyond fed up with the same people being taxed to the hilt to prop up ageing infrastructure and fill gaps in mismanaged budgets. It is not the taxpayers’ job to cover for political incompetence, but that is exactly the pattern that we keep seeing from left-wing Administrations. I am very interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s views on this: does the Government still believe in the abolition of tolls, or is the expansion of new bridge tolls and infrastructure tolls happening quietly by the back door? Will it meet the Scottish National Party administration at Glasgow City Council and tell it bluntly to think again?

Yesterday’s responses to my urgent question on grooming gangs were nothing short of a farce. Once again, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs passed responsibility on to a junior minister to answer questions on her behalf while she sat in the chamber avoiding any scrutiny.

At a time when Scotland desperately needs leadership on grooming gangs, this Government offers only evasion and silence. Victims are being failed while ministers sit on their hands. I raise the unprecedented intervention by the NSPCC, which has made it clear that Scotland has no real understanding of the true scale or nature of grooming gangs operating in our country. That is an alarming admission from our leading child protection charity.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs claimed that the national child sexual abuse and exploitation sub-group addresses grooming gangs, but its 27-page report does not mention grooming gangs once. Therefore, I ask again: who is investigating grooming gangs in Scotland? It is certainly not this Government.

The cabinet secretary told me that it is for me and others to present a case for an inquiry. The evidence is already overwhelming. The NSPCC has said that the scale of grooming gang activity is unknown. More victims are coming forward every day with harrowing, life-changing testimony. Families are being torn apart by some of the most appalling crimes imaginable. What more evidence does the cabinet secretary need?

Victims do not need a Government that is merely open to an inquiry; they need a Government that is willing to initiate one, to listen to victims, to act and to confront the failures that have allowed those crimes to continue unchecked. Leadership is not about sitting on the fence. Leadership is about stepping up and doing what is right.

A grooming gangs inquiry is not optional; it is essential. It is the only way to uncover the scale of the problem, to protect children and to ensure that victims’ voices are finally heard and believed. I take no pleasure whatsoever in raising these issues. However, until this Government stops ducking responsibility, I will continue to speak up for the victims who have been ignored for far too long, even if that means that I need to return to the chamber to raise the issue every sitting day.

That is exactly why I am here this evening: because there is a frustration. We cannot get answers. We cannot seem to find any mechanism afforded to MSPs that allows us to get answers to the questions that we have asked—I know that Pauline McNeill has asked serious questions in relation to Parliament being misled and comments that have been put on the record by the cabinet secretary. That is why I believe that there has to be a statement or another mechanism to allow MSPs in this place to ask questions and finally receive answers from the Government. Better yet, let us have the inquiry now. Victims deserve justice, they deserve to be heard and they deserve an inquiry. That is why we need an inquiry now.

Will the minister take an intervention?

That is really helpful. Thank you very much.

My final question is on the ESC’s expenditure, which has increased by roughly 60 per cent in real terms over the past 10 years. I would like to have a little more of an insight on the reasons for that. Does the current spend represent good value for public money?

Thank you very much for that. What is the reason for the number of complaints doubling? Does that go back to the public discourse that you have mentioned? I think that you might have had some councillor-on-councillor spats—we will go into more questions on that later—but could that be another factor?

That is great. Thank you very much for your time.

Good morning. I will start by talking about the commission’s decision to limit the number of online hearings. Will you explain your reasons for that decision and say whether there have been any positive or adverse consequences?