Official Report 661KB pdf
12:00
Income Tax
Hard-working Scots are being hammered by the Scottish National Party Government. A new report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has delivered a damning verdict on the SNP’s income tax system. It says that Scots now pay £1.8 billion more because of SNP tax bands. A Scottish worker who earns £50,000 is £1,500 worse off than a worker elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
John Swinney will reach for his script and say that lower earners are better off, but he will not say that they are just £40 better off—that is, £40 a year, or 77p per week.
The IFS also says that the SNP Government
“lacks a coherent strategy for the devolved tax system”.
John Swinney has been finance secretary, Deputy First Minister and First Minister, so who does he blame for bleeding Scottish workers dry?
I am very proud of the budgetary and tax decisions that the Government has taken over many years, and I am proud to have been associated with those decisions. Today, 55 per cent of Scottish taxpayers are expected to pay less income tax in 2026-27 than they would if they lived in England.
Of course, everybody who lives in Scotland has access to a wider set of social contract provisions than people in the rest of the United Kingdom, including free bus travel for under-22s and, crucially, the saving of £27,000 in tuition fees for any taxpayer in Scotland who sends their child to a university in Scotland. [Interruption.]
Let us hear.
That is the SNP delivering for all the people of Scotland.
I do not think that John Swinney is listening. People are saving 77p per week. John Swinney will not admit that he is forcing taxpayers to fund the SNP’s sky-high and soaring benefits bill. The IFS found that the average Scottish household is more than £500 worse off than those elsewhere in the UK as a direct result of his tax and benefits policies. It describes elements of the benefits system as “unfair” and says that some benefits act
“as a strong disincentive for some households to increase their earnings”.
It is not just the IFS—ordinary Scots can see that injustice, too. A retail manager contacted me to say that he and his wife, a nurse, are angry at the unfairness. He asked whether it is really worth being honest, hard-working people in this country. Can John Swinney explain to them why they are out striving, to pay for others not to work?
Let us explore some of the details of the tax position of people in Scotland compared with people in England. A band 2 hospital porter at the bottom of the scale will earn £25,694 and take home £913 more after tax compared with someone in the same band in England. A band 3 clinical support worker at the bottom of the scale will earn £28,011 and take home £2,236 more after tax compared with someone in the same band in England. A qualified teacher at the bottom of the band will earn £41,916 and take home £6,365 more after tax than the equivalent in England. That is before we start talking about free prescription charges, under-22s bus travel, tuition fees and the other elements of the social contract that are delivered in Scotland by this progressive SNP Government.
John Swinney can parrot selective statistics all day long—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Findlay.
However, he is completely out of step with the people of Scotland. Two thirds of people in Scotland believe that spending on benefits is too high. It is now at £7 billion, and it is heading towards £10 billion.
This is what I heard from a general practitioner in Perthshire with decades of experience in helping patients who are in genuine need of benefits. She said:
“John Swinney is completely wrong to state there is a robust process.”
She says that there is a huge number of fraudulent claims, and she identifies
“a large group of people who believe they have genuine claims but, in reality, are capable of work.”
She concludes by telling me that she was an SNP voter—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Findlay.
—but that she
“will not be voting for the party at the forthcoming election for a number of reasons, not least their inability to control the escalating number of benefits claims.”
Why can John Swinney not see what everyone else can see? His light-touch benefits system is completely out of control.
There is absolutely nothing selective about the statistics that I have put on the record, so I will put a few more on the record. A band 4 dental nurse at the bottom of the scale will earn £30,353 and take home £2,065 more after tax compared with a dental nurse in the same band in England. A band 6 nurse at the bottom of the scale will earn £41,608 and take home £1,994 more after tax compared with a nurse in the same band in England. That demolishes the rubbish that Mr Findlay has put to me.
When it comes to social security, it is quite obvious to people in Scotland today that the only card that Mr Findlay is prepared to play is the card to attack the most vulnerable in our society. I want to make it clear that I lead a Government that is committed to delivering growth in our economy and fairness to the people of our country—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
Enterprise and compassion—that is what people get from an SNP Government led by John Swinney.
Here is an idea for John Swinney: how about he tries to answer the questions that are put to him?
The Scottish benefits agency, which was created by the SNP, also published shocking new data this week. It revealed that almost 500,000 people—that is, half a million Scots—now receive adult disability payment and that the number of people claiming it has gone up by almost 15 per cent since last year. Social Security Scotland predicts that 750,000 Scots will be receiving ADP by 2030. Of course, many of those claims are completely valid, but we cannot ignore credible and sustained warnings of fraud and abuse. Does John Swinney agree with that alarming projection? Do those soaring numbers give him any cause for concern?
Russell Findlay has changed tack with that question, because my comments to the Parliament today rumbled his earlier attack on the social security system—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another. I am keen to enable as many members as possible to put questions today, as we have a long list.
Russell Findlay has changed tack. He walked away from his attack on the social security system when I pointed out the unpleasantness of the Conservatives’ attack on the vulnerable within it.
The analysis that I am very confident about is the analysis of the international credit rating agencies—[Interruption.] Oh, well—it does not surprise me that the Conservatives are mocking the international credit rating agencies, because they asked me to follow Liz Truss, and look at the mess that she got us all into.
Just so that Mr Findlay does not miss out on what the international credit rating agencies said, I will tell him that they complimented the “prudent” fiscal management of Scotland. That is what you get from a Swinney Government.
Hospitals (Ventilation and Water Safety Issues)
More than a decade ago, the Scottish National Party Government opened a hospital—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
Children died at that hospital, so I suggest that members listen.
More than a decade ago, the SNP Government opened a hospital in Glasgow that was not safe because of ventilation and water safety issues. Four years later, the opening of the sick kids hospital in Edinburgh was delayed because of ventilation and water issues. Now it has emerged that, in Aberdeen, the opening of the new Baird family hospital and the Aberdeen and north centre for haematology, oncology and radiotherapy—the ANCHOR centre—is being delayed again because of ventilation and water safety issues. Those are three hospitals in three cities that sum up the mess that the SNP has made of running our country.
At the core of all that is the lie and the cover-up about what happened at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Had the Government told the truth and confronted the problems then, the mistakes would not have been repeated. Instead, that lie has cost the public purse millions and meant delayed and defective hospitals. Tragically, that lie has cost lives. Why was that lie more important to John Swinney than patient safety?
Mr Sarwar’s language is the language of a desperate man. He should think twice about the language that he uses in Parliament, because in a climate where we need to undertake respectful debate, there is nothing respectful about the language that Mr Sarwar has used. I am going to—
Nothing to say about children dying.
If Jackie Baillie would stop shouting at me, I will walk my way through these different issues, because it is important that I give Parliament and the public a clear answer on this question.
Issues arose from the Queen Elizabeth university hospital that resulted in the Scottish Government commissioning a public inquiry that is still sitting and looking at those issues; we await the findings of Lord Brodie. Because of the issues that emerged at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, my late colleague Jeane Freeman stopped the opening of the Royal hospital for children and young people, because she was concerned about safety issues. Therefore, there was no cover-up and no ignoring the reality. The very reason why Jeane Freeman took the decision not to open the children’s hospital in Edinburgh was her response to the issues at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital.
As I explained to Mr Burnett last week, the Baird and the ANCHOR centre in Aberdeen are delayed because the same cautious approach that was taken in Edinburgh is being taken to the Baird and ANCHOR. That is because this Government takes the issue of patient safety seriously—and it always will under my leadership.
I suggest that John Swinney looks Kimberly Darroch in the eye and makes those same comments, because she was lied to. She was not told the truth about how her daughter was killed, and we have seen all the consequences that resulted from that in the eight years that followed. Frankly, I will call out a lie when it is a lie. For 10 years, patients have been lied to about safety standards at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital; for 10 years, staff have been bullied and gaslit; and for 10 years, the public have not been told the truth.
For the past two months, John Swinney has insisted that all of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital is safe, all while he was receiving internal warnings about infection risks and the health board was drawing up plans to rebuild parts of the hospital. The bone marrow transplant ward needs to be replaced. That proves that, for 10 years, patients have been lied to about safety standards at the hospital.
Therefore, I ask again: why was the lie more important to John Swinney than patient safety?
I repeat my point that that is the language of a desperate man. What I have said to the public—and I stand by it—is that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital is a safe hospital. Issues will emerge in our hospitals, but the crucial point is that those issues must be addressed timeously—and they are being addressed timeously in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital.
We have established an oversight group to provide greater public reassurance in an open and transparent fashion. Representatives of the families who have suffered unbearably as a consequence of the issues at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital are members of that oversight group, and that is essential for the issues of public transparency to be taken forward.
I make absolutely clear to the public the importance that I attach to public safety, and that is what I require of health boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
The families are desperate for truth and justice, and they are the ones who John Swinney is forgetting. The Queen Elizabeth university hospital scandal is the worst in the history of the Parliament. Children and adults have died, and others have been left with life-changing injuries. Grieving families have been lied to, staff have been bullied and threatened, and the Scottish people have been consistently misled. The cover-up meant that lessons were not learned, and those mistakes have been repeated in Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
I have spent more than eight years with those families and doctors, listening to their stories, hearing their pain and trying to get them justice. Over that time, John Swinney and his SNP Government have sided with management and denied the problems.
I make a firm commitment today that I will publish all validation documents in relation to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, do any repair work and build any new wards, including, if necessary, the cancer wards. Will the First Minister make that same commitment right now?
I am taking an approach to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital that is about working to build public confidence and trust in the operation of the hospital. That is why representatives of the families who have suffered are members of the public oversight group that is looking at these very issues. It was my request that they be on that group, which is independently co-chaired by Professor Sir Lewis Ritchie to make sure that there is openness. The first meeting of the group took place on 11 March. The group is able to explore all the safety issues, and I reiterate my confidence in the safety of the hospital.
What lies at the heart of Mr Sarwar’s point is a misconstruing of what the Government has done and a deliberate attempt to mislead and misrepresent the Government’s position. I come back to what I said in my answer to his first question. Because of the experience at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, the Government established a public inquiry. Because of the concern of my late colleague Jeane Freeman, there was a delay to the opening of the Edinburgh children’s hospital until the issues were addressed. There is a delay to the Baird and the ANCHOR because we are prioritising patient safety. That is the absolute opposite of what Mr Sarwar has put to the Parliament today.
I think that people in Scotland will be pretty sceptical about the things that Mr Sarwar says in here and the commitments that he gives, because we saw the real side of Mr Sarwar yesterday in his flippant and disrespectful comments about those in our society who suffer strokes. Mr Sarwar should do the decent thing and apologise with his own words.
Prestwick Airport (Military Use)
Since the Scottish Greens last raised the issue of Prestwick airport in the chamber, investigations by the BBC, the Sunday Mail and The National have confirmed that the airport has been used by US military refuelling jets. Those jets have gone on to fly missions in the US-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran. Military experts say that that is concrete proof of our complicity in a war that has killed more than 1,300 people in Iran, including more than 200 children.
The First Minister previously said that he would consider banning US forces from the airport if it was confirmed that it was being used to support military action in the middle east. What more does the First Minister need? Does he accept that Prestwick is being used to directly support the Israeli-US bombing campaign in Iran?
That is an issue that I have looked at very closely. The conflict in the middle east is a subject that is causing members of the public enormous concern and unease, and it is having enormous ramifications for every citizen in our country in relation to energy prices, the cost of living, mortgage prices and the value of pension investments. There is going to be a real, serious and acute economic impact as a consequence of the unjust and unjustified conflict that is taking place in the middle east. I am deeply concerned about the situation that we face, given the escalation of events that has taken place in the course of the past few days, which has enormous environmental, economic and geopolitical implications for all of us.
As a consequence of that concern, I have looked closely at the situation in relation to Prestwick airport. The Scottish Government acquired Prestwick airport on the basis of an intervention that it was within our powers to exercise in relation to economic development and employment. If I were to take the appropriate steps to prevent flights from entering Scotland, I would need to exercise national security, aviation, air transport, defence and foreign affairs powers, all of which are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. I would like to be able to exercise powers in that respect, but I would be exceeding my constitutional authority if I did so. That is a matter of regret for me.
However, I am continuing to pursue dialogue with the United Kingdom Government, in order to address and raise the issues that Gillian Mackay has put to me today.
I am pleased that the First Minister is concerned, but I am really disappointed by that answer. Last weekend, he said that an independent Scotland could ban foreign militaries that are involved in illegal wars from the country, and we welcome that commitment. However, Scotland cannot and must not wait for independence to act on our principles. Children in Iran are dying now, and they are being bombed by planes that are being refuelled in a chain that leads directly back to Prestwick.
We know that the public in Scotland are overwhelmingly against this war, and we know that the airport is owned by the Scottish Government, which had already taken the decision to ban Israeli planes. It can take the same decision now, and we do not need to wait to ask for Westminster’s permission to do anything. When will the First Minister properly stand up for Scotland and finally kick Trump’s troops out?
I sympathise and agree with all the sentiments about the conflict in the middle east that Gillian Mackay has put to me. However, I cannot, at the same time as condemning the Israeli and United States intervention in the middle east as being incompatible with international law, not follow the legal framework in which I must operate as the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998. The action suggested in the question that Gillian Mackay puts to me would undoubtedly have me exercising powers in relation to national security, aviation, air transport, defence and foreign affairs, all of which are reserved to the United Kingdom Government.
As the First Minister of Scotland, I will always act within the law. That might be frustrating for me at times, and I assure Gillian Mackay and the Parliament that it is immensely frustrating for me at this particular moment. However, that is a vivid reminder to me of what is absolutely necessary for our country as we look to the future, which is to be a voice to argue for the de-escalation of conflicts in the middle east, to be a voice for peace and to avoid conflict. To do that, we must be an independent country, which is what I intend to deliver for the people of Scotland.
Glasgow Central Station (Businesses)
To ask the First Minister, following the Union Street fire in Glasgow, what discussions the Scottish Government has had with Network Rail regarding the organisation having a greater say over what types of businesses can be located in close vicinity to key transport hubs such as Glasgow Central. (S6F-04772)
The first thing that I would like to say is to express my warmest thanks to Network Rail, ScotRail and all the players in Glasgow City Council that have been involved in making sure that Glasgow Central station is now partially open, that services have been able to be restored for much of Ayrshire and Lanarkshire and that cross-border services to London have also been restored. I am really grateful to everyone for the superhuman effort that has been put in. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop, visited Glasgow Central station this morning to thank people on the Government’s behalf.
After such a devastating event, Stuart McMillan is right to raise an issue that is of significant concern to many people. Discussions are on-going between Glasgow City Council and the Government in the wake of the fire. Network Rail is a statutory consultee, and planning authorities must notify it of certain developments in close proximity to a railway line. By law, all planning applications, including those near railways, must also be publicised so that parties have an opportunity to comment on proposed developments.
I echo the First Minister’s comments regarding the work over the past week.
The tragic events that we all watched unfold serve as a stark reminder not only of the need to protect Scotland’s historic buildings but of how fragile our public transport network can be in some areas. For my constituents and those in the west of Scotland, getting to Glasgow and beyond has been extremely challenging of late. At an event that I attended yesterday, an individual from Johnstone indicated that it had taken them more than two hours to get into Glasgow in the past week.
I genuinely welcome all the efforts that have been made, especially with regard to the running of services as far as Paisley and the provision of bus services, but there has been a huge amount of congestion on the M8 as a consequence of the fire. Therefore, notwithstanding what the First Minister said, I believe that we should consider allowing transport agencies to have a greater say over activities that are undertaken near their key assets. Does the First Minister agree that that might be one way of helping to build greater resilience in Scotland’s public transport?
Mr McMillan makes a fair point. I will consider further whether we need to change our planning laws to allow transport agencies to have a greater say in the way that he suggests.
The aerial photography that is now available of the site demonstrates the danger and the risk that were presented to Glasgow Central station as a consequence of the fire on Union corner. Had the station been affected by the fire, the consequences for the resilience of our transport network would have been colossal, so Mr McMillan is absolutely right to raise the issue, given the significance of that infrastructure.
The aerial photography also demonstrates just how effective and completely focused the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service was in all that it did. I am glad that our Fire and Rescue Service was so effective in all that it did, and I am delighted to applaud its efforts.
I will take away Mr McMillan’s point and will reflect on what more we can do in our planning legislation to ensure the resilience of the network.
Care Home Deposit Fees
To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to regulate deposit fees in care homes. (S6F-04773)
Deposit fees form part of the private contract between the provider and the individual. The Scottish Government is not party to such contracts. However, in recognition of the importance that the Scottish Government places on the sector, our budget for the forthcoming financial year sets out investment of more than £2.3 billion for social care, which delivers on our commitment to increase funding by 25 per cent by the end of this session of Parliament. In 2026-27, it will exceed that by more than £0.5 billion.
Many care homes do not charge deposits, but when they do, the deposit can be up to three months of costs, which could be in excess of £20,000 per resident. That means that some individual care homes are sitting on, and earning interest on, £1 million-worth of deposits.
It has taken constituents of mine whose relatives have died in care homes so long to have their deposit returned, while trying to mourn their relatives, that they have had to resort to legal action to get the deposit back. Does the First Minister think that that is acceptable? If not, what action will he recommend that my constituents take?
I am very sympathetic to Mr Mountain’s point. I can understand that a reasonable deposit might be required, but it feels unreasonable to require an excessive deposit. In circumstances in which a loved one has died, a delay in repayment is unacceptable.
There are a couple of ways in which we can approach the issue, the first of which relates to the work of the Care Inspectorate. If Mr Mountain has any particular examples of such cases, I would be grateful if he furnished me with them, and I will ask the Care Inspectorate—or rather, I will pass them on to the Care Inspectorate. I had better observe and not exceed my statutory responsibilities in that regard.
The second way in which we can approach the issue relates to the work of Consumer Scotland, which I think could help in that respect. If Mr Mountain would care to write to me about the issue, I would be happy to pursue it.
I am conscious that this might be the last occasion on which I have the opportunity to engage with Mr Mountain, unless he sneaks in a question next week. If that is the case, I express my warmest wishes to him as he steps down from Parliament, for all that he has achieved here. [Applause.]
While Westminster parties are lurching to the right and their policies on immigration are having a catastrophic impact on Scotland’s care homes and social care sector, will the First Minister set out what further steps his Government is taking to support the sector at this time and ensure that Scotland’s care homes do not feel the brunt of Westminster’s cruel policies?
That is wide of the substantive question. Given that, I will move on.
Scottish Information Commissioner (Legal Advice)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that the Scottish Information Commissioner is taking legal advice on further legal action against the Scottish Government and his comments that he “can no longer trust the Government to handle this information unsupervised”. (S6F-04758)
The Scottish Government has answered more than 13,000 freedom of information requests since the start of 2024, and 95 per cent have been responded to on time. The commissioner has raised compliance concerns about two of those cases. One relates to a delay in compliance of just over four weeks due to the need to adhere to court orders and the scale and complexity of material involved. The other is about the interpretation of the scope of a request. The permanent secretary has assured the commissioner that all freedom of information requests cases are handled with the highest standards of impartiality and integrity.
The commissioner has said that there have been “unjustified delays”, a “wall of silence” and “preposterous” excuses, that the Government’s handling of information relating to the Hamilton inquiry stands in stark contrast to the way in which the Government has handled nearly every other case, and that he is now considering consulting on a second contempt of court case.
No one is suggesting that any information that identifies a victim should be released, and that is not what is being asked for. It looks as though the Scottish Government is engaged in a systematic cover-up.
Will the First Minister commit to providing the information that is required by law? Will he give a commitment that he is not considering using his First Minister’s veto, which has never been used since the freedom of information process was introduced?
We need to be clear that we are talking about two distinct issues. As I understand it, the commissioner’s comments on further legal action relate to legal advice and not to material that we hold on the Hamilton report.
The commissioner is wholly independent of Government. His budget is rightly set by Parliament, not the Government. He comes to his own views and applies his own judgment, and it is for him to explain his comments. However, on BBC Radio Scotland just three weeks ago, on 25 February, the commissioner said:
“I think the Scottish Government in general is actually very good when it comes to freedom of information.”
Of course, we have published thousands of pages of material on the Hamilton inquiry. That has not been simple or straightforward. It required us to navigate complex legal issues. What we will not do—and what I will never do—is knowingly release information that could compromise the anonymity of women in cases of alleged sexual assault. That would be utterly wrong, and I will not do it.
The problem with the First Minister’s defence is that it ignores the fact that David Hamilton, the Scottish Information Commissioner, has spent his entire career in the criminal justice system and he probably understands these issues better than anybody else in this chamber. His criticism of the Government is that the excuses that it has given are, in his words, “preposterous and unacceptable”. Surely we should be listening to him. The Government should be complying with his reasonable requests. Otherwise, it gives the impression that this is a Government that is addicted to secrecy.
The innuendo of Mr Fraser’s remarks is not lost on me, but I will quote the commissioner again:
“I think the Scottish Government in general is actually very good when it comes to freedom of information.”
As I said in my first answer to Katy Clark, there have been 13,000 FOI requests since the start of 2024, with 95 per cent of those responded to on time, and with thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of information issued in relation to the Hamilton inquiry.
I reiterate what I said to Katy Clark. I am not going to knowingly do anything that gets me into the area of compromising the anonymity of women in cases of alleged sexual assault. There are court orders that must be followed and this First Minister is going to follow those court orders.
We move to constituency and general supplementary questions.
Ferry Services (Arran)
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport outlined the Scottish Government’s welcome commitment to a two-vessel service for Arran while Ardrossan harbour is being redeveloped. However, for most of this week, Arran has had a zero-vessel service, with both the MV Glen Sannox and the MV Caledonian Isles breaking down and the MV Alfred away for maintenance, leaving the island with no connection to Ayrshire for days.
No other island community is bearing disruption on that scale. Businesses are losing income, medical appointments are being missed, essential supplies are at risk and islanders constantly fear the next breakdown. What action will the First Minister take to restore reliability to Arran’s ferry services before the consequences become even more serious?
I am glad to hear Mr Gibson’s welcome of the Government’s acquisition of Ardrossan harbour, which is a commitment that the Government gave to Parliament. It is another commitment delivered by my Government and enables us to take forward the securing of the Ardrossan to Brodick connection for servicing Arran.
I must push back a little on Mr Gibson’s reference to a “zero-vessel” service for Arran, because the Claonaig to Lochranza service has been operating as a shuttle and all presenting traffic has been dealt with, although I accept that there has been disruption to Ayrshire services.
The MV Caledonian Isles is now back in service. I checked the marine traffic app before I came to Parliament today to see whether it is operating just now, and it is. The MV Glen Sannox is out on sea trials off the coast of Troon and I hope that it will return to service. Caledonian MacBrayne has made it clear that the new ferry that has come to us from the Cemre yard, the MV Isle of Islay, is on standby, should it need to be deployed to the Isle of Arran route in advance of its introduction to service on the Islay route when the summer timetable comes in on 27 March.
Suicide Prevention (Schools)
Suicide in young people has reached a crisis point. The breaking the silence suicide prevention project that has been piloted in schools in my region is a step in the right direction. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that the project’s training, which literally saves lives, is rolled out in schools across the whole of Scotland?
I welcome Mr Stewart’s comments and I attach the greatest importance, as I know he does, to supporting young people whose mental wellbeing is in jeopardy.
The Government takes a range of steps to ensure that we address issues of mental wellbeing and suicide prevention and that that is taken forward within our curricular work. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills recently met the campaign group 3 Dads Walking to discuss suicide prevention. As part of the curriculum improvement cycle work, we will be looking to ensure that the curriculum adequately addresses the issues that Mr Stewart puts to me, and we will be happy to continue rolling out that work in partnership with local authorities.
Rokbak (Closure)
Volvo Construction Equipment has announced that it plans to close its Rokbak business in the Uddingston and Bellshill constituency, with the devastating loss of 120 highly skilled jobs. The GMB trade union has written to ministers on behalf of the workforce, rightly stating that the loss of the Rokbak line would be a major blow not only to the workers directly affected but to confidence in the long-term future of advanced manufacturing at the site and in Scotland more broadly.
Will the First Minister say what discussions the Government has had with the company and the workforce to explore whatever options there might be to save those jobs and the future of advanced manufacturing at the site?
I share Mr Griffin’s concerns. The Deputy First Minister and the Minister for Business and Employment have spoken to the GMB union about the matter and we are establishing discussions with the company about the situation; Scottish Enterprise is already engaged with the business on ministers’ behalf.
The issues that are causing the difficulty here are the trading conditions in which companies are operating. One of the particular issues is the tariffs arrangement with the United States, which, as Mr Griffin will know from my other comments in Parliament, I view as deeply disruptive to the handling of our economy.
I assure Mr Griffin that ministers will continue to engage with the company and the trade unions to try to avoid any redundancies here, because that would be damaging to the manufacturing sector in Scotland. These are very high-quality, sophisticated jobs and we need to keep them.
Planning Policy (Semi-rural Communities)
Constituents in the semi-rural areas of my constituency of Edinburgh Paisley—[Laughter.] Sorry, I mean Edinburgh Pentlands. This is my last contribution—
I love you, too. [Laughter.]
George Adam deliberately put me off before I started. Sorry.
Constituents in the semi-rural areas of my constituency of Edinburgh Pentlands have expressed concerns that the expansion of suburban developments in rural villages is placing increasing pressure on transport links, school and general practitioner capacity, and the preservation of remaining green-belt land and rural character. What assurances can the First Minister provide that planning policy fully recognises and addresses the distinct needs of semi-rural communities such as those in Edinburgh Pentlands?
I fear that Gordon MacDonald has been spending too much time in the company of his next-door neighbour from Paisley. It is something on which we have every sympathy with Mr MacDonald. [Laughter.] However, I know that he will miss his daily encounters with the member for Paisley in the neighbouring seat.
Let me pay tribute to Gordon MacDonald, who steps down from Parliament next week. [Applause.] He is a wonderful servant of the people of Edinburgh Pentlands and a dear colleague and friend.
Mr MacDonald raises a very important issue about the preservation of our quality natural environment. Planning policies and development plans must take into account all those considerations. That is a requirement of national planning policy and it has to be applied in all circumstances.
North Sea Oil and Gas Production
With the situation in Iran escalating and the cost of fuel skyrocketing, it is common sense that we should be maximising our own resources in the North Sea. Domestic production is better for the environment, better for our economy, better for our jobs and better for our energy security. Will the First Minister stop turning his back on one of Scotland’s most important industries, scrap the Scottish National Party’s presumption against new oil and gas, back projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw and support new drilling in the North Sea?
As First Minister, I have made clear on countless occasions the importance that I attach to making sure that there is a just transition in the North Sea oil and gas sector for those who are affected. That is delivered by making sure that we have the right climate to enable that judgment to be taken forward. We must consider any developments in the North Sea in relation to our climate commitments, because we have to achieve them, but we also have to have energy security, and that is why I have argued that the Prime Minister should remove the energy profits levy and enable developments that can be compatible with our climate action to take their course.
Mr Lumsden raises a wider question about issues of energy sustainability and affordability. When this Government came to office, we had a clear ambition to massively increase the amount of electricity that is generated in Scotland from low-cost renewable sources, and we have succeeded in doing that. As a result, right now, people in Scotland should not be fearing soaring electricity bills as a result of soaring gas prices. Decisions by the SNP Government have put Scotland in a position where electricity bills for Scottish households and Scottish businesses should be lower, but decisions taken at Westminster prevent that. The answer is clear: Scotland’s energy wealth should be protecting people here in Scotland right now. Scotland’s energy wealth should be in Scotland’s hands, and that will only come by voting SNP on 7 May.
Chronic Pain Interventions
The review of chronic pain interventions that was published by the Scottish Health Technologies Group on 27 February recommends the use of interventions when that will assist patients to deal with chronic pain. Since then, I have been advised by a patient of the chronic pain service that NHS Highland has told her that it intends to close the chronic pain intervention service from late September. What is the First Minister doing to ensure that patients everywhere can access relief from pain?
Rhoda Grant has raised a very important point. I understand that no decision has been taken by NHS Highland on the future of its chronic pain intervention service. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health has been clear about the need to ensure that local communities are properly consulted ahead of any proposed changes to that service. All NHS boards, including NHS Highland, are expected to provide high-quality care that is safe, effective and person centred.
It is vital that members of the public, wherever they live in the country, have access to those services. I will ask the minister, who is in the chamber, to address the issue that Rhoda Grant raised, discuss it with NHS Highland and correspond with Rhoda Grant.
That concludes First Minister’s question time.
Our next item of business is a members’ business debate. There will be a short suspension to allow people to leave the chamber and the public gallery.
12:46
Meeting suspended.
12:48
On resuming—
Air ais
General Question TimeAir adhart
Invasion of Ukraine