Chamber and committees

I appreciate the statutory duty that local authorities have, but giving that time would also give the time that would enable communities to have their say on the planning guidance that comes forward.

I know from my constituents that the uncertainty around those centres is causing genuine and profound concern. Communities simply do not know what is going to come along. Councils across the country do not know what is going to come along, and local businesses do not know either. For example, the determination date for the Larbert application lapsed on 4 October. I appreciate what the First Minister says about not anticipating any decisions being made, but that leaves the Larbert community in my region in limbo.

Has the First Minister instructed the chief planner to issue directives to councils telling them to pause applications until the Government guidance is in place? If not, when will he do so, to give those communities that certainty?

The Scottish Government has said that no decision on applications for huge data centre developments should be made until new guidance is in place. However, since that statement, Dumfries and Galloway has seen an application for one of the largest data centres in the world. It would be a monstrosity that would use the same amount of electricity as more than 2.2 million Scottish homes. Five thousand people have objected to it already, but Chapelcross now joins Larbert, Greenock, Auchtertool and 21 other communities across Scotland that are waiting to see whether they will be blighted by huge data centres. What reassurance can the First Minister give those communities that their views will be listened to?

I welcome the focus on community care in the cabinet secretary’s statement. Pharmacy first is a fantastic initiative that is undoubtedly diverting people from general practice, but it can be strengthened. Currently, pharmacists do not have access to sufficient patient records to prescribe with confidence, which often means that people are turned away. That risks undermining the programme and forcing people back to the general practitioner or, indeed, into A and E. Will the cabinet secretary tell us what work is under way to improve patient record sharing with pharmacists in order to improve the pharmacy first service and encourage more people to use it?

The First Minister’s Government has acknowledged that tech giants are marking their own homework when it comes to applications. In this chamber, he previously referred to an Edinburgh hyperscale data centre as “green”, but the Government later confirmed to us that the reference to it being green was taken directly from the description provided by the applicant. That comes after investigative journalists at The Ferret found that the Scottish Government had been lobbied by industry to use the phrase “green data centre”. Will he now make a concrete commitment to listen to the views of communities, as well as lobbyists, by carrying out a full public consultation on the draft guidance before any planning decisions are made?

I had many things on my bingo card for the debate, and some of them absolutely came true; however, the cabinet secretary’s plug for his book was not on it, nor was the fact that Murdo Fraser would try to find the book and read it during the debate.

Politics is getting younger. It is incredible that we have MSPs such as Iris Duane and Zen Ghani, who are so young, even though it makes the rest of us feel incredibly old. I was the future once. [Laughter.] Their testimony on what they have missed out on should be listened to and, crucially, acted on. The cabinet secretary said that we should not be the political generation to hand on a Scotland that is in a worse place. I believe that, if we do not get back into the EU, that is what we will be doing. We will work with the Scottish Government and anyone else who is willing to push towards rejoining the EU.

Neil Bibby was correct to say that the EU is a different place from what it was when we left it. Many issues have moved on and progressed without us, which should be a source of regret for us all. We are in a different political time. Many across the chamber referenced the rise of the far right across Europe, which should concern us.

David Green noted that being outward looking can make Scotland better. The more countries that are in the EU, the more prosperity can be shared. I believe that most of us across the chamber share that sentiment about the EU.

Heather Anderson was correct to say that Stephen Kerr has never been more popular than when he agreed that a generation is 10 years. Murdo Fraser seems to have followed his example by referencing which First Ministers represented the previous generation.

Zen Ghani made a good point about what Europe sees when it looks as us, which should push us to do better in Scotland, especially if we want to rejoin. We have diverged from some EU regulations, and we will have to catch up if we want rejoining the EU more easily to be a reality.

I said that Stephen Kerr has never been more popular, but, on the axis of Stephen Kerr’s popularity, that may not be a high bar for the rest of us to try to reach. There is an awful lot of debate in the chamber about what constitutes a generation, but we should be able to have our say again, whether that is on Brexit or Scottish independence. I think that we should be an independent nation that is back in the EU, as Keith Brown, Alex Kerr and many others have said.

Most members can agree that Brexit has been a disaster for our people and for the economy. There is not an area of life that has not been impacted by it. Universities have less access to research grants, which means that they have less money and are under increased financial pressure. We experienced further damage to our education system through the loss of the Erasmus scheme. Although I appreciate that we will be back in that scheme, we cannot estimate the damage that has already been done to our institutions, let alone the individuals who missed out on the chance to use it in recent years. Restrictions on free movement have made it harder for Scots—especially young Scots—to experience the wider world through studying or with a summer job and to experience culture and make friends. Scottish companies face mountains of red tape when they take up contracts in Europe, and they have to account for every nut and bolt that they take to use in projects.

There is no argument that we are worse off financially, but our departure from the EU has also damaged efforts to tackle the climate emergency. Funding for innovation in energy has reduced for wave and tidal projects, which have been the biggest losers at a time when we need more of those types of energy devices. That is without the democratic deficit that Scotland finds itself in, having voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU but having been taken out of it against our will. If we are a so-called equal partner in the union, that should have been respected.

The UK’s Prime Minister has hinted that a possible Labour manifesto might promise another referendum on EU membership. At the moment, the proposal is more discussion than action. What the Prime Minister means by closer alignment is also vague. No timelines are attached and there is no certainty. People across Scotland are worse off because of Brexit. They do not need vague promises of jam tomorrow or pie in the sky; they need us to rejoin the family of European nations. If the UK Government is serious about that and will set out a clear plan and timeline, we are willing to work with it.

Ultimately, I believe that we cannot be the political generation that allows the next generation to be worse off. Today’s young people do not have the freedoms that so many of us were given when we were young—freedoms that benefited us in so many ways. We need more ambition rather than another conversation, and we need an independent Scotland that is back where we belong, in the EU.

17:05

I follow the cabinet secretary in extending my thoughts, and those of my party, to those who work at the site and to their families.

The cabinet secretary referred to the Scottish Enterprise money that has been given to Syngenta to expand the business. Workers are now facing redundancy, although the company is not in financial distress. What assurances has the cabinet secretary had from the business that any further public money given to it will be used to retain jobs there for the long term and that we will not be back here again once another grant has run out?

The cabinet secretary has laid out a number of measures that have been taken to help to support Alexander Dennis, but those measures will not be helping the workers, who will be concerned for their livelihoods, given what is now unfolding at the business.

Other schemes have been put in place for people who have lost their jobs around the Falkirk area, including at Ineos in Grangemouth. Is any such work being undertaken in the event that that is the way that jobs go at Alexander Dennis? What other support can the Scottish Government provide in the light of the ongoing issues?

I follow the First Minister in recognising the important contribution that the former Lord Advocate and current Lord Advocate have made to Scotland.

The review is ultimately about whether we should split the role. If that is the route that we go down, there will be a need for prosecutions to rightly be politically neutral, and there will be a need to maintain a system of policing and prosecuting by consent, whereby prosecutors are accountable to the Parliament and, by extension, the public. There will also be a need for unity between the two roles, if we choose to create them, in relation to decisions such as the establishment of the Thistle.

Is the First Minister confident that the review will consider all those practical implications, including the point on unity, to ensure that whatever model is chosen, accountability is maintained?

I appreciate the First Minister’s answer. If that update could eventually be shared with members, that would be welcome. However, this is not an isolated case. Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport, Stephen Flynn, said that the Government was using

“every lever at its disposal to stand up against the inhumanity”—[Official Report, 16 September 2026; c 86.]

that is being inflicted on Gaza and the West Bank. Yet, in the days since then, The National has revealed that a firm whose parent company has also been listed by the UN holds a Scottish national health service contract worth tens of millions of pounds. If a company has profited from apartheid and genocide, it should not be profiting from public money in Scotland. Will the First Minister commit to ending that contract as soon as possible? Will his Government urgently review every public sector contract, including parent companies and subsidiaries, to ensure that Scottish public money is not going to companies that are complicit in human rights abuses?