Contents
- General Question Time
- First Minister’s Question Time
- Women and Girls in STEM
- Portfolio Question Time
- Point of Order
- Artificial Intelligence
- Decision Time
- Correction
First Minister’s Question Time
Low-emission Zones (Glasgow)
Today, a low-emission zone came into force in Glasgow. It will prevent many vehicles from entering the city centre and, if a driver breaks the rules, they could face hefty fines into hundreds of pounds. Can the First Minister tell us how many vehicles applied for an exemption to the scheme but were refused?
This is, of course, a scheme that is run by Glasgow City Council and one that I am very supportive of. The whole Parliament should be supportive of the low-emission zones, because we know that air pollution is a serious problem, particularly in our city conurbations and particularly in Glasgow. That is why the introduction of the LEZ has been welcomed by the likes of Asthma and Lung UK, as well as many other third sector organisations with an interest in public health.
I do not have to hand the exact figure that Douglas Ross has asked for, but I know that an LEZ exemptions process has been put in place and that a number of time-limited exemptions have been granted.
I hope that, in his questioning, Douglas Ross will be unequivocal in his support for LEZs, because, every single week, members of the Parliament rightly question the Government on what more we can do to tackle the climate emergency. In the case of Conservative members, every time that we—or a local authority—introduce a measure, they oppose it, time and again. It is critical for all of us who believe in tackling the climate emergency as a priority that we do not just talk the talk and that we are prepared to walk the walk.
I really hope that the First Minister will start answering questions rather than telling Opposition leaders what they should be asking.
As usual with the Scottish National Party, the problem with the policy is its delivery. There have been numerous warnings about the implementation from people and organisations across Scotland. [Interruption.] SNP members are saying that that is an exaggeration, so let us just look at one of the many charities that are raising concerns. [Interruption.] Joe FitzPatrick, a Government minister, wants to shout me down while I am speaking about a charity in Glasgow that is raising concerns—
Members!
—so perhaps Joe FitzPatrick, the First Minister and SNP members will listen to what Homeless Project Scotland has said. It was refused an exemption—[Interruption.] And still they heckle. Homeless Project Scotland was refused an exemption to use a refrigerated van within the restricted area. Its chairman, Colin McInnes, said that it helps to feed 300 people every day. It collects food from 15 to 20 businesses in the city centre, right at the heart of the low-emission zone.
Colin McInnes’s message to the council was simple: exemptions for exceptional circumstances must be reviewed. He continued:
“if 300 people queuing for many hours for food on the streets of Glasgow is not exceptional, then they need to publish what is exceptional.”
Does Humza Yousaf agree that that outstanding charity deserves an exemption from the scheme?
I commend the work that is done by Homeless Project Scotland in Glasgow. Of course, we have to ask ourselves why it is having to feed so many people in any given week. That is undoubtedly the case because of more than a decade of Tory austerity, because of a cost of living crisis, because of high inflation and because of high energy costs. That is why it is having to do that work.
I would urge Glasgow City Council—as it has already done, to my understanding—to engage with the third sector and charities, including Homeless Project Scotland. However, the council has been very transparent. The application process for time-limited exemptions is published on the Glasgow City Council website. There has been a lead-in time for the introduction of the LEZ. There is an exemption process.
It is imperative that all of us—whether that is the public in Glasgow, charities, the third sector or any of us—ensure that we are doing everything possible in our gift to tackle the serious problems of air pollution.
I go back to what I said in my first answer. Time and again, Douglas Ross will demand that we do more to tackle the climate emergency, but whether we are talking about the deposit return scheme, the workplace parking levy or LEZs, he will oppose it. Why will he oppose it? He will do so, of course, not because of any principled stance in relation to the climate emergency; he opposes such measures simply because the SNP has proposed them, and that is not good enough.
I oppose the SNP making a shambolic mess of every one of the schemes that it brings in.
The First Minister wants to commend Homeless Project Scotland but refuses to say that its one van, which helps to feed 300 people every day, should get an exemption. That is not commending a charity; that is condemning it to being unable to do the work that it wants to do. The delivery of the LEZ scheme in Glasgow has been tone deaf to the needs of the city and charities such as Homeless Project Scotland.
SNP members wanted to heckle me when I spoke about charities. Will they do the same when I read out quotes from businesses? [Interruption.] Now it is cabinet secretaries who do not want to hear what businesses in Glasgow think. I know that Jenny Gilruth used to be the transport minister, but she should be listening to the points that I am making.
Mr Ross, please continue.
Businesses are saying this to politicians across the political spectrum, and SNP members think that it is funny. [Interruption.] It is funny when the health secretary is laughing at this.
Let us listen. Steven Grant of Unite Glasgow taxi drivers said:
“This damaging and punitive plan is going to be devastating for our trade, without a shadow of a doubt.”
Local business owner William Paton, who runs a garage within the restricted zone, said:
“It just feels like it’s been poorly thought out and we’re left in a horrible position because of it.”
Stuart Patrick, chief executive officer of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, said:
“while we have supported the aims of the LEZ, the Chamber does not support using it as a political measure to drive all private cars from the city centre.”
This morning, Donald MacLeod of the Night Time Industries Association, said:
“actually, what we’ve got here is a low economy zone getting created.”
He is right, is he not?
What does Humza Yousaf have to say to all those businesses and all their workers, who are concerned that the LEZ scheme will put jobs at risk?
First and foremost, I go back to the point that there has been a considerable lead-in time for the Glasgow LEZ coming into place. There has been extensive engagement—[Interruption.] Oh! It is fine for Douglas Ross to dish it out, but he cannot take it when he is asking his questions.
Let me give Douglas Ross some of the facts around the LEZ in Glasgow. It has had a lengthy and extensive lead-in time, and there has been considerable engagement with businesses, the community, the third sector and charities. To help low-income households and small businesses to get prepared for the scheme, the LEZ support fund offered financial support towards the disposal of non-LEZ-compliant vehicles. In 2020-21, the LEZ support fund awarded £1.7 million in grants. In 2021-22, it awarded £3.85 million. In 2022-23, it awarded £5 million. Although that fund has now closed, those who were eligible were encouraged to register an interest. The fund resulted in more than 2,500 non-LEZ-compliant vehicles being disposed of or retrofitted with cleaner technology. Funding has been provided not just for low-income households but for small businesses as well.
When it comes to tackling the climate emergency, which all of us in Parliament claim to have an interest in and claim to say is a priority, the warm words and the rhetoric are the easy part; the hard bit is taking action. This Government will never shy away from—nor should our local authorities—taking the tough action that is required in order to tackle the biggest threat that our planet faces.
The only thing that that answer proved is that it took until question 3 for Humza Yousaf to find his pre-prepared script on the issue in his folder.
The LEZ scheme is the latest anti-driver policy from the SNP—[Interruption.]
Thank you.
—that looks like being a shambles in the making. The SNP has cut investment in roads; it is not tackling Scotland’s pothole problem; it does not support car drivers—[Interruption.]
Members!
—it has proposed a car park tax and is increasing the cost of driving across Scotland.
Approximately three quarters of a million vehicles in Scotland will now be fined if they drive through the zone in Glasgow. The LEZ is damaging charities’ ability to function. It is threatening jobs, and business leaders think that it is going to create a low-economy zone.
Would it not have been better to delay the scheme for a year and to listen properly to the businesses, charities, individuals and organisations that have been raising concerns and hoping for a change but have been left with no answers, no response and a tone-deaf Government that refuses to listen to them?
If we had delayed, more people would have suffered in the meantime because of asthma or lung conditions; more people would have suffered cardiopulmonary disease—[Interruption.]
Members!
—and more of Glasgow’s citizens would have suffered dire health consequences. We know that air pollution in Glasgow is nowhere near the standard that we want it to meet, and the LEZ will help with that.
It is undeniable that, every time the SNP Government brings forward action to tackle the biggest threat that our planet faces, Douglas Ross and the Conservatives oppose that time and again. They opposed the workplace parking levy and oppose the DRS, even though that was in the manifesto that they stood on. Douglas Ross stood on a manifesto that included a deposit return scheme but now opposes it.
When we look to invest and to unleash the potential of the green economy in the north-east, what do we get from the Tory UK Government? We get complete and utter inaction. There is not a single penny of funding towards the Scottish cluster—[Interruption.]
Members!
—or the Acorn project or to support the green economy.
Please sit down, First Minister.
Members, we are not going to continue in this vein. We are representatives of the people of Scotland and we are sitting in the national Parliament. I would be very grateful if all those who are tuning in could hear both answers and questions.
The Tories do not want to hear about the fact that they have been utterly missing in any action to tackle the climate emergency here in Scotland.
I end by saying this to the Conservatives. When it comes to tackling the climate emergency, whether that is by using LEZs or the DRS, the real potential for Scotland both in tackling the climate emergency and from an economic point of view will come from unleashing the green potential of the north-east and of the rest of Scotland. The Conservative Party has plundered £300 billion of revenue from the north-east; the least that it could do is to match our £500 million just transition fund and help us to tackle the climate emergency that is affecting the globe and is the biggest priority and the biggest threat that this country, and the world, faces.
Waiting Lists (National Health Service)
Can the First Minister tell us how many Scots died last year while languishing on national health service waiting lists?
I do not have that figure to hand, but I say from the off, as First Minister, that I do not want a single person to have to wait longer than is necessary. I apologise to anyone who is unnecessarily on a waiting list for treatment.
I hope that most people will recognise and acknowledge the significant impact of the pandemic, which has been the biggest challenge that our NHS has ever faced in its almost 75-year existence.
We are making some progress in relation to the targets to reduce waiting times for both out-patients and in-patients, but I would certainly be the first to recognise that we must do more. That is why the recovery of our NHS is a significant priority—it is the priority—for this Government, and it is why we are investing a record £19 billion this year to help the NHS to recover and to reduce waiting lists.
The number that the First Minister is looking for is 18,390. More than 18,000 families have a loved one who died waiting for treatment that could have prolonged or, in some cases, saved their life.
In 2017, 7,868 Scots died while on an NHS waiting list. Immediately before Covid, the figure was 13,211. If the current trend continues, the figure will be over 20,000 this year. Those are not just numbers; they are people waiting in pain, and many are dying far too early, leaving behind heartbroken families.
As health secretary, Humza Yousaf failed to get a grip on NHS waiting lists. On his watch, they grew by over 175,000. Nearly two years ago, he published a recovery plan for the NHS. Since then, things have got worse. Can the First Minister tell us clearly when his Government will meet the legal treatment time guarantee, so that fewer Scots lose their lives?
I say to Anas Sarwar that he is, of course, absolutely right to raise the issue of waiting lists and the fact that they have increased throughout the course of the pandemic. I cannot escape—and will not escape—that matter of fact, but the pandemic is not just a fleeting matter. It is not a matter that can just be mentioned and then not fully explored in terms of the clear impact that it has had.
There is no doubt that the pandemic has been the biggest shock that the NHS and health services in Europe and globally have faced. That is not unique to Scotland. Of course, I am responsible and we are responsible for the health service here, in Scotland, but the pandemic has clearly impacted on health services right across the UK.
We are making progress in relation to the recovery plan that Anas Sarwar mentioned. For example, if we look at the out-patient two-year waits, we see that numbers are down by 19 per cent from the last quarter and, crucially, down by almost 70 per cent from quarter 2 of 2022. On those who are waiting a year, or 12 months, we know that, since the target was introduced in quarter 3 of 2022, the number of new out-patients has reduced by over 15 per cent.
If we look at in-patients, we see similar decreases. If we look at in-patient day cases and those who have waited over two years, we see that those numbers have significantly reduced—by 27 per cent—since those targets were announced. We see a similar pattern of improvement in relation to diagnostics as well.
We are making progress in relation to those targets, and we are investing record sums in our NHS recovery and, indeed, our social care recovery. However, I have always been up front, when I was the health secretary and in my current role as First Minister, about the fact that the recovery of the NHS will take not weeks or months, but years. That is why we have the five-year recovery plan. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we continue to see progress against that and that there is record investment alongside it.
As health secretary, Humza Yousaf said that he would have eradicated two-year waits by now. He has patently failed. Things were getting worse before Covid and things have got a lot worse in the two years since he published his NHS catch-up plan. Grieving families will see through those excuses.
However, that is not even the full picture. According to freedom of information responses, thousands of people are being forced to leave the NHS and pay for their treatment in the middle of a cost of living crisis. In one health board alone, the number quadrupled between 2019 and 2023, and the number of people without insurance who pay for private treatment has increased by 73 per cent since before the pandemic.
Our NHS was built on the principle of healthcare being free at the point of need. That is clearly no longer the case for thousands of people in Scotland. Does the First Minister accept that his incompetence has created a two-tier NHS in which people are forced either to go into debt in order to stop the pain and get the treatment they need or to languish on an NHS waiting list?
No, I do not agree with Anas Sarwar’s characterisation. I will come to why in a second. It was not a list of excuses that I read out. I read out a list of facts. I read out some of the data—some of the statistics—around some of the progress that has been made.
That is not to take away from individuals right across this country who are waiting far too long. We know that waiting on a waiting list can have significant and severe consequences. That is why, for example, we are investing in our national treatment centres. We have four of those opening this year. A couple of them have already opened, and, in a couple of weeks’ time, I will be pleased to officially open NTC Highland. We will have NTC Forth Valley and the second phase of NHS Golden Jubilee opening later this year. That will give us additional capacity.
We know that NTC Fife’s plans include 500 orthopaedic procedures this year, rising to more than 700 by 2025-26. In the first year of opening, the first of the national treatment centres—the national eye centre at NHS Golden Jubilee—delivered almost 9,000 cataract procedures. We are investing in that additional capacity.
When it comes to the use of private healthcare, I do not want anybody to feel that their only choice is to go to private healthcare. However, to address Anas Sarwar’s point, such a situation is not because the Scottish National Party is in Government, nor is it unique to Scotland. The situation affects health services right across the United Kingdom.
To take private healthcare as an example, the rate of people who are self-funding for private in-patient day-case care is 19.9 per cent higher in England than it is here. In Wales, it is more than 120 per cent higher than in Scotland. We know, therefore, that these issues are affecting people right across the UK. The reason for that is the pandemic.
We will continue not just to invest in the NHS but to make sure that our staff are the best paid in the UK, that we do not lose days to strikes—of course, Scotland was the only part of the UK to ensure that not a single day in the NHS was lost to strikes over the course of the winter—and that we do everything that we can to fill those vacancies.
However, there can be no NHS recovery without a social care recovery. What has not helped social care, of course, is Brexit, whereby many staff have left social care because of the hard Brexit that has been imposed on Scotland. I will continue to make sure that record amounts are invested in the recovery of both our NHS and social care.
Protecting Scotland’s Environment
To ask the First Minister what priority the Scottish Government gives to protecting Scotland’s environment. (S6F-02180)
Scotland’s natural environment is central to our identity as a nation. It is fundamental to our health, our quality of life and our economy. This year, we are investing nearly £1 billion in our natural environment. We remain committed to working with our partners in the Green group on the priorities for net zero and for nature that are set out clearly in the Bute house agreement. I and my Government are fully committed to protecting and enhancing Scotland’s environment.
However, progress depends on our being able to use the powers that are fully devolved to the Parliament. Just this week, we have seen the United Kingdom Government’s determination to ride roughshod over a measure to improve recycling and dramatically reduce litter by seeking to sabotage regulations that this Parliament passed on bottle and can recycling. That is simply unacceptable.
Handing on a clean and nature-rich environment to future generations is one of the biggest responsibilities of Government, so it is astonishing to hear that the UK Government is, on a whim, undermining our Parliament’s effort to reduce litter and improve recycling by aiming to sabotage Scotland’s deposit return scheme. Given that the Tory UK Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to have a scheme that included glass, and given that Labour in Wales has joined Scotland in our shared commitment to a scheme with glass, does the First Minister believe that all members should listen to the evidence, listen to their own promises and colleagues, and let Scotland get on with the job for which the Parliament voted?
Ariane Burgess is absolutely right to highlight what can only be described as the shameful hypocrisy of the Conservatives on this matter. Rishi Sunak, Alister Jack and Douglas Ross stood on a manifesto that promised a deposit return scheme that included glass. Maurice Golden told us:
“If you are going to do something, do it properly ... include glass.”
The Tory Government has U-turned on its promises and is going contrary to the evidence of what will help us to tackle the climate emergency, increase recycling rates and remove that litter—the glass that can be hazardous to children and pets—from our streets, parks and beaches.
It does not stop at the Tories. Labour in Wales shares Scotland’s anger about the treatment of devolved Parliaments and shares our ambition to have glass included.
There was a time when Labour in Scotland stood up for the Scottish Parliament’s right to make our own choices. I shudder to think what greats such as John Smith and Donald Dewar—those architects of devolution—would think about Scottish Labour’s complete and utter silence over the fact that, time and again, the Conservatives want to undermine devolution.
The Conservatives’ latest action has shown us that the Tories are bad for business in Scotland, bad for the environment and bad for devolution. It is no wonder that they have not won an election here in the past 50 years. I suspect that, if they keep going, they will not win one in the next 50 years.
This Government has cut the total forestry and land budget by £3.4 million, it has cut the environmental quality budget by £3.9 million and it has cut Scottish Water’s budget by £1.8 million. While the First Minister trots out warm words on protecting Scotland’s environment, are these colds cuts not his own shameful hypocrisy?
We have an excellent record when it comes to forestry, peatland restoration and taking action to tackle the climate emergency. As I said to the member’s leader and branch office manager, Douglas Ross, every time that we bring forward a proposal or measure to tackle the climate emergency, it is opposed by the Conservatives—time and time again. If we waited for the Conservatives and went at their glacial pace, there would not be a planet for future generations to enjoy.
We will continue not only to talk the talk but to walk the walk and put our money where our mouth is. I know that Liam Kerr does not have much influence, but it would be great if he could use any influence that he has with his colleagues in London to make sure that they do the right thing by Scotland and by the climate emergency and that they—for goodness’ sake—finally give us at least a penny of investment for the Acorn project and the Scottish cluster, to help us to tackle the climate emergency.
Community Pharmacy Scotland
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that the Community Pharmacy Scotland board has described the financial settlement that it has been offered as “derisory”. (S6F-02200)
Community pharmacies are a key point of access to national health service healthcare. They provide the right care in the right place at the right time.
Discussions are on-going with Community Pharmacy Scotland on the financial settlement for 2023-24. We will build on the increased funding that we have provided for community pharmacy services year on year for the past five years. That has delivered more than £25 million in additional remuneration funding. We have also recently added an additional £20 million to the value of the drug tariff this financial year to address the increase in the costs of medicine. We look forward to continued engagement with Community Pharmacy Scotland.
I hope that discussions conclude shortly, recognising the key role that community pharmacies play in sustaining the health and wellbeing of our constituents.
On his line about delivering the right care in the right place at the right time, does the First Minister agree that, with their expanding professional services, pharmacies such as the high street pharmacy in Lauder and the larger chain pharmacy of Boots in Galashiels—examples from my constituency—also ease pressure on general practitioners and even accident and emergency services, emphasising, yet again, their key role in our health service?
Christine Grahame is absolutely right that pharmacies provide an exceptional service, whether through the minor ailment service, the pharmacy first service or the range of other services that they provide and whether they are small independent pharmacies or part of larger chains.
To give her some level of reassurance, I say to Christine Grahame that we are committed to continuing to fund those vital services. For example, since its introduction, the pharmacy first service has become established as a key part of the remobilisation of the NHS. I am grateful to all pharmacy contractors and staff for continuing to support that vital element of primary care in Scotland. It is funded separately, but current annual funding of £30.8 million is allocated for pharmacy first, including £10 million of new funding that was invested between 2020-2021 and 2022-23.
I agree with Christine Grahame about the excellent services that are provided by pharmacies right across the country. As I mentioned in response to her first question, discussions and negotiations with Community Pharmacy Scotland are on-going and we are hopeful that we will get to an agreed position.
When Humza Yousaf was health secretary, in a written response to a question from me, he said that the previous financial package ensured the
“continuous expansion in the quality and number of services that can be offered by community pharmacy contractors to local communities.”—[Written Answers, 7 December 2021; S6W-04404.]
Following a new offer made by the Government that he now leads, we are being warned that opening hours may reduce and services may be cut back. How has it gone so badly wrong on his watch, yet again? Will he personally meet community pharmacy representatives to resolve this important issue?
The pharmacy sector is not immune to the high energy and inflation costs that are affecting everyone in every business up and down the country. We have called on the United Kingdom Government to do more; it has not done enough to address many of the issues that are of its making.
It is within our gift to ensure that we give appropriate resource funding to pharmacy services here in Scotland. We have increased funding for community pharmacy services year on year for the past five years. In Scotland, the Government spends £52 per person per year on pharmaceutical services. Spending on that is not as high where Carol Mochan’s party is in charge. If we look at England, where the Conservatives are in charge, the figure is £46 per person.
We will continue to invest and to ensure that we adequately fund pharmacies up and down the country. I am very grateful for the services provided by pharmacies and pharmacy staff the length and breadth of Scotland.
I am confident and hopeful that we will get to an agreed position, and sooner rather than later.
This development, described by the First Minister as “recent”, took place just yesterday. It was community pharmacists who said that the offer was “derisory” when they rejected it, which was before that money was put in. However, I welcome the money, which follows pressure from Community Pharmacy Scotland and myself, because it eases—[Interruption.]
I am glad that the SNP members are laughing—it shows that they clearly do not care about community pharmacists.
The money eases some of the cost pressures on the community pharmacy networks while the negotiations continue.
Will the Scottish Government underwrite the risk that the network is carrying on behalf of the national health service, so that it can continue to supply essential medicines and support the people of Scotland with the full service offer?
I remind the chamber that Dr Sandesh Gulhane has nothing to do with the negotiations with Community Pharmacy Scotland. The investment comes from the Scottish Government; the health secretary and the minister for public health are involved in those discussions with Community Pharmacy Scotland.
I will make sure that we continue to fund pharmacies and pharmacists up and down the country to the level that they require. They are facing challenges because of the pressures of inflation, high energy costs and energy bills. There are also some global factors that are affecting medicine prices. That is why the Scottish Government gave an additional £20 million to the value of the drug tariff in the current financial year.
We will continue our engagement with Community Pharmacy Scotland. I am very grateful for the excellent services that it provides the length and breadth of Scotland.
Early Years Sector (Mental Health)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is regarding recent reports that suggest there is a mental health crisis emerging in the early years sector. (S6F-02199)
The unprecedented pressures of the past few years, including Brexit, the Covid pandemic and the cost crisis are taking a toll on many people’s mental health, including on the mental health of early years staff. I am particularly grateful to everyone in the workforce for continuing to operate as key workers throughout this difficult time. That is why, since October 2020, the Scottish Government has invested more than £2 million in the wellbeing of the education workforce.
We have also worked with Early Years Scotland to develop the team ELC wellbeing hub, specifically to support professionals. That builds on what local authorities, as the direct employers, are doing to support the wellbeing of their employees.
Since being elected to the Parliament, I have raised concerns about an emerging childcare crisis. The SNP Government has done nothing to fix the problems in our childcare sector. Now, more than 8,000 nursery and childcare staff have taken sick leave because of stress or mental health concerns. Those absences are indicative of a childcare crisis, with more than nine in 10 councils being unable to fully fund free childcare.
Nurseries are closing their doors, and parents are without childcare for their children. Audit Scotland has even said that the sector is fragile.
Early years practitioners, who are children’s first educators, are being let down by the Government. Will the First Minister meet me and nursery providers to discuss the 1,140 hour policy, given that he expressed interest in expanding it as part of his leadership bid?
We have the most generous offer of childcare anywhere in the UK, and I am really proud of the 1,140 hours of provision that we have achieved. I recognise the challenges that the sector faces, which is why Natalie Don, who is the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise met the private, voluntary and independent sector just this week, I believe—and certainly recently.
I will ensure that the Government continues to engage, whether that is with Meghan Gallacher or directly with the sector. I take mental health very seriously, which is why we have invested more than £2 million in the wellbeing of the education workforce, as I said, and why we are working with local authorities on what more can be done, particularly for early learning and childcare staff.
To help with challenges such as mental health challenges, workload pressures and the cost crisis, which Meghan Gallacher’s party created, we are ensuring that staff who work in early learning and childcare are well paid. Before early learning and childcare was expanded, approximately 80 per cent of staff who delivered funded ELC were paid less than the living wage. In contrast, our 2021 health check indicated that 88 per cent of private providers intended to pay their staff the real living wage from August 2021.
We will continue our focus on expanding childcare. We know the benefits that it can have for parents and families and the positive disproportionate impact that it can have on women entering the workforce. We will continue our focus on that and we will continue to engage, whether that is with Meghan Gallacher or—more important—with the PVI sector.
Recent research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that a quarter of adults in Scotland have accessed the NHS because of the impact of the cost of living crisis on their mental or physical health. Under existing powers, what progress can be made to protect workers, including those in our childcare sector, from being further impacted by the crisis?
Clare Haughey is absolutely right to raise such issues. We will do everything that we can, within our gift, to use the powers of devolution to their absolute maximum to help people—particularly those who are most vulnerable and who are in the lowest-income households. That is why I was pleased this week to visit Castlebrae community campus and meet not just young people but parents and families who have been impacted and helped by the Scottish child payment. Families of 303,000 children are now in receipt of that game-changing intervention from the Government. On top of that, many other benefits that are available only in Scotland are being awarded through Social Security Scotland.
We will do everything that we can, within our gift, to help with the cost of living crisis, which is having a mental health impact on many people across the country. The unfortunate problem is that, for all the good that we can do, the actions of the UK Government—with its austerity for more than a decade, its cost of living crisis and its mini-budget that wrecked the economy—mean that we are having to spend not millions but billions of pounds on mitigating the worst effects of Conservative austerity. If Scotland has to continue to do that, that will mean less and less money to spend on education, health, transport and justice. To me, that is simply not acceptable.
Sentencing of Under-25s (Guidelines)
To ask the First Minister whether any objections or concerns were raised by the Scottish ministers during the deliberations about the guidelines for sentencing under-25s, which came into effect in January 2022. (S6F-02201)
In line with requirements that the Parliament agreed to, the content of sentencing guidelines is entirely a matter for the independent, judge-led Scottish Sentencing Council. As part of the consultation that the council undertook on the guideline, the Scottish ministers were sighted on a near-final draft. As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice at the time, I replied and noted that the council had taken
“an evidence led, collaborative approach in developing the draft guideline”
that promoted rehabilitation, early intervention and alternatives to custody and was ultimately about working to reduce reoffending.
I am pleased that reoffending levels have fallen over the past decade, which is helping to keep our communities safe. It should be noted that the position in the guideline is that custody is still an option for sentencing young people and it is completely right that that option remains available to the court in any given case. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, recently met Lady Dorrian to discuss how the council plans to keep the guideline under review.
We know that there have been at least two reported cases in which there has been public concern about the leniency of sentencing: first, in a case in which there was no jail sentence for the rape of a 13-year-old girl, and, secondly, in the case of the horrific rape and murder of Jill Barclay, where there was a reduction in sentence of four years.
Today, the First Minister has confirmed that he sees no role for the Scottish Parliament in such issues and that there is a role only for the Sentencing Council. It seems that, as far as he is concerned, it is nothing to do with this Parliament, even though the introduction of the guidelines was a significant change in sentencing policy.
Is the First Minister aware that this Parliament had a say when it came to the discounting of sentences in relation to early pleas? I do not understand why, given that that was the case, Parliament would not have a say in the issue that we are discussing.
When it comes to horrific crimes that are as serious as rape and murder, does the First Minister believe that there should be reduced sentences for under-25s? Can he at least give us some comfort by saying that he believes that this Parliament should have some oversight of significant changes to sentencing policy in Scotland?
I say to Pauline McNeill, whom I know has a long-standing interest in these matters, that there was a public consultation on the guideline. I do not know whether Pauline McNeill or the Scottish Labour Party responded to that public consultation, but every guideline goes through that quite lengthy process before it is eventually approved by the High Court. The Scottish Government responded to the consultation on the guideline at the time.
I say to Pauline McNeill that the particular guideline that she is talking about was informed by a mountain of evidence—about 122 pages of research by the University of Edinburgh—on the issue of cognitive maturity in the justice system, particularly among young people. I am happy to send her that information, although, of course, she might have seen it already.
It is absolutely right that matters of sentencing are for the independent judiciary. Of course, where the Parliament has an interest, it is fine for a member such as Pauline McNeill to introduce a member’s bill, and, if she thinks that the Government should introduce legislation on a matter, I am more than happy to consider that. However, even in cases in which particularly heinous crimes have been committed, it must always be the case that sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary and should be free from any political interference whatsoever.
We move to general and constituency supplementary questions. I ask for brief questions and responses.
Ferry Services (South Uist)
Last night, Caledonian MacBrayne announced that it would yet again be abandoning ferry services from South Uist for virtually all of June, in order to make up for issues elsewhere. In a statement that could only have been written a long way from South Uist, customers were advised that they could instead get to Oban and Mallaig via either Barra or Skye.
What more can the Scottish Government do to challenge CalMac’s decision, given that that community has already seen a third of its services cancelled during the past year?
I thank Alasdair Allan for raising what is an incredibly important issue for his constituents—I know that many members will have an interest in this issue, too.
First, I will ensure that the Minister for Transport reflects on the point about communications, because we know that that is an issue that has been raised time and time again by our island communities, who, of course, feel anger and frustration in relation to the latest developments and want there to be better communication when there is, unfortunately, disruption to the ferry services.
I recognise the significant impact that this particular destruction will have on the communities in the Uists. I know that the Minister for Transport has made very clear to CalMac that it must continue to explore every possible avenue to keep the disruption to an absolute minimum. The minister visited North Uist and South Uist last week and, this morning, met the South Uist ferry business impact group—I have not yet had a read-out from that meeting, but I will ensure that I get one shortly after First Minister’s question time.
As Alasdair Allan has asked me to do, I will ensure that CalMac explores every possible avenue to minimise this disruption as much as it can.
Vulnerable Individual with Learning Difficulties
I raise the plight of a vulnerable and deteriorating individual with severe learning difficulties who is in the care of Dumfries and Galloway Council but who has, for complex reasons, ended up trapped in a residential home in the south of England. For over a year, her sister has been desperately trying to get her back home closer to family and, at every turn, social work has deliberately obstructed that, and seems to be willing the lady to die or become too weak to travel in order to save itself cost and hassle. Despite notice being served by the existing home and a best interest meeting that agreed with the family that she should return to Scotland, progress has been extremely limited. If I provide her details privately, will the First Minister step in and ensure that her human dignity is respected?
Of course, I am happy to look at the details of the case, and the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care will also look at them. If there is some way in which we can assist, we will do that.
I am sure that Oliver Mundell understands that it is really important that we do not overstep professional decision making or clinical decision making, which may well be a factor in that particular case. However, I hear what he has to say. He has made a very powerful contribution on behalf of his constituents, and I cannot imagine what the family is going through. I will, of course, look at the details if Oliver Mundell sends them to me shortly after First Minister’s question time.
Scottish Child Payment (Uptake)
New forecasts from the Scottish Fiscal Commission show a concerning gap between eligibility for, and uptake of, the Scottish child payment. It is projected that more than 60,000 families could miss out. That disparity is most pronounced among children between six and 15. It has been estimated that only 80 per cent of that age cohort will take up the payment, compared with 92 per cent for under-sixes.
The Scottish child payment was unanimously supported across the Parliament, but the payment has the ability to change lives only if people are aware that they are entitled to it and—crucially—are supported to apply for it. If the First Minister is serious about tackling poverty, as he says he is, will he investigate and address that concerning disparity between eligibility for, and uptake of, the Scottish child payment to ensure that it has the fullest impact, which we all support?
I give an assurance that that is a key area of focus for the Government, and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and I have already had a conversation about that. Good work is already being undertaken in relation to marketing and awareness to ensure that we do everything that we possibly can so that every single person who is eligible for that game-changing intervention takes it up.
As I have mentioned already, I was in Castlebrae community high school only this week. There, I talked to schoolchildren and parents who have benefited from that positive intervention. We have made excellent progress on the extension of the Scottish child payment to under-16s. As I have said, statistics show that 303,000 children were in receipt of it by the end of March. I can give Paul O’Kane an absolute assurance that we are working hard to do what we can to continue to raise awareness so that everybody who is eligible can take up the game-changing Scottish child payment.
Women and Girls in STEM
Following First Minister’s question time today, I will hold a members’ business debate on encouraging women and girls into science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Given the importance of STEM, particularly to the north-east economy, and its role in Scotland’s transition to net zero, what action is the Scottish Government taking to motivate women and girls to pursue careers in it?
I thank Audrey Nicoll for the excellent work that she is doing, and I give my apologies that I cannot make it to the event later on.
We know that the more effort that we put into STEM and ensuring that we get more women and girls into STEM subjects, the more beneficial that is not just for them but for the economy in Scotland. We are taking forward a range of interventions, and I am happy to write to Audrey Nicoll with the details of all the interventions that we are taking forward in relation to that particular issue. The more we invest in encouraging girls into STEM subjects, the better it is for the economy as a whole, and everybody will benefit as a result of that. That is an absolute win-win.
Nursery Sector (Staff)
The First Minister knows that many experienced staff are departing the private and voluntary nursery sector because nurseries in it receive lower fees than those in the councils. During the leadership contest, the First Minister promised to close that gap. Is he going to commit to delivering that, as he said, in the next budget, for 2023-24? Is he going to keep the promise?
Willie Rennie is right in saying that I promised to look at the issue and to clearly understand the concerns that have been raised, particularly by the private, voluntary and independent sector. He will have heard in a previous response that the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise, Natalie Don, met the sector recently. The member may also be aware that, despite having the highest rates in the United Kingdom in 2022-23, both the Scottish Government and local government recognised the need to strengthen the process of rate setting. We are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to take forward an evidenced-based sustainable rates review, and there will be a report on that soon. I am determined to ensure that we are supporting the PVI sector, which is so crucial in helping us to expand our exceptional free childcare offer across the country.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When failing to answer Douglas Ross earlier, the First Minister said that the United Kingdom Government has given:
“not a single penny of funding towards the Scottish cluster or the Acorn project”.
Anyone who was in command of his brief would know that the UK Government has, in fact, given more than £40 million to the Scottish cluster. In the light of John Swinney voluntarily correcting the record following his misleading of the chamber last night, will the Presiding Officer advise the First Minister on how he might correct his latest gaffe?
Members will be aware that the chair is not responsible for the content of members’ contributions. We would always expect that the content of responses address specific questions that have been put and, when members become aware of any inaccuracy, that they take the measures that are available to them in order to make any corrections.
12:51 Meeting suspended.12:53 On resuming—
Air ais
General Question TimeAir adhart
Women and Girls in STEM