Official Report 1167KB pdf
Good morning. The first item of business is general question time.
Wildfire Management Practices (Independent Review)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports that the worst wildfires ever recorded in Scotland affected the areas around Dava, Lochindorb and Carrbridge this summer, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding potentially commissioning an independent review of wildfire management practices. (S6O-04946)
I, alongside the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, will host a wildfire summit on 14 October. The focus will be on wildfire prevention measures, the response to recent wildfires and the appropriateness of our resources and our deployment. All key stakeholders will be invited to attend and input to the discussion. Furthermore, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is conducting a series of debriefs to help to identify lessons learned from this year’s response. We will then consider whether further evidence or advice is required to ensure that we have appropriate mitigation and response plans in place.
Presiding Officer, the question was not answered. Be that as it may, however, the fact is that many deaths that occur in major fires are caused not through the fire itself but through smoke inhalation when people try to flee the fire in vehicles using the road on which they arrived. Two areas in Scotland that have thousands of visitors every day for most of the year are Glenmore and Rowardennan, which both have one road in and one road out.
Does the minister agree that it is essential that, before next Easter, a detailed plan is compiled so that we are in a position to effectively tackle serious fires in such locations? Otherwise, there is a serious risk of catastrophic loss of life. Does he agree that an independent review provides the best way to compile that, rather than having a variety of public bodies marking their own jotters?
Fergus Ewing has already written to me and the community safety minister, Siobhian Brown, to seek a meeting. When we have that meeting, which I have agreed to host, he will be able to raise those individual points about the areas that he is specifically concerned about. However, in relation to the independent review that he talked about, it is more appropriate to ensure that we have the experts in the room—the people who know exactly how to manage wildfires and what wildfire mitigation is—having a proper discussion about how we put resilience into our systems.
I am interested to hear that the minister will attend a meeting. I wrote to him on 8 August requesting such a meeting and he told me this morning that he is too busy between now and Christmas. Well, there we go.
This year, there have been 62 fires in the Highlands. That is the highest number since five years ago, when there were 85, and we still have a big part of the year to go. In the past 10 years, there have been 570 fires in the Highlands, which represents a third of all fires in Scotland, and it is going to get worse because of things such as the muirburn code. Surely we should have centralised assets, including access to aircraft—fixed wing and rotary—in order to fight fires and save lives, rather than relying on private estates and the will of good neighbours to fight these fires.
In response to the first point that Edward Mountain made, I say that he is absolutely correct. I refused to attend the meeting that he asked for on the basis that we are already planning a number of events in order to get experts in the room who know exactly what they are talking about. As far as our ability to go forward is concerned, that is what those discussions will be about, and I will be more than happy to share information about the discussions with the Parliament as we develop them.
Cervical Cancer Screening
To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to ensure that people with increased genetic risk of developing cervical cancer are offered additional screening tests. (S6O-04947)
Scotland’s screening policy follows United Kingdom National Screening Committee recommendations. The committee recommends cervical screening for eligible participants every five years. Although it has not recommended additional screening based on genetic considerations, women are offered more frequent screening if their previous result was positive for human papillomavirus, which indicates that they may be at higher risk. Importantly, where HPV is not detected, evidence strongly suggests a very low risk of developing cancer within 10 years.
Regardless of risk factors, anyone who is experiencing cervical cancer symptoms should not wait for screening but contact their general practitioner immediately. Information on symptoms can be found on NHS Inform.
At a recent constituency surgery, I met siblings from a family following the death of their dear mother, Lavina Gilfillan, who sadly passed away from cervical cancer. They shared with me that Lavina’s sister had been diagnosed with cervical cancer at the age of 21 and subsequently underwent a hysterectomy. Given that significant family history, the family believe that Lavina should have been offered enhanced screening and monitoring, but they state that that did not happen. Instead, she was diagnosed at a later, more advanced stage.
The family are now considering lodging a petition with the Scottish Parliament to call for the introduction of a cervical cancer family risk and genetic screening policy. Such a policy would aim to provide genetic counselling and testing for families with a strong history of cervical cancer; introduce enhanced screening schedules—including earlier start ages—with more frequent smear and HPV testing and access to colposcopy where appropriate; and ensure that healthcare professionals and the public are aware that a family history of cervical cancer should trigger preventative action. I agreed to raise the issue on the family’s behalf. I would be grateful if the minister or the cabinet secretary agreed to meet the family.
I thank Fulton MacGregor for his follow-up question and send my deepest sympathies to his constituents and the wider family. I fully understand their desire to prevent others from going through what they have been through and I would be pleased to meet them to discuss their proposals. However, I reiterate that our policies must be supported by evidence, and we will always listen to the National Screening Committee and other UK scientific organisations to ensure that we make decisions that are clinically supported. I am happy to discuss that in more detail and to listen to the family.
The minister will be aware that, following the tragic death of a constituent of mine, I have been looking into what arrangements are in place to ensure physical access for disabled people—women, in particular—in general practitioner surgeries and elsewhere, so that they can access smear tests and similar screening procedures. I have since heard from GPs that funding for access to and modernisation of equipment came from the improvement fund, but that has now stopped. Will the minister confirm what support is available to surgeries and other medical treatment facilities to help to ensure that they are accessible to all patients?
I very much appreciated the conversation that I had with Pam Duncan-Glancy on that subject. As a result, when I was visiting a gynaecology area in NHS Fife, I recognised the importance of the investment that it had made in specific technology to support women who had additional requirements when being screened. I am happy to follow up Pam Duncan-Glancy’s question in writing.
M8 Woodside Viaducts
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Turner & Townsend regarding its role in auditing and monitoring the work undertaken by Amey to complete the M8 Woodside viaducts. (S6O-04948)
Since May 2023, Turner & Townsend has provided Transport Scotland with commercial assurance and project control support on the M8 Woodside temporary propping project. It is in regular dialogue with the Transport Scotland team and attends frequent project programme boards, at which it provides commentary regarding project progress.
Turner & Townsend reviews and comments on tender submissions from Amey and its subcontractors, reviews cost forecasting and assists Transport Scotland with future budget setting. It inputs to project risk reviews and quantifies a suitable risk allowance to be included in the project cost range.
The cabinet secretary is aware that the completion dates for the M8 Woodside viaduct repairs are currently autumn 2026 for the eastbound carriageway and late 2027 for the westbound carriageway, which is six years since the project began. Further, the budget has gone from £33 million to £152 million.
In 2021, the works were classed as an emergency, which means that there are no penalty clauses for late delivery. How will the Scottish Government ensure that the work is done efficiently and in a timely manner? Can it require Amey to take reasonable steps to accelerate the works, such as paying overtime? Given the nature of the contract—that it has no penalty clauses—what measures can be put in place by the expert group and Turner & Townsend, which is monitoring contract performance, to ensure that Amey is held to account and that there are no further delays to the repair of the M8 viaducts?
Clearly, safety is a primary concern, but so are value for money and cost management, which I referred to. Those must be regularly scrutinised and accounted for.
On penalty clauses, I refer Pauline McNeill to the briefing that she and other members received about the challenges that have been faced in 23 locations, which have to be addressed. That includes uncharted obstruction near the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport subway. We would not necessarily expect uncharted or unrecorded obstruction, or obstruction that is recorded in a different area, to be a penalty issue.
I think that everybody understands that the project is difficult and challenging. Pauline McNeill asked whether the work can be accelerated. We will try to do that, particularly in relation to the elements that require more attention because of the intensity of the traffic.
Equality Act 2010
To ask the Scottish Government whether it has engaged with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in relation to the 19 public bodies and organisations that were found to have misrepresented the Equality Act 2010. (S6O-04949)
The EHRC has not published the details of, or otherwise informed the Scottish Government about, the 19 organisations that it has written to following its review of evidence from the United Kingdom Government on single-sex-space policies. The review process is a matter for the EHRC in fulfilling its statutory-function role to monitor and enforce compliance with the 2010 act.
The Scottish National Party Government has let public bodies break the law, betray women and burn public money. It is defending the indefensible, and that is absolutely shameful. The EHRC has reprimanded 19 organisations for misrepresenting the 2010 act, yet the SNP Government is still peddling guidance that promotes self-identification to schools and prisons. Public bodies are completely at sea because the SNP puts ideology before women’s rights. Will the minister be finding out whether any of those organisations are based here in Scotland? Will she and the Government issue a directive to public bodies to follow the law by the end of the year at the latest?
As I have made clear to the chamber on a number of occasions, the Scottish Government accepts the Supreme Court judgment, and action is being taken. As well as accepting that judgment, we are moving forward with the detailed work that is necessary as a consequence. I have spoken in detail previously on the working group that is considering that work right across Government. We are not aware of how many of the 19 bodies are in Scotland—that is a matter for the EHRC. We have been clear to public bodies in Scotland that we expect all bodies to follow lawful practice.
Question 5 is from Sandesh Gulhane, who joins us remotely. [Interruption.]
We will move on to question 6.
Largs to Glasgow Central Rail Service
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with ScotRail regarding an increase to the service frequency on the Largs to Glasgow Central route. (S6O-04951)
Transport Scotland officials are in a continuing dialogue with ScotRail and Scottish Rail Holdings to ensure that the services provided by ScotRail meet passenger needs as much as possible. ScotRail has no immediate plans to increase the current service level between Largs and Glasgow Central, as it continues to meet passenger demand and matches the frequency provided prior to the Covid pandemic.
Thanks to the Scottish Government’s investment, passengers travelling on the line benefit from the consistently high-performing electrified railway. In addition, commuters are now saving considerable amounts on their travel since this Government’s initiative to remove peak fares for good.
When the Largs line was electrified in 1987, the double track was reduced to a single one, restricting the number of trains that were able to run in each direction. Last year, Largs station served 384,000 passengers—25 per cent more than in the previous year—and numbers are virtually back to pre-Covid levels, while national rail usage still lags behind. There is clearly an appetite for more train travel to Largs, but line infrastructure limits the current service to one train an hour. Will the cabinet secretary press Network Rail and other partners to invest in the branch line to deliver a half-hourly service that better reflects growing demand?
As I said in my initial answer, the current service level for passengers in Largs is consistent with pre-Covid levels—it meets existing demand. The member clearly makes the case for added infrastructure investment, and, obviously, he knows what we have to prioritise. A considerable amount of infrastructure investment is already taking place in our railways, within the current budgets. There are no immediate plans to double track the line, which is what would be required to deliver what the member is asking for, but he has made the case and brought the matter to my attention, so I will ensure that my officials discuss it with Network Rail.
As we have been unable to make contact with Dr Gulhane, we will continue to question 7.
Ferguson Marine (Direct Award)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will make a direct award to the Ferguson Marine shipyard for the replacement of MV Lord of the Isles. (S6O-04952)
Ministers consider all new vessel projects, including the replacement of MV Lord of the Isles, on a case-by-case basis to determine an appropriate and lawful route to market.
Shipbuilding is a competitive global market. Any direct award of a public contract must comply with applicable procurement and subsidy control rules, and be capable of withstanding legal challenge. The direct award of public contracts is possible only in strictly limited circumstances, and those matters take time to consider. We are considering the business case and the next steps in relation to the replacement of MV Lord of the Isles, and we will confirm those in due course.
Given that such lifeline ferries are critical infrastructure, will the Scottish Government consider a direct award under section 45 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022? I am sure that the United Kingdom Government would be willing to work with the Scottish Government on that, given that it has already made representations in relation to procurement law.
Alternatively, if the Scottish Government is going to put the contract out to tender, will it look at what is happening in other parts of the UK, where the UK Government is placing a minimum 10 per cent social value weighting element into the assessment of bids for shipbuilding contracts? That is not happening in Scotland, so will the Scottish Government look to include such an element in any tendering process?
We have social value weighting in our current procurement legislation. I can confirm that we are actively looking at the options of direct award and competitive procurement to determine an appropriate and lawful route for procurement.
It is important that we reference what the islanders think. For a bit of balance, I will quote John Daniel Peteranna from the South Uist business impact group, who said in local media:
“We have every sympathy for the skilled workforce at Port Glasgow, and for the need to sustain shipbuilding on the Clyde. But sympathy cannot come at the cost of island lives, livelihoods, and long-term sustainability. To use our ferry needs as a tool for political point-scoring would send out a deeply damaging message to our communities.”
The tone and context in which Katy Clark asked the question has allowed all members to consider this very important issue and reflect on all the needs of the workforce and the islanders.
I regret that, for connectivity reasons, I am unable to contact and call Sandesh Gulhane. I therefore call Douglas Ross to ask question 8.
Community Council Convention of the Highland Council Area (Unified Statement)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the unified statement agreed at the community council convention of the Highland Council area regarding the impact of major energy infrastructure in the region, in Beauly on 14 June 2025, what the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy’s response is to the statement and whether she will attend a future convention meeting to discuss it. (S6O-04953)
I point out that I am answering on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy.
We are clear that the potential impact of major infrastructure necessitates pre-application consultation and engagement with local communities. The Scottish Government has published good practice guidance on the procedures for applications under sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, which includes information on public consultations. Although the power to mandate community benefits sits with the United Kingdom Government, we continue to press for mandatory provision from mature onshore technologies and a level playing field across the UK to ensure that the energy transition delivers real benefits. Maintaining the standards of the ministerial code for live applications means that Government ministers cannot attend public meetings of that nature.
I am sorry, but that is not true and it is not an answer to a very clear question. Can the minister take that back to the cabinet secretary? It does not breach the ministerial code if the cabinet secretary meets and listens to concerns in the Highland Council area, and that is all that we are asking for. Can the minister pass that on to the cabinet secretary?
I should point out to the member that, as a former UK Government minister, he will know that, when we are looking at specific applications, there are clear guidelines in the ministerial code. However, I will take his point back to the cabinet secretary and she will respond in due course.
Air adhart
First Minister’s Question Time