Official Report 1700KB pdf
12:06
Glasgow Union Street Fire
The inferno that ripped through my home city of Glasgow was devastating. Only the bravery and professionalism of 250 firefighters stopped the flames from engulfing Central station. There are many serious questions about the dodgy vape shop where the fire started, but the immediate focus must be on local businesses, which already face severe pressures.
On Tuesday, John Swinney said that the Scottish National Party Government was in discussions with the SNP-run city council. Can he therefore tell those struggling business owners exactly what support will be provided and when?
First, I associate myself very closely with Russell Findlay’s remarks about the bravery and effectiveness of the firefighting operation. That response has enabled Glasgow Central station, the Central hotel and most of the infrastructure around the site of the fire to be protected, although there is significant disruption to individuals as a consequence.
The Government is in active discussion with Glasgow City Council, which is gathering information from the affected businesses about their circumstances. I am not in a position today to say definitively what financial support will be available, but I expect to be able to do so very shortly.
Glasgow City Council and the Government will discuss exactly what support can be made available to the affected businesses. I include in that the businesses that have been directly displaced by the fire and those that have been affected by issues with access to the central Glasgow area, which is severely restricted because of the safety considerations at the site.
I am not sure whether that answer will inspire huge confidence. There seems to be a lack of urgency around the matter, because many businesses that have been impacted by the Glasgow fire already face massive, imminent rises to their rates bills. Across Scotland, those bills will force some to cease trading and lay off workers.
Two prominent businessmen have issued particularly stark warnings. Lord Haughey said that there could be “civil disobedience” and a mass campaign of non-payment. Sir Tom Hunter said:
“Mr Swinney, First Minister, you understand what is going on here, and you understand the punishment. I am going to say it today: can’t pay, won’t pay.”
My party is campaigning to pause the new rates bills before they come into effect on 1 April. Will John Swinney heed those warnings before it is too late?
I recognise the challenges that, in general, the business community in Glasgow, and across the country, is facing, and I recognise the significance of the issues relating to non-domestic rates, which have been central to the Government’s budget provisions for many years. We have protected the business community from some of the increases that it has faced.
Some properties will see significant increases in rateable values in the 2026 revaluation, but the transitional relief that the Government has put in place means that the gross bills of about 60,000 properties will be lower in 2026-27 than they would otherwise have been. That is part of the wider non-domestic rates support that the Government has put into place, which is more than £870 million in 2026-27.
John Swinney mentions the budget response, but that is a sticking plaster. Businesses are bleeding out and Scottish hospitality is being hit hard, with pubs already closing at a rate of one a week. However, John Swinney does not want to know. Last month, I invited him to discuss Scotland’s pub crisis over a pint. He refused. The Scottish Hospitality Group invited Mr Swinney to its recent hustings. He refused. Instead, he sent a local councillor. The same group also wrote to Mr Swinney on 30 January asking him for a meeting. He has not even replied. Does John Swinney think that his high-handed treatment of a critical sector of the Scottish economy is appropriate?
There is extensive engagement between my ministers and the different sectors that are involved in the discussions on business rates, and a wide range of meetings have taken place between ministers and representatives of the hospitality industry as part of that work. That engagement led to the budget propositions that have put in place significant transitional reliefs, which will reduce the net bill for eligible properties to 25 per cent of what it would otherwise have been in 2026-27. That is a significant contribution. As I said in an earlier answer, it is part of a package of reliefs that is estimated to be worth more than £870 million in the next financial year to companies in Scotland.
I understand the concerns in the business community. I engage regularly with a range of different business organisations—my ministers do exactly the same—to ensure that we can take action within the financial resources that are available to us to support the business community and to encourage its growth and development in Scotland. That is at the heart of the Government’s budget proposals.
The First Minister could not even be bothered going to the hustings. He did not even bother sending a minister or an MSP.
Let me tell members about another shocking example of John Swinney’s disgraceful, high-handed approach to business. I contacted him directly about Katie Long. Katie took on a derelict pub in Mr Swinney’s constituency and worked tirelessly to transform it into a thriving community local. Her rates bill is about to double, and she is on the brink of calling last orders for the last time. A community would lose its local and 26 people would lose their jobs.
More than a fortnight ago, I asked John Swinney to visit Katie’s pub. He has not even replied. Mr Swinney will not go to Katie’s pub, so she has come to the Parliament today. I will be going with Katie to a nearby pub at half past 1 this afternoon. Will John Swinney join us to discuss Katie’s plight and Scotland’s pub crisis over a pint?
I am very familiar with the case that Mr Findlay puts to me. Of course, in that case, there will be benefits as a result of the transitional relief system that the Government will put in place.
I am afraid that, because of my commitments, I cannot join Mr Findlay at 1.30. I ask the Parliament to understand that there are a range of different issues that I am wrestling with and must take forward.
Every year that it has been in office, this Government has consistently demonstrated a determination to put in place support for business. We were the first Government to introduce the small business bonus scheme, which the pub that Mr Findlay referred to has benefited from. We are a Government that has put in place a series of different reliefs across hospitality, retail and leisure premises, as well as delivering a reduction in rate levels in Scotland. That is all part of the £870 million of financial support that this Government is providing. I point out to Mr Findlay that he did not vote for a single penny of that when the budget came before Parliament. What we have had from Mr Findlay is just posturing.
Glasgow Union Street Fire
On Sunday night, like so many other Glaswegians, I watched in horror as yet another fire ripped through the heart of our city. I want to place on record my thanks to the members of the emergency services who ran towards danger to protect others. Thanks to them, no one was seriously injured or lost their life.
On Monday morning, when I spoke to workers there, I saw the best of Glasgow: businesses handing out coffee to workers who were dealing with the fallout and volunteers who were helping to manage commuters. People really do make Glasgow.
The fire has raised a number of issues, including the regulation and licensing of vape shops, the availability of support packages for those who have lost their livelihoods, how soon we can restore normality for workers and commuters, and, of course, the resourcing of our Fire and Rescue Service. What urgent lessons will the Government learn from the incident?
I also associate myself with the remarks of Mr Sarwar. When I visited the site on Monday, I was briefed by the various organisations that were involved in dealing with the incident, led by the firefighting commanders, from whom I gained a first-hand understanding of the severity of the incident.
We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to them, for two reasons. First, as a result of their prompt and comprehensive intervention, there were no injuries, which I consider to be a minor miracle with an incident of that scale. Secondly, Glasgow Central station and the Central hotel were saved from fire spread from an intense fire because of the strategic direction of the operation and the strategic judgments that were made by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I associate myself very much with Mr Sarwar’s remarks in that regard.
There was also the whole recovery operation, which involved our transport networks, the emergency services and the volunteers who turned out—very quickly—to provide support to individuals.
Mr Sarwar is correct to say that a number of lessons must be learned from the incident. An investigation into the site will be carried out, but it looks pretty obvious that it started in a vape shop in Union Street. There is regulation in place, and the United Kingdom Government is actively pursuing more regulation, which will affect Scotland; we are party to that. We will also look to identify what further steps are required to ensure that there is proper and effective regulation of such premises.
To follow up on the point that I made to Mr Findlay, the Government will put in place financial support, which will be channelled through Glasgow City Council, to support affected businesses, but we need to take some time to establish exactly what type of support will make a difference. It will be financial support, because that is required by the businesses that have been affected.
I welcome those comments. Fires such as the one that we saw on Sunday are difficult to fight, and we saw the dedication of our firefighters.
However, the truth is that, too often, our firefighters have to fight fires with reduced capacity. In 2023, John Swinney and the Scottish National Party cut the number of specially designed high-reach appliances, or HRAs, from 26 to just 16 for the whole of Scotland. In Glasgow, the number of those appliances was cut from six to two. It is believed that both of Glasgow’s HRAs were not available on Sunday, due to annual inspection, and that one had to be called from Edinburgh. Why was that ever allowed to happen?
Since 2013, one in six firefighter jobs has been lost—that is more than 1,200 jobs. Sunday is a reminder of what those men and women put at stake every time they go to work.
Right now, we do not know what difference the reduction in fire service capacity would have made on Sunday, but will John Swinney commit to an immediate investigation into any potential impact it might have had on the response, so that lessons can be urgently learned?
I understand the significance and importance of the points that Mr Sarwar puts to me, but I come back to the point of agreement in our exchange, which is that the fire and rescue response on Sunday was exemplary, that the resources that were required were there to ensure that the fire could be extinguished and, crucially, that the high-rise equipment that was available provided the strategic intervention that stopped the fire from spreading into Glasgow Central station or the Central hotel. All that equipment and resource was there to enable that incident to be tackled.
When it comes to considering the deployment or allocation of resources in Scotland for fire and rescue services, the Government is mindful of our obligations in that respect, which is why, in the recent budget, we provided an additional £23.8 million to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, bringing its budget to £435.96 million. That is an increase in the budget for the Fire and Rescue Service.
The Fire and Rescue Service is going through a service delivery review, but central to that review—I have made this point to individual members who have raised issues about firefighting capacity around the country—are questions of fire safety, resilience and proper deployment of resources that will underpin any consideration of the issues in that review. That is the point that I stress to Parliament today. The essential requirement of any review is to make sure that we have a fire and rescue service that can meet the needs of Scotland as we face them and that is the commitment that I give to Parliament today.
John Swinney and I agree about the exemplary nature of the decision making of those individual firefighters, but he needs to commit to an urgent investigation of the impact of the capacity that was available to those firefighters. I do not think that he can logically say that reducing Glasgow’s high-rise appliances from six to two and the fact that those two appliances were both off stream at the same time due to inspection would not have made a material difference. We do not know, but he cannot say categorically that that did not make a material difference to the response to the fire. That is why an urgent investigation must happen to establish the facts.
It was right that John Swinney went to Union Street on Monday to see those who fought to put out the blaze, but government must be about more than gestures. At the very same time as John Swinney was on Union Street thanking the front line, Scottish Government officials were meeting Fire Brigades Union officials to inform them of plans for more job cuts in Scotland’s fire service. How can that possibly be right?
We know that there are now fewer firefighters, less firefighting equipment, longer response times and station closures. Our Fire and Rescue Service has already faced years of cuts, so surely the tragedy on Sunday must be a wake-up call and a reason to pause.
I would have hoped that my answer to Mr Sarwar’s second question would have reassured him on many of those questions. The service delivery review that is going on within the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which is the type of exercise that has to be undertaken on a regular basis, must have public safety and effective dealing with fire and rescue incidents uppermost in its consideration.
Since 2009-10, there has been a 33 per cent reduction in—sorry. Since 2013, there has been a more than 20 per cent reduction in dwelling fires in Scotland. At the same time, there has been an increase in demand for fire and rescue services to deal with issues such as flooding or wildfires. I say that to show that the demand and the incidents that have to be addressed have to be constantly reviewed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and it needs to identify the proper resources that are available to address those incidents. That will be considered as part of the exercise.
In relation to the incident on Sunday in Glasgow, I am confident that effective resources were in place to do all that needed to be done. Looking at the incident and its severity, we can see that the impact was bad enough but could have been even greater. That demonstrates to me that the resources are in place to tackle such incidents. However, that must be kept under constant review, and that is what we expect the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board to do.
Maternity Services (Caithness)
There is good news. A year after she was ready to leave hospital, and months after I first raised her case, Margaret MacGill finally got home yesterday—not because of anything that the Government did but because her family took control of the budget and hired carers themselves, because they were told that the alternative was for her to spend another year in hospital.
Just down the road from Margaret, The Herald newspaper spoke to Elizabeth Jones, a mum in Caithness. Her first two kids were born in the local hospital but then, on the Scottish National Party’s watch, her local maternity services were downgraded. So, when her third child needed to be born by caesarean section, she had to travel 100 miles, alone, to Inverness on a bus.
In November, the Parliament backed a Scottish Liberal Democrat amendment that called for an independent review of maternity services in Caithness, giving hope to families in the area. Why is the SNP defying the wishes of this Parliament?
First, I am delighted that Mrs MacGill is home, which is where she should be, and I am delighted that support is in place to enable her to be at home.
The way in which individuals are financially supported to be at home varies around the country. I, personally, am a great supporter of self-directed support because I think that it gives families much more control, and I am delighted that that arrangement, which has been put in place and is supported by the Government, enables that to happen.
The issues in connection with maternity services in Caithness are being taken forward as part of the work of the maternity and neonatal task force, which is under way. There is independent engagement in the work of the task force, which is designed to look at the vexed issue of the safe delivery of maternity services in particular parts of the country where there is not a high incidence of deliveries, to ensure that those services can be as safe as possible for any mothers who are having babies.
I am sorry, but there is nothing independent about a review if an SNP minister is in overall charge of it. It is no wonder that mums in the far north feel really let down and unsafe. They are not alone. New Scottish Liberal Democrat research shows that 300 times last year, maternity wards across Scotland recorded safety concerns about being short-staffed. Those were red flags on the national health service’s official incident reporting system. That number is almost treble what it was at the start of this session of Parliament. The compensation that the NHS has paid out to affected families has skyrocketed. The Royal College of Midwives has warned that staff
“are being stretched beyond breaking point”
and that women and babies are being denied the care that they deserve.
All of that is happening on the SNP’s watch, so I ask the First Minister: do Scotland’s mums not deserve better than that?
What Scotland’s mums deserve is the safe delivery of maternity care as close to home as they can sustainably get that service. That is exactly what mums in Scotland deserve and that is what this Government delivers.
The overwhelming majority of women and babies experience a safe birth and positive outcomes but, when things go wrong, we expect health boards to engage openly and transparently with individual mothers and families to understand what has gone wrong. We are also requiring Healthcare Improvement Scotland to scrutinise maternity services around the country. We have seen various reports coming forward as that exercise is undertaken and, where improvement is required, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care brings in the leadership of the relevant health board to insist that that is undertaken.
I say to Mr Cole-Hamilton, to Parliament and to mums around the country that the Government is determined to deliver safe maternity services. I reiterate that the majority of women and babies experience a safe birth and positive outcomes and that, where that goes wrong, we expected there to be transparency and accountability, and that is what the Government delivers.
Heating Costs (Rural Households)
To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government can take, in discussion with the United Kingdom Government, to assist households in very rural areas that are wholly dependent on oil or liquefied natural gas for heating, and are not connected to the gas mains, to assist with increased costs. (S6F-04748)
We have engaged with the industry to understand the implications of the serious issue that Christine Grahame raises with me. We also seek to engage with the United Kingdom Government on the issue. I know that there has been some dialogue between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and members of Parliament, but there has not yet been dialogue with the devolved Governments. We will pursue that. We want to make sure that we are part of those discussions to understand the potential impacts on individuals, public services and social security arrangements in Scotland.
Our hope is that de-escalation in Iran can reverse the increase in costs, because that is what is fuelling it. However, energy prices are fully reserved to the United Kingdom Government, and we have pressed it to publicly commit to financial support if prices continue to rise.
I note that Rachel Reeves has referred the hike to the Competition and Markets Authority, but my constituents and, I suspect, constituents of many members throughout the chamber need something done in the here and now. They are simply overwhelmed by the soaring costs of their heating oil, which have more than doubled in days and are still on the rise. For example, in my constituency, the cost was 60p a litre in January, and yesterday it was £1.27 a litre. The increased costs affect about 130,000 homes in Scotland and 1.7 million homes UK-wide. Those homes already get very limited benefit from the energy price cap. That applies to combined electricity and gas supplies, so it applies only to their electricity bills.
Previously, with the spike in the price of heating oil due to the invasion of Ukraine, the UK Government introduced an alternative fuel payment of £200, which was better than nothing. Does the First Minister agree that an alternative fuel payment should be made now, but in tandem with the exposure of the cowboys who are profiteering and, at long last, proper regulation of the industry?
The Cabinet Secretary for Housing has already written to the UK Government confirming our support for the Competition and Markets Authority enforcement action, which would address some of the issues that Christine Grahame has raised. We have also asked the UK Government to stand up the alternative fuel payment infrastructure and called for a public commitment that financial support will be made available if costs continue to rise. The Prime Minister has committed to stepping in should that situation arise, and I would encourage him to do so.
Borders residents have also written to me about the rise in fuel prices, and particularly those who live in fuel poverty. Will the First Minister consider making a Scottish Government resilience or crisis fund available to support those people, who are really living in challenging times with the rise in prices?
The issues in relation to energy prices are a reserved matter for the United Kingdom Government. As I set out, the mechanism is the alternative fuel payment infrastructure, which is a matter for the United Kingdom Government. That is the means of intervening where these circumstances arise. I invite Rachael Hamilton to join us in demanding that the UK Government acts to protect rural residents. That is where the responsibility lies and where the action should come from.
The First Minister will be aware that the UK Government is issuing guidance to its local authorities to use crisis and resilience funds to protect those who are dependent on oil and gas heating. Will he look at making crisis grant funds available to people in islands and rural areas who are dependent on gas and oil for heating? Will he also look at how Consumer Scotland can support the Competition and Markets Authority to engage with people who are suffering because of the soaring costs?
Consumer Scotland will certainly engage very actively with the Competition and Markets Authority. Consumer Scotland is a very good organisation that serves us well. In relation to the crisis grants situation, we will be pressing the UK Government to take action, and I invite Rhoda Grant to join us in making sure that the Labour UK Government acts in that fashion.
Private Healthcare (NHS Consultants)
To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of any impact on the national health service arising from reports that the number of consultants working in the private healthcare system is the highest on record. (S6F-04747)
The very modest increase of 20 private consultants over the past year has to be seen in the context of a record high number of NHS Scotland consultants. Since 2006, the number of consultants has increased by 75 per cent, including a 150 whole-time equivalent increase over the past year, using the latest data to December 2025.
I thank the First Minister for that answer. However, much as I accept that people have a choice, I am concerned that more people are accessing private healthcare not out of choice but out of necessity, in the face of prolonged and painful waits for NHS care.
The situation can only be exacerbated if more of our experienced medics are spending less time in the NHS and more time in private practice. For years, we have heard from clinicians that working in the NHS is becoming more difficult as demand for care rises and waiting time backlogs remain stubbornly high. Is it any wonder that, under the SNP, more staff are leaving the NHS for the private sector?
What will the First Minister do to ensure that experienced medical professionals—many of whom have received their education and experience in Scotland—are encouraged to continue working for the NHS throughout their careers, not only with a fair salary but with investment in technology and prevention in order to improve the working environment for our NHS staff?
I need to correct Mr Whittle on the point about more staff leaving the NHS. There are more staff working in the NHS under this Government than there have been in the past. As I said in my earlier answer, there has been a 75 per cent increase in the number of consultants in the NHS since the Government came into office. Therefore, that point is not substantiated.
Private heath admissions are lower in Scotland than in England and Wales. England’s private health admissions are 48 per cent higher, and Wales’s are 5 per cent higher, than they are in Scotland. We are in a comparatively stronger position.
On the performance of the national health service, I appreciate that there are challenges in the NHS, but long waits are down eight months in a row, and long waits for new out-patients have halved since July. The number of general practitioners, nurses, midwives and consultants is up, and there will be 16 new walk-in GP clinics. The SNP is delivering for the NHS, and I am very pleased with the progress that we are making.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. As the First Minister referenced, it is worth Brian Whittle noting that Scotland continues to have a substantially lower private healthcare take-up rate than England.
Unlike Labour and the Tories, the SNP is not accepting donations from private healthcare firms or listening to the likes of Tony Blair about how to carve out our NHS for privatisation. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
Can the First Minister therefore outline how, under the SNP and his leadership, Scotland has seen the number of doctors, consultants and nurses increase, and what that means for bringing down waits?
I set out to Clare Haughey that—as I have just said to Brian Whittle, but I need to say it again so that members hear—under this Government, long wait times are down eight months in a row and long waits for new out-patients have halved since July, just as I promised would be the case. The number of GPs, nurses, midwives and consultants is up, and there are 16 new walk-in GP clinics.
Let me reassure Clare Haughey that my Government intends to take no lectures from Tony Blair.
Measles Vaccinations
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to promote vaccinations to combat measles, in light of reports of recent diagnoses in the NHS Grampian area. (S6F-04746)
Vaccination remains the most effective protection against measles, and I urge everyone who is eligible to ensure that they are fully vaccinated.
Childhood immunisation uptake in Scotland remains high. Uptake of the first dose of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in children by age five continues to exceed 95 per cent. In NHS Grampian, MMR vaccine uptake in children is slightly above the national average, at 96.5 per cent. The Government is working closely with Public Health Scotland and NHS boards, including NHS Grampian, to monitor measles cases and to take any necessary rapid action to protect public safety.
I thank the First Minister for that answer. Measles is a very serious illness, but it can be easily prevented. Vaccination is safe, effective and for everyone, at any age. It is part of the routine childhood immunisation programme, and we should all be encouraging parents and carers to ensure that their child receives all their vaccinations.
It is galling that Reform gave a platform to an anti-vax proponent at its latest conference. I call on all political parties and politicians in the chamber to promote preventative vaccinations. Will the First Minister’s Government consider boosting its positive vaccination messaging so that we can keep people throughout Scotland safe?
Let me associate myself with Kevin Stewart’s comments. Vaccination is the most effective way to ensure that public health is maintained. It is important that we all combat harmful disinformation about vaccines. Vaccinations save lives, so it is essential that families can access clear and accurate health information. Public Health Scotland recently launched its “One less thing to worry about” campaign, which further encourages the uptake of childhood vaccinations. The NHS Inform website provides accessible and trustworthy guidance from medical professionals on vaccinations.
That is all important, and it is important that we get the public messaging correct, so I will consider Mr Stewart’s suggestion of whether we have enough resource going into vaccination campaigns. If there is a requirement for that to be increased, I give him the assurance that that will be considered by the Government.
We move to constituency and general supplementary questions. The more concise questions and responses are, the more members we will be able to take.
Leaked Memo (Devolution)
The First Minister will be aware of a memo that was leaked this week, which revealed the Prime Minister’s true attitude towards devolution. Is the First Minister as disappointed as I am that the Labour Party in Scotland has chosen to side with the Prime Minister and not with the principles of devolution? Unlike their colleagues in the Welsh Senedd, who called out Starmer’s actions as a constitutional outrage and a betrayal of devolution, Scottish Labour members made no such outcry. What assessment has the First Minister made of the leaked memo? Does he agree that it is only with a fresh start through independence that the integrity and future of Scotland’s Parliament can be protected and enhanced?
The Prime Minister’s memo that came to light this week indicates that the Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has as much contempt for devolution as his Conservative predecessors did. It displays an attitude that is disrespectful of the policy direction and actions of the Scottish Government.
The people of Scotland voted nearly 30 years ago to establish this Parliament. Its members are elected to be accountable to the public in Scotland for the public expenditure matters for which it is responsible. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
That is being undermined by the UK Labour Government. The lesson is pretty clear to people in Scotland: Labour is a threat to devolution, and the only way that self-government can be protected is through the fresh start that independence would bring.
I would be grateful if we could all hear one another. Members should please remember those gathered in the public gallery, who would like to hear, too.
Eljamel Public Inquiry
Is the First Minister as appalled as I am that the former patients of Sam Eljamel, who were allowed to attend, in person, the first and second sessions of the public inquiry, to hear what was being said in evidence, were told yesterday that that would no longer be the case for session 3 and that they would have to listen to the inquiry’s proceedings online? Does he agree that that decision is completely unacceptable? It is contrary to the principles of a patient-centred and trauma-informed approach. When were Scottish Government ministers first made aware of that decision?
I understand the significance of the point that Liz Smith raises, but, as I understand it, the decision is one that has been taken by Lord Weir, who is the chair of the inquiry.
Liz Smith will know the obligations that I am under, in terms of the Inquiries Act 2005. The chair of the inquiry must be free to take the decisions that they decide to be appropriate for the running of the inquiry. They should certainly not be subjected to interference by ministers, and they certainly will not be subjected to interference by me. Whatever my personal sympathies are on the issue—as Liz Smith knows, just last week, I met those who were affected by Eljamel and had a constructive discussion with them—I have to respect the independence of Lord Weir’s inquiry. It would be thoroughly inappropriate for me to intervene on any matter of that nature.
Police Scotland (Data Protection)
Police Scotland has been fined £66,000 for a deeply serious data protection failure after the full contents of a female officer’s device—including medical records, intimate images and sensitive personal information—were extracted and shared with a colleague whom she had accused of rape, along with his lawyer and his Scottish Police Federation representative.
Today, it has been reported that the Scottish Information Commissioner found that the force failed to minimise data collection, lacked adequate technical and organisational safeguards and did not report the breach within the legally required 72 hours. Police Scotland has apologised for the incident and said that it has learned lessons from it, but does the First Minister agree that that is an absolute scandal?
If it is a necessary practice to download the full contents of anyone’s phone or device, that should be all the more reason to ensure that cast-iron protections are in place. What steps could the Scottish Government take to reassure complainers, and anyone else, that there is proper oversight to prevent such a situation from ever happening again?
I agree completely with Pauline McNeill—it is appalling. I know that Police Scotland has apologised. Let me apologise to the individual affected, because I cannot begin to imagine how horrendous an experience that has been.
The protection of people’s data and information, at any time, is very important and, in cases of this sensitivity, it is even more important. Police Scotland must properly, fully, openly and transparently learn the lessons of this incident.
As I understand it, Police Scotland has been fined by the Information Commissioner, which is a mark of the seriousness of the issue. The issue has to be addressed in that fashion. I reiterate to Pauline McNeill the importance that I attach to issues of that nature being taken seriously and being addressed by Police Scotland. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs will raise the matter with the chief constable when they next meet.
UK Government Policies (Impact on North-east Scotland)
Presiding Officer,
“Labour are doing to Aberdeen what Margaret Thatcher did to Middlesbrough, and it’s utterly shameful.”
Those are the words and assessment of GMB general secretary Gary Smith on the impact of the Labour United Kingdom Government’s policies on the north-east and areas such as my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency. Does the First Minister share his concern, and does the First Minister agree that we do not address the cost of living crisis by making more people redundant?
I agree with Karen Adam. In Scotland, we are in the position of having much lower unemployment than the rest of the United Kingdom, but the challenges that our oil and gas sector faces are caused by the more rapid decline of the sector, accelerated by the energy profits levy and the slower growth in renewables than we had expected.
I have made this point at this podium before, and I will make it again: the United Kingdom Government should remove the energy profits levy so that we can safeguard employment and manage the just transition in the oil and gas sector. That is the responsible way to tackle the issue. I reiterate my call to the UK Government to scrap the energy profits levy, and to scrap it now.
Baird Family Hospital and Aberdeen and North Centre for Haematology, Oncology and Radiotherapy
The First Minister was in the chamber last night and heard my request for a statement on the Baird family hospital and the ANCHOR centre. I hope that his business manager will reconsider that request, because a whistleblower’s report has now upheld concerns over major flaws in the infection control and water systems, echoing the tragic situation at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. We all want those units to be the very best that they can be. We want them to be places of health, where people of all ages go to get better. Will the First Minister assure us that the healthcare associated infection system for controlling risk in the built environment—HAI-SCRIBE—guidance has been followed, that the buildings will open without further delay and that patient safety and staff wellbeing will not be negatively impacted?
First, I recognise the importance of the point that Mr Burnett puts to me. I heard his speech last night, and I understand exactly all the points that he is making. It is a matter of regret to me that the Baird family hospital and the ANCHOR centre are as delayed as they are, but they are delayed because of the level of scrutiny and intervention that is under way to guarantee safety. That is the process that is under way, and NHS Scotland Assure, which was set up to do exactly that type of scrutiny, is exercising that responsibility.
In relation to the building process at the Baird and ANCHOR, my officials spoke to NHS Grampian this morning, which confirmed that the water safety group at the Baird and ANCHOR met on Friday 6 March. The group talked through the concerns that have been raised, and everyone present agreed on the response and the action being taken to ensure the highest level of water safety when the facilities open.
As a result of the intervention of NHS Scotland Assure, buildings are not opened unless it is safe for them to open and they comply with all relevant requirements. I assure Mr Burnett that that will be the case for the Baird and ANCHOR.
Mr Burnett asked for the hospitals to open without delay. I cannot give him that assurance, because we have to ensure that they are safe to open. I assure him that no one wants the hospitals to open more than me, but I have to learn the lessons from previous issues, which is exactly what is going on now.
School Strikes (Funding)
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.
The announcement that school strikes in six areas, arising from the Scottish Government’s failure to address workload issues, may be avoided, is to be welcomed. Local authorities have fixed their budgets for this financial year and the next. Will the First Minister confirm the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills that additional funding will be available and that that funding will fully cover local authorities implementing the solution that has been given?
I am grateful to Mr Whitfield for raising that issue, because we are at a pivotal moment in the discussions. I want to avoid industrial action, which, once again, is proposed for the communities that I represent, because I am the First Minister. It is not fair on my constituents if their children are unable to access schooling as a result of industrial action. I declare a personal interest, because industrial action would affect my son at a crucial moment in his education, so let us be crystal clear about its implications.
The education secretary has worked incredibly hard and has focused on trying to bring the relevant parties together, but the issue is not entirely under the control of the Government. It involves a discussion and negotiation between the Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the trade unions. I am confident that there is a proposal on the table, properly and fully funded by the Scottish Government, that will allow industrial action not to happen, but it requires COSLA’s agreement tomorrow. I encourage Mr Whitfield to join the team effort to ensure that COSLA gets agreement over the line, so that we can avoid industrial action, the children of Scotland can get on with their education and we can all be happy that we have a nice tripartite agreement. Two parties are there—
How much money?
Mr Marra is shouting at me, asking about the money. I just told Mr Whitfield that the proposal is fully funded. We need local authority leaders to do the right thing tomorrow, and I look forward to them doing so.
Air adhart
Point of Order