Chamber and committees

The statement highlights that a vast number of people in the wider community and supply chain rely on the Fife ethylene plant for their employment. Does the First Minister have any numbers on how many people in Fife will be affected? Considering how many people will be looking for alternative employment and upskilling, can the Scottish Government reassure Fife College that it will have the funding that is required to provide courses, given the inflexibility of the current process?

We have heard some powerful contributions from across the chamber and I thank colleagues from all parties for recognising the importance of this debate.

The speeches from Jackie Dunbar and Beatrice Wishart were both very strong, because they came from a personal angle. We can never underestimate coercion and we can never underestimate what an abuser will do.

Let us be clear about what the committee report tells us. Four years after these issues were first raised, basic financial protections for victims of domestic abuse are still missing. I thank the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for taking action on the issue and for producing the report, and I thank the clerks and everyone who gave evidence to the committee.

It is not acceptable that the changes to the process are not further up the priority list; that failure lies squarely with the Scottish Government. I have to agree with Karen Adam: it is disappointing that there has been no civil legal aid legislation in this session. Victims of domestic abuse deserve better. They deserve a Government that acts with urgency, not one that issues warm words while survivors are forced to choose between safety and destitution.

Women’s Aid told the committee that survivors with even modest savings may be left paying for the home they fled while trying to rebuild their lives elsewhere. Engender and Shelter Scotland described women and children being placed in hotels for weeks because councils have nowhere else for them to go. Citizens Advice Scotland warned that debt rules can leave only £1,000 in a bank account. Such rules could literally stop a woman from leaving her abuser. Those are not abstract policy failures; they are barriers that trap victims who are in danger.

My friend and colleague Alexander Stewart highlighted that there is one incident of domestic abuse every eight minutes. That is a horrific statistic and it highlights how important it is that we do something more about this issue.

Mr Stewart, Bob Doris and Maggie Chapman all mentioned that victims might have to approach 11 different services before they get any assistance, which shows that there is a fundamental gap in our system. In her initial speech, Carol Mochan highlighted the need for better knowledge and advertising of the help that is out there so that victims can get the support that they need. That is something that could happen now.

I turn to the minister’s contribution, because she mentioned that there are three or four separate consultations and reviews on the back of the reports from both committees. That only represents further delay, however, because the reports already highlight what needs to be changed. Tangible changes to the system are required, not further consultation and reviews of work that has already begun. I am sorry, but I say to the minister that asking officials to simply consider the report for the next equally safe strategy is not enough. We could have seen much more action if only it had been a priority for the Government. Leadership is what is required now; what has been announced is cold comfort for victims of abuse, given that we are not doing more.

Finally, I highlight the contribution from Pam Gosal, who is actively trying to do something in this space with her Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill. We should congratulate Ms Gosal on all the hard work that she has put in to introduce the bill.

The committee has called for commonsense deliverable actions. It asks the Government to make permanent the fund to leave, in order to cover deposits, travel and essentials when a survivor escapes abuse; to guarantee year-round funding for discretionary housing payments so that no council runs out mid-year; to review the Scottish welfare fund to make it consistent, trauma informed and accessible; and to ensure that the equally safe strategy delivers not just aspirations but real, practical financial support. However, progress in that regard remains painfully slow.

The committee has done its job. It has listened to survivors, charities and those on the front line, and the evidence is clear. What is missing now is leadership. The Scottish Conservatives are calling on the SNP Government to stop deflecting and actively move forward to support victims of domestic abuse, because every day of delay risks another victim being turned away, another survivor being forced to return to an unsafe home and another life being put at risk because the system could not help in time.

Let us not make victims pay the price of Government inaction—let us work together to ensure that financial barriers are never again a reason for someone to stay with their abuser. The time for reviews and rhetoric has passed; we need common sense, compassion and action now.

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?

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)

Following the BBC “Disclosure” programme last night, which highlighted the harrowing experience of a patient from 2020, I was approached by a constituent who experienced similar issues with her maternity care at Ninewells hospital. Her baby was dropped by a doctor, she was given drugs, which were later described as unsafe in her condition, and she was told to remove a surgical bandage herself in the toilets 24 hours after birth rather than getting the correct support from staff.

Given that the cabinet secretary mentioned in his statement the progress that has been made through NHS Tayside’s local improvement action plan, what reassurances can he give to my constituent and other women that those improvements will be sufficient to ensure safety? I note his comments about accountability for NHS Lothian, but how will the Scottish Government ensure that NHS boards are held accountable, especially as we are talking about one of the most vulnerable moments in a woman’s life?

The 2025 Scottish stroke improvement report shows that, in my region of Mid Scotland and Fife, only 67 per cent of stroke patients in NHS Fife, 53 per cent in NHS Tayside and 40 per cent in NHS Forth Valley received a full stroke care bundle on admission. That is a serious failure given that the required standard is 80 per cent. Across Scotland, not a single health board met the standard, with just 53 per cent of patients across the country receiving the bundle.

The Scottish Government now wants to introduce a revised 100 per cent standard, which I welcome. However, given that we are not close to meeting the standard now, how will the Government ensure that health board management teams and, more importantly, the named person for stroke are accountable for meeting the standard? What immediate action will be taken to support our hard-working stroke clinical teams so that they can give patients the effective care that they urgently need and deserve?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that alcohol-specific deaths in Scotland remain above 1,000 for the 12th year in a row. (S6O-05009)

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, and I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy and Scottish Labour for again bringing to the chamber an issue of concern that I think we can all see within Scotland’s education system.

The use of mobiles in classrooms has been a concern of the Scottish Conservatives for many years. The point was first raised by my colleague Sue Webber back in November 2023. I think that we were discussing violence in schools at the time. We are almost two years on and are still debating the negative influences of mobiles being incorrectly utilised in our schools.

The Scottish Conservatives have been aware of the issue for years and have been lobbying to ensure that Scotland’s young people have suitable learning environments in the classroom.

Surely we must all agree that it is essential that our classrooms are conducive to inquiring young minds learning, inquiring and growing. That has to happen in a structured atmosphere and without external influences or mechanisms to distract young people from the task that is in front of them.

In 2024, a Scottish Secondary Teachers Association survey found that 71 per cent of its members believed that the misuse of mobile phones had a negative impact on behaviour and learning, while more than 90 per cent of their lessons were being interrupted by students having to be asked to put away their mobile phones. Three quarters of teachers said that mobile phones disrupted nearly all their lessons. Those are very stark figures.

Even though some local authorities have availed themselves of the guidance that empowers headteachers to restrict mobile use, there is still uncertainty and there is more room in the guidance. That is why national guidance must be clear about what is expected of our headteachers.

I will mention a couple of points that came up in the debate. I listened to Karen Adam’s contribution, but I do not think that it was about what we have been discussing in the debate. Pam Duncan-Glancy and Miles Briggs mentioned the violence in the classroom that is exacerbated by mobile phones, which was also mentioned in the teachers survey. I think that we can all agree that teachers and classroom assistants should have a working environment that is completely free from violence, threats and bullying.

Stephen Kerr’s contribution was excellent, highlighting the international results that have come from mobile phone bans.

Patrick Harvie made a valid point, but the influence of social media is a different debate . We know that there are algorithms that can spin us off down a rabbit hole, and whether it be far-right or leftist propaganda, we are aware that many of our young people might be seeing harmful ideology on social media. However, that is definitely a different debate.

Finally, on Willie Rennie’s point, there needs to be a clear signal to our headteachers so that they know and can believe that we are behind them and that they will be listened to in what they are calling for.

We have recently heard many positive accounts from schools that have taken steps to limit or even ban mobile phones in classroom time. The results in increased learning and attainment among the pupils in those schools are there for all to see.

I have previously highlighted the fundamental point that children should be children. There is an innocence that we, as a nation, should nurture rather than destroy. The effects of mobile phones on growing and developing minds are only just beginning to be explored. So far, the isolation and anxiety that come from social media are deeply concerning. The issue is more important than we currently know or are aware of, and I urge the Scottish Government to update its guidance with clear national direction on what is expected, just as the Scottish Conservatives’ amendment suggests.

Any fall in the number of deaths is welcome, but Alcohol Focus Scotland says that the level of deaths is “appallingly high” and that it is more than double what it was 30 years ago. In response to that, the minister said in an interview last week that she was considering increasing alcohol prices annually, in line with inflation. Will the minister confirm whether that is Government policy? Rather than doubling down on hard-working Scots with even more tax, why will the Government not take a positive approach, back our Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 next week and enshrine in law the right for treatment for those who are struggling with alcohol addiction?

It gives me great pleasure to close this stage 1 debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I, too, warmly welcome Mr Macpherson to his ministerial post, and I thank Graeme Dey for his work in the role.

When James Withers published his independent review of the skills delivery landscape back in 2023, his message was clear: Scotland’s skills system was too fragmented, too bureaucratic and too confusing for learners and employers alike. He called for a single funding body, for simpler pathways and for more money to flow directly to the front line, where it could support apprenticeships, colleges and young people.

The Scottish Conservatives agree with that vision. Reducing duplication and slimming down bureaucracy are not just tidy governance but financial prudence. The argument that money is restricted is well rehearsed in this chamber, and we are often asked to highlight budget cuts that we would make. If we truly want to release funding to help people back into work and to help them into apprenticeships and positive destinations, that is an avenue that Conservative members would strongly support our going down.

The bill that the Government has introduced does not live up to that ambition, however, and risks being a missed opportunity. It will create upheaval without offering a clear plan, as was mentioned by Daniel Johnson; it will transfer responsibilities without identifying transparent budgets; and it will leave unanswered questions about costs, pensions and staffing.

Let us look at the record. Data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shows that employers have paid at least £875 million into the apprenticeship levy since 2020. At this time, the Government has spent £704 million on apprenticeships, so there is a missing amount of £171 million. That money could—or should—have gone into training opportunities for young people. Meanwhile, 60 to 80 young people chase every apprenticeship place, and businesses tell us that the demand is closer to 40,000 places each year than the 25,000 that are actually delivered. The point was well made by my colleague Brian Whittle. It is shocking to hear that 831 students, who all wanted jobs in sectors that were crying out for more staff, were prohibited from taking places due to a lack of funding. If evidence is needed of the issues that we are facing in our tertiary education system, there it is.

If the bill was truly aligned with a vision for Scotland, we would see those levy funds transparently channelled into apprenticeships, bureaucracy stripped away so that more money would go straight to training rather than being swallowed up in overheads, and a system built around learners and employers rather than institutions and ministers.

I thank the committee for its work on the report. However, the report states that, collectively, the committee was not able to make a recommendation on the bill at stage 1 and that it reserves its position on the general principles of the bill. The report warns the Government that the committee does not know the full cost of the proposals. That has been well debated today. The pension liabilities for staff transfers could run to tens of millions of pounds, yet no figure for them has been offered. The Scottish Funding Council is already overstretched. Doubling its size overnight, with the risk of duplication that doing so would bring, is reckless without clear resources and a path forward. We believe that the principle is right, and the ambition is shared, but the execution has been found wanting.

Going back to the contributions made in the debate, I say thank you very much to the minister—I am delighted to hear that there will be collaborative work as the bill progresses. To Mr McLennan, I say that, as the bill progresses, we will be open to working to improve it at its further stages. As Mr Briggs stated, our doors are open.

I also welcome the minister’s comments on collaboration with businesses, which we agree is absolutely essential. I have previously mentioned in the chamber that Fife College had to cancel a full year-long social care course due to a lack of care home and business buy-in, based on funding. A lack of joined-up processes is adding to the issues that are before us, and we must address that.

Bill Kidd commented that some “polishing” is needed. I could ask him to tell me what it is that he thinks needs polishing, but that might be a bit flippant.

Miles Briggs asked a good question about why we are delivering 25,000 places when 40,000 are needed. If we do not answer that question, are we sure that we are fixing the problem?

Ross Greer pointed out the dysfunctional relationship between the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland, saying that the Government should step in to address that. Is legislation the right way to do that? Legislation is about making a fundamental change to structure; perhaps we should be looking at legislation to do that.

Stephen Kerr highlighted, quite eloquently, that the whole process should be demand led, and I certainly agree with that.

The Withers review gave us a route map to a simpler, fairer and more effective skills system. We should be seizing that opportunity, cutting bureaucracy, reducing duplication and putting money where it matters—into apprenticeships, colleges and places where people will drive forward Scotland’s economy. The bill does not do that. It risks confusion, cost overruns and lost opportunities. Unless it is significantly strengthened, we will not support it. The Scottish Conservatives will continue to champion the principle of reform, but one that works—a system that is simpler, leaner and built to deliver opportunity. That is what Scotland deserves, and it is what we will fight for.