12:01
Social Security Scotland Investigations
John Swinney personally backed Sally Donald to become a new Scottish National Party member of the Scottish Parliament. At her glitzy campaign fundraiser, he gushed about her in glowing terms. Mr Swinney was at the top table, smiling. He was by her side. That was just 12 days ago. Yesterday, Sally Donald was forced to quit as the SNP candidate for Edinburgh Southern. When exactly did John Swinney know that his star candidate was under investigation for benefit fraud?
I am going to do my level best to answer the questions that Russell Findlay has put to me, as I always do, but I am not going to talk about individual cases, because it is important that I respect the proper process that the Government has put in place to ensure that issues in relation to social security payments and potential fraud are dealt with properly.
In relation to the specific question that Russell Findlay raises, I first became aware of those issues when the Government received a press inquiry about the subject in recent days.
John Swinney’s star candidate used a crowdfunder to raise more than £1,200 for her campaign. [Interruption.]
We are going to hear Mr Findlay.
Anyone who is daft enough to trust the SNP with their cash needs to give their head a wobble.
However, I am more interested in taxpayers’ money. That case illustrates so much that is wrong with the SNP’s benefits system. Thanks to The Scotsman newspaper, we know that Sally Donald may have claimed tens of thousands of pounds in adult disability payment to which she was not entitled. I have repeatedly challenged John Swinney over the SNP’s deliberately light-touch benefits system being wide open to abuse, but he is in denial. He told me:
“if there is evidence of fraud, those issues are already addressed by the systems that Social Security Scotland has in place.”—[Official Report, 18 September 2025; c 11.]
Does he stand by his claim that the system is strong enough to catch benefits cheats?
Yes, I stand by those comments because I believe that to be the case.
I cannot be the only person who is surprised that Russell Findlay has not managed to make a connection between the fact that an investigation is being made, which confirms the point that such activities are undertaken by Social Security Scotland, and the fact that the system is robust in that respect. By his own words—not for the first time—Russell Findlay destroys the arguments that he puts to me in the Parliament.
Here is a reality check for John Swinney. Last year, my party revealed that Social Security Scotland had referred just 29 cases of potential fraud to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. On the basis of the level of fraud across the United Kingdom, that number should be in the thousands.
Today, we can reveal another shocking fact. Under the SNP’s new benefits system, just three people have been convicted for fraud-related offences since 2022. Out of the almost 1 million people who claim benefits in Scotland, just three people have been convicted of such offences. That is unbelievable.
On the basis of our evidence, does John Swinney agree that the SNP has, in effect, decriminalised benefit fraud in Scotland?
I reiterate what I said in my answer to Mr Findlay’s second question: the system is working, because investigations take place when they are required. There is a robust assessment process in place.
What Mr Findlay’s question is cover for is his desire to take benefits away from vulnerable people in our society. The fault line in the system that is here—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
—is that Russell Findlay and the Tories, with their credentials as the nasty party of Scottish politics properly restored, are going after vulnerable people in our society. Well, my party is not going to do that.
I remember the old John Swinney, who preached about being respectful in here. The mask has again slipped and he has gone back to the angry John Swinney who resorts to silly smears. He still does not get it. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
The party of gravy-bus grifters and camper-van capers mugs its own members and robs the taxpayers of Scotland. It has built a benefits system that shouts, “Free money here!” It is a charter for chancers.
Every other party backs the SNP’s out-of-control benefits spending, but the Scottish Conservatives will keep telling the truth. The SNP’s benefits spending is unaffordable, unfair and unsustainable. We have set out a sensible plan to tackle fraud and to reduce the £7 billion—and rising—benefits bill. Mr Swinney can posture all he wants, but surely he can now see that the benefits system is completely and utterly broken.
I am always respectful in my engagement in Parliament, and I will not apologise for setting out some hard truths to the Tory party.
I did not conjure up the description of the Tory party as “the nasty party”. That description was conjured up and openly used by Theresa May, the former Conservative Prime Minister, who, in a moment of self-reflection, told the Conservatives what they needed to hear. Of course, there has been a resumption of the nasty party under the leadership of Russell Findlay.
One illustration of the characteristics of Mr Findlay’s plan is the fact that, if it was implemented, the two-child limit would be restored in relation to the Scottish child payment, which would consign more families and more children in this country to poverty.
One of my objectives as First Minister is to make sure that we succeed in eradicating child poverty. We are already making significant progress on that. In Scotland, there has been a reduction in child poverty while it is rising in the rest of the United Kingdom. Next week, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice will set out to Parliament the next steps in tackling child poverty. This Government will succeed in its determination to eradicate child poverty and consign the Tory party in Scotland to electoral history.
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital
Last week in the chamber, John Swinney shamefully turned his back on families impacted by the Queen Elizabeth university hospital scandal. Later today, he will finally meet them in an online Teams call. I hope that he will take the opportunity to apologise to them.
Last week, John Swinney said that he could not set up an independent expert panel to answer the families’ questions because there was a public inquiry. That was not the first time that he had misled the Parliament and hidden behind the inquiry when it suited him. He knows that the inquiry is not looking at individual cases and, therefore, will not give those families the answers that they deserve.
In NHS Tayside, there is a public inquiry into the Eljamel scandal, alongside an expert panel that is looking at individual cases. What the First Minister said last week is just not true. Will he now accept that he was wrong, and will he commit to setting up that independent expert panel?
The first thing that I want to say to Mr Sarwar is that I offered no disrespect to families last week. I was simply sitting in my chair, looking at Mr Sarwar and answering his questions. It is my duty to answer questions, and I did that. I simply say to Mr Sarwar that I have to give that matter my attention when I am answering questions in the Parliament.
The second question that Mr Sarwar puts to me is about any scrutiny of individual cases. From my recollection of what he has said to me, Mr Sarwar misrepresents what I said to Parliament last week—not, of course, for the first time. What I said to Mr Sarwar last week is that I would have to consider the question of looking at individual cases. I did not, at any stage, rule it out. Mr Sarwar has, once again, misrepresented me in the chamber, and it is up to me to correct him for that purpose.
In 2020, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport commissioned a case note review, which was undertaken by a panel of independent experts, so some of that work has already been undertaken. The review was led by Professor Mike Stephens and it looked at 118 episodes of bacterial infection in 85 children who received treatment for blood disease, cancer or related conditions at the Royal hospital for children in Glasgow. It published its findings in 2021.
That exercise has been done on a large number of cases. As I said last week, if more cases are to be examined, I will consider that question. However, I have to be mindful of the fact that a public inquiry is now under way to look at all these questions. I reiterate to Mr Sarwar that at no stage last week did I rule out that possibility, and he should stop misrepresenting me in the chamber.
To be frank, patients and families will see right through the nonsense of John Swinney, because they have been hearing it for eight years. This is not the only occasion on which John Swinney has misled Parliament. He has done it for weeks in relation to safety issues at the hospital. Yet again, it has taken whistleblowers and journalists to reveal that infection risks to immunocompromised patients have led to two wards being partially closed.
The First Minister does not want to hear it from me, but perhaps he will listen to the words of the grieving widow Louise Slorance:
“It beggars belief that as this incident was ongoing”,
the health board,
“the First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health were publicly proclaiming the hospital was safe. As the leading expert states 4B is not safe and nobody should be saying it is … patients like Andrew remain at risk today simply because those responsible prioritise reputation over patient safety.”
Shame on each and every single one of you. Public safety and patient reassurance are urgent. They require honesty and transparency. This Parliament voted three weeks ago for all those documents to be published, and they have not been. Will the First Minister stop hiding behind process and do it right now?
Let me address the issues that Mr Sarwar puts to me. Last week, I met some of the families involved in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, and I will meet many more as part of the conversation this afternoon. They will have my attention and my engagement on all those issues.
Mr Sarwar asked me for transparency on these issues, and I want to be crystal clear with Parliament. The Government received an hospital infection incident assessment tool—HIIAT—amber alert on Thursday 26 February regarding ward 4B at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, which cares for bone marrow transplant patients. This morning, the Government was advised that that HIIAT alert was upgraded to red.
There is only one factor that has made the difference between the amber alert and the red alert, and that is the upgrading of one aspect of the HIIAT to acknowledge the heightened public anxiety around the matter. It is not because of any increased risk of harm to patients.
It is important for me to put on the record the fundamental clinical consensus that the wards in question are safe. I reiterate the view that I consider the hospital, and its component parts, to be safe. Where issues are identified openly and transparently, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is addressing those issues and will be required by the Government to do exactly that. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has been engaging with the health board about exactly that, and that is what I expect the health board to do in the period to come.
In that answer, John Swinney reveals the inconsistency at the heart of this Government. The Government received 14 amber and red warnings before March 2018, but still took no action and denied that there were infection risks at the hospital. The First Minister now admits that amber and red warnings come to the Government, so why were those ignored before 2018 so that people died as a result?
Every step of the way, this Scottish National Party Government has attempted to misinform, deflect and deny. Progress has only ever been made when the Government has been backed into a corner and, even now, it hides behind process rather than just telling the truth.
Let us look at what has been established in the past few weeks. We now know that political pressure was applied to open a hospital before it was ready and safe, and that people died as a result. Shona Robison was the health secretary at the time and should perhaps reflect on her own decisions and on what happened. We know that repeated warnings about infections were ignored and that staff were bullied and attempts made to silence them. We know that grieving families were offered bribes in exchange for their silence and that, despite all that, even now, the truth is being denied and the hospital has not been validated.
Families do not trust John Swinney and he will not release the papers that this Parliament has demanded. Why is he incapable of doing the right thing by families when it comes to that hospital?
I completely and utterly reject that charge.
In relation to the issue of grieving families, I will meet grieving families this afternoon, as I indicated that I would do, just as I met families last week and just as I have, in my constituency capacity, met victims of the Eljamel situation, whom I also met as First Minister on Monday.
On the issue of releasing papers, my understanding is that the papers that were considered by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde have been made publicly available, which addresses the question that Mr Sarwar puts to me. If he believes that any documents have not been released when the Government committed to doing so, he should advise me as to what those documents are, because it is my understanding that those documents have been put in the public domain.
We have established an oversight group that involves representatives of families and is chaired by the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and by Sir Lewis Ritchie, an eminent clinician, to ensure that there is external interrogation of the issues at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
On the question of openness, I have today put on record the most recent information available to me. I could not be any more open with Parliament on the question, based on the information that is available to me.
I add that the Government has established a public inquiry that will consider all those issues and that we await Lord Brodie’s findings.
I say to Anas Sarwar at this particular moment that the Government recognises the deep concern of families. That is being addressed by the steps that we are taking, and that will continue to be the position of my Government.
Prestwick Airport (Military Use)
Flight data shows that, in the week leading up to the United States and Israeli attack on Iran, 24 US military aircraft landed at Prestwick airport and some of those came directly from Israel. That is a significant increase in American military activity at an airport that is owned by the Scottish Government. We now know that that was in preparation for their bombing campaign against Iran. Trump and Netanyahu are not liberating the Iranian people from a brutal regime by murdering their children, as they did when they killed dozens of little girls shortly after they arrived for lessons at a Tehran school on Saturday.
The Israeli military is rightly banned from using Prestwick airport because of its genocidal assault on Palestine. The First Minister has said that America and Israel’s attack on Iran is not compatible with the international rules-based system. In other words, it is illegal under international law, so will he now ban the American military from using Prestwick airport?
Let me reiterate what I have said publicly on the issue. I cannot see how the intervention by the United States and Israel is compatible with an international rules-based system. The implications of this are now being felt very directly by our own citizens, many of whom are stranded in the middle east. The position that the Prime Minister finds himself in, of having to address the security implications for our citizens as a consequence of the American and Israeli action, demonstrates how these issues can escalate out of control very, very quickly indeed and pose direct risks to our citizens.
I am concerned for the wellbeing of Scottish citizens who are trapped in the middle east. We are working with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to seek the repatriation of those individuals as quickly as it is safe to do so, given the risks and threats that are faced.
In relation to the question of the use of Prestwick airport, the Government is in the process of establishing clarity around the use of the airport by the American air force. That process of inquiry is under way. Obviously, when the Government has more to say on that question, we will share that with Parliament.
The First Minister is right that America’s attack on Iran is incompatible with international law, but he is seeking an answer that we already have about the US use of Prestwick airport. We can see the flight data and we can see the flights between Prestwick airport and Israel by the US military. It is abundantly obvious what they are doing.
Spain, which is a fellow NATO member, has now banned the US military from using its air bases. Its Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, said:
“you can be against a hateful regime … and, at the same time, against an unjustified and dangerous military intervention that is outside international law.”
I believe that the First Minister agrees with that statement. It is very similar to statements that he made when he marched against the war against Iraq in 2003.
The US is using an airport that is owned by the Scottish Government to wage an illegal war, killing hundreds if not thousands of innocent people, but at the moment, Scotland’s First Minister is sitting on his hands. This Government says that it stands up for Scotland. Why does that stop the moment it might involve Donald Trump? Why will the First Minister not kick Trump’s troops out of Prestwick airport immediately?
I think that it is pretty clear from what I have said over the past few days that I am in no way, shape or form a supporter of what has happened in the course of the past few days—in no way, shape or form. No amount of the characterisation of my stance that Mr Greer has put on the record will demonstrate that not to be the case.
I am taking the steps within Government to establish the detail around the use of Prestwick airport. When the Government has more to say to Parliament about that, we will do so. However, let me reiterate that I believe that the intervention by Israel and the United States is incompatible with the international rules-based system. That has been the position of my Government and it will continue to be so.
Spring Statement
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the United Kingdom Government’s spring statement. (S6F-04721)
The UK spring statement provided an update on the various issues in relation to the economic situation. We had hoped that there would be a clear outcome from the spring statement in relation to the energy profits levy, with an immediate end to that profits levy, given the damage that is being done to the North Sea sector as a consequence. We received information about additional consequentials from the United Kingdom Government, which will be spread over a three-year period beginning with 2026-27 and which represent additional funding of less than half of 1 per cent of the budget over a three-year period.
UK economic growth forecasts have been revised downwards to lower than in the last year of the Tories. Does the First Minister agree that the spring statement was a missed opportunity to abolish an energy profits levy, which is costing 1,000 jobs each month in the North Sea at a time of fuel insecurity; to remove the increased employer national insurance contributions, which have hit the low paid and businesses and have cost 200,000 jobs; and, finally, to deliver justice to the 3.6 million women against state pension inequality—the WASPI women—who have been betrayed by the UK Labour Government? Does he agree that, given that it is bereft of any vision for Scotland, it is no wonder that the best election slogan that Labour can contrive is, “Hold your nose and vote Labour”?
Please answer in relation to devolved competence, First Minister.
On the issues associated with the spring statement, I am still unable to understand how the UK Government can reconcile its supposed enthusiasm for growth in the economy with the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which is so obviously damaging employment growth in many parts of the United Kingdom. Thankfully, though, because of the steps that my Government has taken, unemployment is at a very low level compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
I did want the chancellor’s statement to address the energy profits levy, which is costing 1,000 jobs each month in the North Sea at a time of fuel insecurity. The challenges that we face in Scotland have not been assisted by the stance taken by the United Kingdom Government in its spring statement, but we will work to ensure that, at all times, we continue to protect and promote the interests of the people of Scotland.
As for Mr Gibson’s characterisation of the Labour Party’s dynamic election campaign, the slogan for which has gone from “Vote Labour for change” to “Hold your nose and vote Labour”, it tells us what we all knew a long time ago—that it stinks to vote Labour.
Curriculum for Excellence
To ask the First Minister, in light of the recently published commission on school reform manifesto warning that the curriculum for excellence has been poorly implemented and is harming long-term prospects, what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether a lack of clear, nationally specified curriculum content and standards has contributed to declining attainment and inconsistency across Scotland’s schools. (S6F-04723)
Scottish education continues to perform well, with record levels of literacy and numeracy, a record low in the poverty-related attainment gap in primary schools and a near-record number of young people entering positive destinations.
On the encouragement of the commission on school reform, the Government sought an assessment of curriculum for excellence from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That review indicated that curriculum for excellence was the correct approach.
Work to update the curriculum to ensure strong alignment between the broad general education and the senior phase is under way. Those reforms are essential to ensure the continued success of our education system.
We have just had the usual self-congratulation from John Swinney. He cannot have read the 2021 OECD review if that is what he thinks the sum content of it was.
Teachers have been warning for years that curriculum for excellence is no longer fit for purpose. It has weakened the emphasis on subject knowledge, has created inconsistency between schools and has coincided with Scotland falling behind international competitors.
The OECD review in 2021—five years ago—warned that there was insufficient clarity about what pupils should learn and how standards should be measured, and yet, all those years on, the Scottish National Party Government has done nothing. Will the First Minister now accept that his Government bears responsibility for the erosion of Scotland’s once world-leading education system, and will he set out what action must now be taken to restore clear standards, strong knowledge foundations and consistent expectations across Scotland’s schools?
I do not accept that characterisation of Scottish education. Attainment levels are at a record high in literacy and numeracy, which is a consequence of the Government’s commitment to the Scottish attainment challenge. The poverty-related attainment gap in literacy and numeracy, across primary and secondary education, is at a record low.
With regard to the delivery of Scottish education, there have been improvements in examination results, as demonstrated by the exam results in August 2025. Those showed the strength of Scottish education.
The Government has taken action to address the issues highlighted in the OECD review in relation to curriculum content. Any curriculum has to be founded, and if Mr Kerr does not realise that the curriculum is knowledge based to equip young people with the skills that are needed for the 21st century, he has not been paying attention to the content of Scottish education.
I am engaged with those involved in Scottish education the length and breadth of the country, and I see a strong education system with outstanding young people and with a record number of achievements being made in our schools. I am proud of the strength of Scottish education.
Legal Rights (Women and Girls)
To ask the First Minister, in light of the theme of this year’s international women’s day being equal rights and equal justice, what action the Scottish Government is taking to improve the legal rights of women and girls. (S6F-04731)
The Scottish Government is strengthening the rights of women and girls. I am committed to ensuring that people are protected from abuse, which is why we are introducing new protections for women and girls via the hate crime legislation and are consulting on other new protections, such as banning the creation of deepfake images.
Significant reforms have also recently been introduced, such as the establishment of a sexual offences court, which provides victims of sexual offences with an automatic lifelong right of anonymity, and providing women with the ability to seek protection from abuse by removing the abuser from their home.
A number of women members have raised with the First Minister the financial problems being faced by rape crisis centres, which provide a range of practical and legal services to women. Three rape crisis centres, including the STAR Centre, which provides services in Ayrshire, have highlighted significant real-terms cuts, and Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis has closed two of its waiting lists.
The First Minister has talked about active discussions with ministers. As we approach international women’s day, will he give a commitment that there will be no cuts, so that services provided by rape crisis centres can continue?
I reassure Katy Clark that the Government wants to put in place appropriate funding for rape crisis centres around the country. We are providing a 5 per cent uplift to the delivering equally safe fund, bringing the total investment in the fund to almost £46 million from 2026 to 2028.
Katy Clark also raised with me issues related to Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis. Improvements to the funding position have been made there, and that is also the case in relation to the STAR Centre in Ayrshire, which she also mentioned. I hope that that will reassure Ms Clark that the Government wishes to fund the network of rape crisis centres around the country adequately and effectively.
It is scandalous that the Scottish National Party Government has spent millions of pounds funding self-identification groups while shutting sex-based women’s organisations out of public funding. Ahead of international women’s day, will the First Minister commit to finally opening the equally safe and equality and human rights funds to fair and open competition?
The Government sets out to Parliament the investment that it is making. I have set out the uplift to the funds, and all of that provision is put to Parliament in the annual budget, which I am pleased to say Parliament approved last week.
We move to constituency and general supplementary questions.
Fuel Prices
Industry experts have warned that global uncertainty could lead to increased fuel prices. With that in mind, the Labour Party must rethink its planned hikes to fuel duty, which will hit hard-working families in Scotland hard. Does the First Minister believe that, when Scotland produces far more oil and gas than we can hope to use, energy-rich Scots should not need to pay through the nose to fill their cars?
There is renewed uncertainty about the energy prices that we will all pay because of the events in the middle east, which will cause significant disruption and anxiety in the economy. Therefore, it is essential that we are all mindful of the steps that we take to ensure that those issues are properly addressed. Fundamentally, that onus and responsibility is on the United Kingdom Government in relation to those areas of taxation.
As for areas where we do have responsibility, I was in Inverness yesterday to announce the commencement of the £2 bus fare cap proposal, which will be deployed in the Highlands on 23 March. It is already operating in the Western Isles and Shetland, and it will start in Orkney on Monday. It is another example of this Government intervening to support individuals and reduce the cost of living. I am pleased with the interventions that we are making.
Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme
I have been contacted by local church groups concerned about the closure at the end of this month of the United Kingdom Government’s listed places of worship grant scheme, a very valuable scheme that I am sure the First Minister is aware of, and which allows places of worship to recover value added tax on repair and renovation costs.
The UK Government has indicated that, from April, a replacement scheme worth £92 million will be established, but it will cover only England. That will, of course, generate Barnett consequentials for the Scottish Government, so will the First Minister commit to using those consequentials to establish a similar scheme for listed places of worship here in Scotland?
I will have to look at the detail of the timing of those announcements, but I suspect that the Barnett consequentials that Mr Fraser mentions will have been in the budget settlement on which the Parliament made a determination in last week’s budget debate. Of course, following that debate, Mr Fraser did not support the Government’s budget.
We will look at the issue and see what we can do to assist. If there are further steps that the Government can take, we will share them with Parliament.
M8 Woodside Viaducts
The First Minister is aware that there are temporary works on the M8 viaducts and that the project is already four years over schedule. I put on record my thanks to Amey and Transport Scotland for the site visit that I had.
Transport Scotland is now consulting on three options for a permanent solution. One of them is to demolish that section of the M8 and divert it to the M74, at a cost of up to £125 million.
Does the First Minister agree that that option would be a disaster, given the impact on the M74 and the west of Scotland economy, because the issue affects a much wider area than Glasgow? Does he agree that Transport Scotland should remove that option and should reassure businesses, taxi operators, drivers and bus operators that that option will not be taken seriously?
I understand the concern that Pauline McNeill raises. This is an issue that is the subject of active consultation, and Transport Scotland will consider the feedback that comes in. I am sure that the concerns that Pauline McNeill has set out will be heard in the consultation process. I give her the commitment that the Government will consider carefully the views about the issue that are expressed by all interested parties.
Energy Profits Levy
The Labour Party betrayed workers, industry and our economy when it failed to scrap its tax on Scotland’s energy at the spring statement this week. Not only does that tax destroy jobs, it ruins investment in renewables and puts our energy security at risk at a time of escalating global conflict. Does the First Minister share my view that Labour’s tax on Scotland’s energy must end now to put us in a position to boost our economy, save jobs and ensure our energy security? [Interruption.]
I am not quite sure why Labour members are taking such exception to Mr Stewart’s question today. It rather reinforces the lack of concern that Labour has for the employment of people in the North Sea oil and gas sector at the present moment.
I have been raising with the Prime Minister for some months now the necessity of removing the energy profits levy. Because of that levy, we are seeing an accelerated decline in oil and gas activity without the upsurge in renewables activity that we need in order for that to be compensated for.
There is a significant employment threat faced by people in the North Sea oil and gas sector, and the Labour Party is absolutely oblivious to all of that. It does not care about it one jot—[Interruption.] Well, this Government cares about the employment of individuals in Scotland. I reiterate my call for the removal of the energy profits levy, and it should happen the sooner the better.
Let us make sure that we can hear one another. People in the gallery would very much like to hear members’ contributions.
Congestion Charging (Edinburgh)
Councillors in Edinburgh have voted to develop a framework for a congestion charge in the capital that could see residents in East Lothian, Midlothian and West Lothian having to pay more than £4,000 a year to drive into the city. The First Minister says that he is interested in the cost of living, so does he agree that it is unfair for my constituents to pay to drive to work, visit family or go to hospital? I know that he is keen on referenda, so does he agree that, as in 2005, that should be decided by a referendum of people across my region?
There is a dilemma at the heart of the question that Miles Briggs raises. On a regular basis, members of Parliament press the Government to enable local authorities to take more comprehensive decisions about their localities.
Over time, Mr Briggs has argued for me to enable local authorities to have more scope to do things, but he is now asking me to intervene to stop that happening. Those are local matters that local authorities must consult on and make decisions about. It is their responsibility to do exactly that.
On the subject of a referendum, I say to Mr Briggs that I think that the next referendum that needs to take place in Scotland is a referendum on Scottish independence—and the sooner the better.
Ecocide (Scotland) Bill
It feels as though it is a good time to remind the Parliament and Kevin Stewart in particular that the triple threat of climate breakdown, nature loss and pollution is an urgent danger to our people and environment.
I thank the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin, for their support for the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill, which was recently backed by 90 MSPs from six political parties at stage 1. Although the parliamentary committee has stopped the clock on the bill for this session—by a majority of one vote—the threat to Scotland’s nature remains. Does the First Minister agree with me and the majority of people in Scotland that the bill must be a priority for the next session of the Parliament, so that Scotland can benefit from a stand-alone offence of ecocide to deter and protect us from the most severe environmental disruption?
I pay tribute to Monica Lennon for the work that she has done on the bill. I understand that the committee decided not to proceed to stage 2 consideration, which is a matter for the committee.
The issues that Monica Lennon raises about nature loss, biodiversity and climate change are sustained, important priority issues that cannot be avoided. That is why the Government is committed to our policy agenda. Should the Government be re-elected, it will consider the issues that Monica Lennon has raised with me. We all have to recognise that there is now a much more divided debate on the issue. It is important that leadership is deployed to ensure that we address the necessity for climate action and restore nature loss. That is what I am committed to doing in the programme of my Government.
National Health Service Waiting Times
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.
This week, new figures have shown a 6.1 per cent increase in the number of NHS operations performed in the past year. Meanwhile, child and adolescent mental health service waiting times of more than 18 weeks are now at their lowest level since June 2013, with CAMHS targets having been met consistently for more than a year. That follows last week’s news that waiting lists in Scotland are continuing to fall, with waits of more than a year having decreased for eight consecutive months. Does the First Minister expect continuous improvements to delivery across our national health service?
I expect that to be the case, because the Government has committed to reducing long waits in our NHS. As my colleague Clare Haughey has said, there have been eight months of continuous reductions in long waits for out-patients and for patients with a treatment time guarantee. The latest data this week shows that operation numbers are up by 5.6 per cent in the 12 months to December 2025. General practitioner numbers are up and 16 walk-in GP centres are being delivered across the country. I know that the Labour Party absolutely loathes the GP walk-in centres, but I am pleased that they will provide more access to healthcare services in Scotland. The national performance against the 18-week CAMHS standard has been met for the past year. I assure Clare Haughey that the Government, under my leadership, will continue to deliver the improvements in the national health service, and we will to continue to do what is already in place.
BrewDog
This week, BrewDog, which is based in Ellon in Aberdeenshire, announced the loss of 484 jobs and the closure of 38 pubs after the company fell into administration. Nine of the bars that have closed are in Scotland, including two in Aberdeen and one in Inverurie. Unions, workers and investors have all voiced anger at how the sale of the business was handled, with staff being told that they had lost their jobs during a 15-minute conference call.
BrewDog is the latest in a string of companies to have closed pubs in the north-east so far this year, and BrewDog’s former chief executive has pointed to business rates as a factor in the company’s downfall. What is the Scottish Government doing to support staff who have lost their jobs at BrewDog? When will the First Minister finally put a stop to the Scottish National Party’s stealth tax on our hospitality sector?
With the greatest respect to Mr Lumsden, I think that the issues in relation to BrewDog’s situation have a great deal more to do with other factors than with business rates levied by the Scottish Government.
On the question of business rates, however, in the budget that was passed last week—which Mr Lumsden did not support—the Government put in place support and reliefs totalling, if my memory serves me right, more than £900 million in relation to business rates relief. We are supporting transitional relief as part of that figure to assist businesses in the hospitality sector.
The Government will, of course, engage closely with the BrewDog employees. I am deeply concerned about the way in which they have been treated. It is appalling for members of staff to be treated in this fashion. The partnership action for continuing employment initiative that the Government puts in place to support employees who lose their jobs will be available to help those from BrewDog who have lost their jobs.
Breast Reconstruction Surgery
I met a constituent last Friday who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018. She has had successful treatment, with a mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and she was assured that she would receive breast reconstruction surgery following treatment, which will likely involve multiple visits from Shetland to Aberdeen breast clinic. However, she has thus far failed to establish when that will happen. It is evident that the lengthy delay is having an impact on her mental health and wellbeing and, consequently, that of her family.
Does the First Minister know whether years of delay for breast reconstruction surgery is usual? Will he ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to engage directly with me about that specific case, to try to get some answers for my constituent, who has already been through so much?
I am very sympathetic to the point that Beatrice Wishart raises, and I have answered questions on the topic before. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to engage directly with Beatrice Wishart on this question.
The theatres that undertake activity to tackle breast cancer and other cancers are the same theatres that are used for breast reconstruction surgery. Where we have backlogs in the aftermath of Covid, clinical priority has been attached to the immediate treatment of life-threatening conditions that individuals face. Sadly and regrettably, that has led to significant delays in breast reconstruction surgery. That is the rationale for where we find ourselves.
I will ask the health secretary to engage directly with Beatrice Wishart to support her constituent. I simply express my regret and apologies for the delay that has been experienced, which is for those reasons and those reasons alone.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. Our next item of business is a members’ business debate. There will be a brief suspension to allow those leaving the chamber, including the public gallery, to do so.
12:47
Meeting suspended.
12:49
On resuming—
Air ais
General Question Time