Official Report 193KB pdf
12:00
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital
Child cancer patients Milly Main and Molly Cuddihy, adult patients Gail Armstrong and Tony Dynes, and two other children whose names and ages are unknown were all patients at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, where they contracted infections and died. Dozens more child patients also contracted serious infections. For years, families suspected that the infections were caused by the hospital’s water supply, but they were lied to and smeared.
National health service staff who raised concerns were bullied and silenced. The people of Scotland were told that there was no problem, but now, after years of lies and deception, NHS bosses admit that it is likely that some infections were caused by the water supply.
John Swinney has so far refused to release all the information that his Government holds about the scandal. Will he now do so?
First of all, I express my sympathies to all those who are grieving the loss of a loved one in such circumstances. I recognise the deep pain, the grief and the hurt felt by patients and their families, who have bravely provided testimony throughout all these years on the issues that Russell Findlay raises with me.
The issues emerged in the course of the past few years and, as a consequence of that, the Scottish Government established a public inquiry, led by Lord Brodie, to establish the truth about what has happened. I have every confidence that Lord Brodie, in taking the evidence that he has taken, will provide the open scrutiny and the truth that is required by the families and by everybody else.
The Government has shared all relevant evidence that addresses the terms of reference of the inquiry. Nonetheless, if there is anything further related to the business of Government—whether that is Cabinet minutes or ministerial correspondence—that has not been submitted to the inquiry, I am happy to release it, subject to any appropriate redactions, such as personal information and the respecting of legal professional privilege.
John Swinney’s commitment is welcome, but it should not have taken this long and there can be no backsliding. The families will be watching. I pay tribute to those families—I cannot begin to imagine the pain that they have suffered. I am in awe of their determination and their dignity.
It is important for Mr Swinney to hear what they are saying. They have said:
“We were all lied to … We were all disbelieved … We were all demeaned and smeared … We have had our families devastated and our lives traumatised … We cannot overstate the level of deceit and conniving cowardice”
of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
Those families quite rightly expect accountability. They demand a reckoning for the board’s leadership. So will John Swinney sack those who are responsible?
First, I acknowledge the pain and suffering that the relatives of those affected by these circumstances have suffered. The pain of the loss of their loved ones has been compounded by their having had to make tenacious efforts to ensure that the truth could be established. That is precisely why the Scottish Government took the decision in 2019 to establish a public inquiry, led by Lord Brodie, which, as I said in my first answer, will be determined to get to the truth.
On a variety of issues, we have to await the outcome of the inquiry by Lord Brodie. However, I say to Russell Findlay that, in all circumstances, the Government will take seriously all Lord Brodie’s recommendations in taking forward the issues that must be addressed as a consequence of the commissioning of a public inquiry into the issue.
We would not need to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if public bodies simply told the truth. It is no wonder that those families are so angry. The health board has not been held to account, but neither has anyone in the Scottish Government.
Nicola Sturgeon was First Minister when the hospital began treating patients on 27 April 2015, which was just 10 days before a general election. During the Scottish National Party election campaign, she kept bragging about the new hospital. For years, Nicola Sturgeon dismissed growing concerns about infections being linked to the water supply, but now the NHS has dropped a bombshell. It has told the public inquiry:
“Pressure was applied to open the hospital on time and on budget, and it is now clear that the hospital opened too early. It was not ready.”
Let me ask John Swinney a straight question. Did Nicola Sturgeon, or anyone else in the SNP Government, apply political pressure to open the hospital before it was ready?
The direct answer to that question is no.
If the Scottish Government did not apply pressure, who did, and why did they do so?
This is one of many serious scandals in recent years involving Scotland’s public bodies—from Police Scotland to the Crown Office, the NHS and more. The SNP Government presides over a cynical culture that is defined by arrogance, secrecy and cover-up. It is a culture of zero accountability that misuses taxpayers’ money to crush victims and silence concerns, and which treats grieving families with utter contempt.
The families of the hospital infection scandal are not going away. This is not over. They say that the hospital is still unsafe for patients and that the management
“cannot be trusted to make it safe.”
They continue:
“The people of Scotland demand it be made safe.”
How does John Swinney intend to protect patients and rebuild public confidence in Scotland’s largest hospital?
I reject the characterisation of the Government that Russell Findlay puts to me. I cite as an example the fact that the Government commissioned a public inquiry to look at this very issue. I also draw on the fact that the Government has established public inquiries to look at other major issues where patients have expressed their concerns—for example, the inquiry in NHS Tayside about the conduct of Mr Sam Eljamel in his surgery practice or the issues relating to the death of Sheku Bayoh. I accept Mr Findlay’s fundamental point that it would be better if we did not have to have those public inquiries, but when things happen, we have to be prepared to take the steps to investigate and get to the truth.
Mr Findlay raises with me issues of a current nature about the circumstances in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in relation to the safety of the water system. Lord Brodie, the chair of the hospital’s inquiry, commissioned reports and audits on water and ventilation from Andrew Poplett, the inquiry’s expert. Mr Poplett’s view is that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital’s current procedures for managing the water system are suitable and safe. Providing evidence to the inquiry in September 2025, Mr Poplett observed that, after previously raising concerns, which he did, the Queen Elizabeth university hospital’s water system is
“currently extremely well managed”
and that
“significant improvement”
had been made. That is independent advice that has been provided to Lord Brodie’s inquiry, which I put on the record today to reassure members of the public that safety considerations in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital are uppermost in the thinking and minds of Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board. Obviously, the Government wants to have that assurance, and the inquiry report provides exactly that.
The last thing that I would say is that it is vital and absolutely fundamental that the patients and families who are using our hospitals are assured of our determination to ensure that we have a safe clinical environment. Scotland has advanced a lot of work on support for patient safety that has attracted international commendation. Patient safety will be one of the key priorities for the Government so that we can ensure that the public can rely on that in our hospitals around the country.
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital
Much of John Swinney’s answers are simply not credible. This week, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital that
“Pressure was applied to open the hospital on time and on budget, and it is now clear that the hospital opened too early. It was not ready.”
The hospital opened with contaminated water, which infected people and led to the deaths of at least two children. Weeks before the children’s hospital opened, an internal report—I have it here—warned of a high risk of infections and, therefore, a high risk to life for immunocompromised patients. The report was ignored, pressure was applied and the hospital opened anyway, with devastating consequences. Who applied the pressure and why?
I will make two points to Mr Sarwar. First, as he correctly says, the hospital opened in 2015. The first that the Scottish Government was advised by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde of a water contamination problem was on 1 March 2018, which was long after the report that Mr Sarwar has referred to. Secondly, Mr Sarwar has raised a point that is absolutely fundamental to the conduct of the public inquiry, which Lord Brodie is undertaking. I acknowledge the significant public interest in the issue, which is why Lord Brodie must have the opportunity to consider and reflect on the evidence and to set out his conclusions.
Again, the answer is not credible. It is either at least negligence or, more likely, criminal incompetence if the Government is suggesting that the internal report was never seen. When the hospital opened, Nicola Sturgeon was the First Minister, John Swinney was the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy, so he signed the cheques, and Shona Robison was the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport. They received the internal report that warned of high risks of infection weeks before the hospital opened. They ignored it and opened the hospital anyway, and children died as a result. For seven years, families have been lied to; whistleblowers have been bullied, gaslit and punished; and those who raised concerns were dismissed and patronised. Pressure was applied to open the hospital before it was ready, even though there was contaminated water that risked lives. I ask John Swinney again: who applied the pressure and why?
Those issues are the substance of the public inquiry that Lord Brodie must undertake. As I have already indicated, the Government expected the hospital to open and preparations were being made to do that. The operational responsibility for that lay with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Mr Sarwar said that the experience of whistleblowers, staff, and patients and their families has been completely unacceptable. I agree with that whole-heartedly. That is why the Government set up a public inquiry—because we were so concerned about the circumstances, we felt that it was necessary to have a judicially led inquiry to get to the truth and to satisfy the legitimate concerns that exist. That is what Lord Brodie will reflect on in the course of completing his report.
If Jeanne Freeman could see a report and stop the opening of a hospital in Edinburgh, why could Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and Shona Robison not do that too? That is at the heart of the issue. This is the biggest scandal in the history of the Parliament. I first raised the case seven years ago, when whistleblowers came to me with devastating evidence that children had died due to infections but their parents had never been told the true cause of their deaths.
One of those parents was Kimberly Darroch, the mother of Milly Main. Milly was in remission but died after contracting an infection from the water. She was 10 years old. Milly was forced to fight not only cancer but an unseen danger inside those hospital walls. Every step of the way, the health board and countless SNP ministers closed ranks and denied that there was a problem.
People have died. Their families deserve the truth. A hospital was opened too soon with contaminated water that infected patients and led to deaths. The health board says that “pressure was applied” to open it before it was safe. I therefore ask the First Minister, for the third time, to tell the truth. The health secretary at the time is sitting right next to the First Minister, who was the Deputy First Minister and finance secretary at the time. They could ask Nicola Sturgeon, too. Tell the truth: who applied the pressure and why?
I have already answered that question through the answers that I set out to Mr Findlay. [Interruption.]
No, you did not.
Let us hear the First Minister.
What I would say to—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
I would say to Mr Sarwar that, when the Government became aware of those issues, which was when the water contamination incident was raised with it on 1 March 2018, a sequence of events followed that led to the establishment of a public inquiry—
Answer the question.
—to get to the truth of all the issues.
First Minister, I am sorry to interrupt, but I am keen to ensure that everyone in the chamber and the gallery can hear what is being said.
Once the circumstances were reported to the Government in March 2018, a sequence of events was put in place that resulted in the establishment of the public inquiry, the substance of which involves consideration of all the evidence. That is what the Government has done to make sure that we face up to the issues that are being raised in the chamber and provide answers to the families of Milly Main and others, who have suffered so significantly as a consequence of those circumstances. That is the commitment that the Government has made and that Lord Brodie will fulfil.
Football (Ticket Pricing)
There is often very little that unites football fans. However, in recent weeks, supporters of Celtic, Falkirk and Motherwell have displayed banners backing my calls for a £25 cap on away tickets. Those calls have also been backed by the Scottish supporters collective. Football is meant to be for everyone, but at a time when the cost of living is ever rising, some fans are being priced out of attending. Price caps are in place in England and in many other European countries. We know how important attending games is for people—it reduces loneliness, and that is not to mention the wonderful work that the clubs do for the wider community. Clubs would be nothing without their fans. Will the First Minister join me in making calls to cap away ticket prices?
I am happy to give consideration to that issue. For all the reasons that Gillian Mackay indicated, it is important that individuals are able to watch their football teams, to enjoy that experience and to appreciate the solidarity of being together with fellow football fans. I will certainly give active consideration to her proposal.
Some 120,000 people will attend games over the weekend, but we currently have a system in which, other than at a few clubs, fans struggle to have their voices heard. At a national level, that is even more difficult. Whether through ticket prices or fan ownership, we need to bring our sport closer to the people who make it what it is. In the months ahead, I plan to host a summit with supporters groups from across the country to discuss how we democratise Scottish football at every level and make it truly for the fans. Will the First Minister join that summit and help to put fans at the heart of our national game?
The Government has held discussions on many of those issues, such as fan ownership and fan engagement in football. There are a number of very good examples around the country of fan ownership and leadership of football clubs that have delivered significant results for participation in sport. I am happy for the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy and Sport to be involved in those discussions. She is actively involved in all those fan engagement matters. If that helps to advance a sense of collective purpose in Scotland, the Government will support that in every way that it can.
Electricity Infrastructure (Scottish Borders)
To ask the First Minister, regarding the proposed expansion of wind turbines, battery storage facilities and pylons across the Scottish Borders, whether the Scottish Government has carried out an assessment of the potential cumulative impact on the wildlife and the landscape, in light of the importance of tourism to the area. (S6F-04609)
I completely understand the concerns of communities regarding the cumulative impact of energy infrastructure. Where new development proposals come forward, they are subject to site-specific assessments, which should take into consideration the cumulative effects of developments alongside potential impacts on communities, nature and cultural heritage.
I appreciate the point that Christine Grahame makes on cumulative impact, and I have asked that work is taken forward to consider what further steps we can take as part of our strategic spatial energy plan. Through the plan, we will work to balance the need to deliver net zero with the need to protect our natural environment, tourism and rural communities.
I thank the First Minister for his answer, and I hope that there is progress. To give some context, I understand that there are 30 sites in the Borders operating more than 440 turbines, with three more being built and others being applied for. To add to that, the SP Energy Networks project—the cross-border connection—will require, as I understand it, 400 pylons to take Borders-generated energy to England. That will, without a doubt, impact on the beautiful landscape and on communities. That application, like the other applications—notwithstanding what the First Minister has said—seems to me to be taking segmented parts of the impact in isolation, and not considering the cumulative impact. That cannot be fair when communities are certainly left getting absolutely nothing out of this but an industrialised landscape.
Issues of cumulative impact are a legitimate consideration in the planning process, and it is important that those issues are reflected in decisions. Indeed, there will have been examples of developments that have not been able to proceed because of the concerns about cumulative impact.
I hope that what I have said in my substantive answer to Christine Grahame gives her the reassurance that the issues at stake can be and should be considered in the planning process, and that the consideration that we are giving to the implications for the strategic spatial energy plan will assist in addressing the point that she has raised with me.
The First Minister says that he understands the concerns of Borders residents, but I do not think that he does. I attended the south of Scotland energy convention on Saturday, where the Scottish Conservatives showed their support for the Highlands and the north-east in calling for urgent action on the uncontrolled spread of energy infrastructure through a unified statement.
Will the First Minister prove that he is supporting Borders communities by backing my amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill on a moratorium on new energy applications and a cumulative impact assessment on the natural environment?
The Government will look at all the issues that come forward in relation to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill and determine its position, but I simply repeat to Rachael Hamilton what I have said to Christine Grahame. Issues of cumulative impact are material issues to be considered in the planning process, and the steps that we are taking on further analysis in relation to the strategic spatial energy plan will be designed to address the points that Rachael Hamilton puts to me on behalf of her constituents, as we find the sensible balances between the protection of our natural environment and the ability to ensure that Scotland benefits from the abundant renewable energy that we will have to develop to provide energy security in the years to come.
Craig Hoy—briefly, please.
Last year, I wrote to the First Minister asking him to support a moratorium on all battery energy storage systems, pylons and solar and wind farms across the south of Scotland. As Rachael Hamilton just said, this weekend, community councils added their voice to that call. Why is the First Minister not listening to rural Scotland?
I assure Craig Hoy that I listen to rural Scotland all the time, since I represent a large part of rural Scotland in my constituency representation. We are trying to work with communities and work to ensure that Scotland is able to have access to sustainable energy that will provide us with energy security in the years to come. That lies at the heart of the Government’s policy direction.
Teacher Job Shortages (Temporary Contracts)
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to address the reported issues with teacher job shortages, caused by temporary teacher contracts. (S6F-04602)
The latest data shows that, for the first time in three years, the number of teachers in our schools has increased. We are also seeing encouraging progress in recruitment. More teacher induction scheme probationers are securing a teaching post, permanent or temporary, in the year following their probation.
This Government understands how essential it is to have great teachers in every classroom and that the challenges in recruitment in some subjects and local areas must be addressed. That is why I am pleased to announce that we are launching a national recruitment campaign to encourage more people into secondary teaching, particularly in the subjects and areas where recruitment is most challenging.
The Government’s own analysis shows that most newly qualified teachers in Scotland are no longer getting permanent jobs: 2,294 newly qualified teachers completed their probation, but only 25 per cent of them have secured permanent posts. The Educational Institute of Scotland’s general secretary, Andrea Bradley, says that the figures that have been released
“confirm that the Scottish Government has absolutely failed in the delivery of their 2021 manifesto commitment”.
After 19 years of this Scottish National Party Government, why have ministers spectacularly failed in their workforce planning and in the pledge that they made to parents, professionals and young people? What does the First Minister say to young, qualified teachers in Scotland who are considering leaving our country because of this Government’s disastrous education workforce planning?
There has been an increase in post-probation employment in this year compared with last year, which demonstrates the progress that has been made. We also have a lower pupil teacher ratio in Scotland compared with the ratio in other parts of the United Kingdom, and a higher number of teachers per 100,000 pupils in Scotland compared with the number in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Government recognises the importance of investing in teacher education and in education services. That is why we have increased the budget that is available to local authorities through the Government’s budget that was announced last week. We will continue to work with our local authority partners to ensure that we strengthen the recruitment of teachers and to encourage and motivate more individuals to join the teaching profession.
It was this First Minister who, at the beginning of this parliamentary session, promised a focus on recovery from the pandemic in education. He made a pledge that there would be around 3,500 more permanent teachers in this parliamentary session, yet he will fail spectacularly on that pledge.
According to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, that should not be the responsibility of this Government. Rather, it is the fault of teachers themselves. She said that they are
“opting not to travel to jobs”,
and that they are
“much more expensive to employ”.
Does the First Minister agree with Jenny Gilruth’s analysis of the situation? Does he think that underemployed and unemployed teachers across the country should have to uproot their lives and their families because of his Government’s failure to competently put together a workforce plan?
The Government has had in place for many years incentives to encourage individuals to move to areas of the country where there are shortages of teachers. There are challenges in some of those locations, which is exactly why the Government has intervened to put in place those incentives, to ensure that that can be achieved.
Mr O’Kane rather skates past the improvements that have been made in Scottish education. As we speak, there are record levels of literacy and numeracy in our schools, with an exam diet that shows the tremendous achievements that have been made by the young people of Scotland. There is tremendous strength in Scottish education and Mr O’Kane should join those of us who are very proud of it.
When John Swinney was education secretary, he instructed the recruitment of thousands of extra teachers, but he failed to ensure that there were enough permanent jobs for them. The result is that thousands are on precarious zero-hours contracts. Is it not the case that, despite all the fine rhetoric from this Government about workers’ rights, it has the worst workers’ rights record in this Parliament? When are those people going to finally get a job?
Teachers in Scotland are the best paid in the United Kingdom, as a consequence of the pay deals put in place—[Interruption.]
The thing that I find really frustrating is that I know how many members wish to put a question in this session, and every time I have to stop business, another member is deprived of that opportunity. Please let us hear one another.
The Government has taken steps to improve teachers’ pay and conditions. As a consequence—I recounted the figures to Mr Sarwar last week—teachers in Scotland are much better paid and have much better take-home pay than teachers in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Scotland has more teachers per head of population than other parts of the United Kingdom, as well as a lower pupil teacher ratio. That is a result of the Government investing to deliver on our commitments on education, and we intend to continue to do so.
Scottish Information Commissioner Ruling
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will comply with the Scottish Information Commissioner’s ruling that files relating to James Hamilton’s investigation into whether the former First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, broke the ministerial code must be published by 22 January 2026. (S6F-04603)
The Scottish Government will comply with the commissioner’s decision, and it will do so as soon as is practically possible. I do not expect that it will take much longer.
The courts have made it clear that those who complained in relation to allegations of sexual assault must have their identities protected, and there are no circumstances in which I will do anything that risks breaking those court orders. I cannot release information that would breach those court orders and amount to a contempt of court.
The Scottish Government has wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on fighting court cases, with two further appeals relating to the Salmond files coming before the Court of Session later this month.
Will the First Minister ensure full disclosure by releasing all the Salmond files? If he will not commit to that today, will he at least release information that is not being contested through the appeals process? If the Scottish Government loses the appeals, will he commit to not using his veto?
My Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill would strengthen the powers of the Scottish Information Commissioner, which in turn would prevent the late disclosure of information that happened in this case, introduce proactive disclosure and abolish the First Minister’s veto. Will the First Minister look closely at my bill, which is supported by the current Scottish Information Commissioner and all the previous holders of the role, as it would help to deliver openness, accountability and transparency, which were the founding principles of this Parliament?
We will, of course, look at the bill and consider its contents, but it is really important that I am clear with Parliament why the Government is acting in the way that it is acting. The Scottish Government has handled nearly 90—nine zero—freedom of information requests and reviews relating to the James Hamilton investigation. In addition, we are responding to 96 per cent of information requests on time, against a backdrop of rising request numbers.
In relation to the particular case that Katy Clark has raised, the Government will comply with the commissioner’s decision, but I have to be absolutely satisfied that there is no risk that the identities of individuals who have complained in relation to allegations of sexual assault, which are protected by court orders, would in any way be disclosed as a consequence. I will be clear with Parliament that I will not run that risk. I am very surprised that Katy Clark wants me to release all the information, because, if I did that, I would breach court orders, and I will not do that. The Government is appealing two other cases that we believe would result in our committing contempt of court, and I will not do that.
As I have said, the Government has handled nearly 90 freedom of information requests, but I have a legal responsibility, and a responsibility under the ministerial code, to obey the court orders that are in place. I make it crystal clear to Parliament that I will do nothing to jeopardise that.
But what the First Minister has not said is that, when James Hamilton produced his report, he himself, in public, in an unprecedented move, expressed his severe reservations about the redactions that he was required to make. Moreover, the orders that have been made regarding the release of further information have been made by David Hamilton, who is the Scottish Information Commissioner.
The First Minister will accept that both James Hamilton and David Hamilton are individuals of the highest repute and integrity, and they would not invite him to do anything that was illegal. My question is this: is the First Minister not using the excuse of jigsaw identification as a human shield and as a pretext for declining to release information because the real reason is that it will cause extreme embarrassment to several people who are in the Scottish Government now and previously were in that trusted position?
I cannot find it in myself to associate myself with Mr Ewing’s words “excuse of jigsaw identification”, because that question lies at the very heart of the provision of statute in this country. My duty as First Minister at all times is to obey the law, and Mr Ewing is inviting me to be cavalier with the orders that have been passed by a court in this country. I want to be crystal clear with Parliament that I will do not one bit of it.
Does the First Minister appreciate what a bad look it is for his Government to be spending a huge sum of taxpayers’ money on contesting rulings from the independent Scottish Information Commissioner?
David Hamilton is an experienced and respected professional who has spent his entire career in Scotland’s justice system. Does the First Minister really think that he would be asking the Scottish Government to do something unlawful?
The Government has made it clear that we believe that the Information Commissioner has erred in law in relation to two of the cases that the Government is appealing.
Mr Fraser is a lawyer. He knows full well the obligations that I carry as First Minister to ensure that the Government at all times complies with the law. Where I believe that there is a risk of jeopardy in that respect, I will ensure that the Government acts within the law, and that is exactly what I am doing.
We move to constituency and general supplementary questions.
Energy Market
Developers have warned that the planned West of Orkney wind farm, which will have the potential to power 2 million homes by the end of the decade, will not be built unless unfair United Kingdom transmission charges are overhauled. Under Westminster control, the UK energy market is broken. Communities do not benefit from hosting development, and developers are penalised for being in Scotland. That is taking a toll on jobs, investment and, ultimately, costs, which leads to higher energy bills. Does the First Minister agree that powers over Scotland’s energy should be placed in Scotland’s hands?
Emma Roddick raises significant concerns about the West of Orkney wind farm that have been raised by the developer. It is a development that would bring enormous benefit to the people of Scotland, but it is being put in jeopardy because of the disproportionate transmission charges of the United Kingdom regime. The sooner that we can ensure that control of those issues is in the hands of the people of Scotland, so that we can benefit from the energy wealth of Scotland, the better. That can happen only with independence.
Childminding (Tax)
The First Minister will be aware of concerns raised by the Scottish Childminding Association about planned changes by HM Revenue and Customs to making tax digital and the long-standing tax-free wear and tear allowance for childminders. The allowance permitted registered childminders to claim 10 per cent of their income as tax free, given the evident wear and tear that comes from opening their homes to children.
The tax changes are due to the introduction in England and Wales of childminding in non-domestic premises, which does not apply in Scotland. The changes will require childminders to claim on a case-by-case basis should damage occur in their properties as a result of the occupation, thereby adding admin and complexity to a burgeoning sector.
The childminding workforce in Scotland has declined by 48 per cent since 2016, with an increase in paperwork being cited as the main reason for that decline. Childminders are currently considering whether they can make a decision about their future business model based on that. In light of that situation, what assessment has the Government made of the impact on childcare capacity in Scotland of HMRC’s decision? What urgent representations can be made to the UK Government to try to halt it?
I am not familiar with the issue that Roz McCall has raised, so I will take that away and explore it. It is an issue that has been advanced by HMRC, which is a United Kingdom organisation, but it will have implications for Scotland. I will consider those points and write to Roz McCall about any steps that the Government can take.
Cumbrae Ferries
The forthcoming Scottish budget commits a record £513.4 million in the next financial year for ferry services, but Caledonian MacBrayne proposes swingeing cuts to this summer’s timetable to and from Cumbrae. It seeks to reduce the number of sailings from four to three per hour, while introducing a disruptive maintenance schedule that will reduce that number even further. Those proposals will impact connectivity and the island economy, make attending hospital appointments more difficult and reduce CalMac’s income. There is zero justification for them other than CalMac’s own convenience. Will the First Minister ensure that those damaging service reductions do not happen?
I understand how significant an issue this is for Mr Gibson and his constituents. The ferry service to Cumbrae is a well-used and busy route, particularly in the summer period. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport will meet CalMac next week to discuss in detail the current proposals on the maintenance of vessels and on loading and unloading activities, alongside other matters. I give Mr Gibson the assurance that the transport secretary will raise with CalMac the issues that he has put to me.
Caledonian MacBrayne is in the process of reviewing options and will continue to work closely with the Cumbrae community to ensure that any proposals are fully discussed before any final decisions are taken or implemented. The transport secretary has heard these exchanges and will take the issues forward with CalMac.
Social Care Pay
I have been contacted by social care organisations, Unite the Union and the GMB union about a gap in the Scottish Government’s budget for social care pay. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has calculated that there will be a £19 million funding shortfall in meeting the cost of the real living wage for social care staff, on the basis of the use of the wrong baseline. Everyone assumed that that was an accounting mistake, but the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government confirmed yesterday that the funding gap was deliberate.
The First Minister will be aware that services will be cut and that staff, the majority of whom are low-paid female workers, will lose their jobs if that gap is not addressed. Will he support social care, and will he fill the £19 million gap?
The Government is fulfilling its commitments on social care and is supporting investment in social care through provisions in the budget. I look forward to Jackie Baillie’s support for the budget to ensure that it delivers for the social care sector.
Robert Burns (Ellisland)
As those at home and around the world, including in our Parliament, raise a dram this week to the continued social, economic and cultural importance of Robert Burns, the campaign to save the home of “Auld Lang Syne”, Ellisland—the Dumfriesshire farm that the poet built and called home—is building momentum. Ellisland is where Burns wrote many of his most famous works. Given that the project to restore that nationally significant site is so important to local residents in Dumfriesshire and Burns fans, will the First Minister reaffirm his Government’s full support for it, and will he agree to visit Ellisland to join Scots and visitors from around the world in experiencing for himself what Burns called “sweet poetic ground”?
I have observed a lot of fantastic work that has been done at Ellisland farm to preserve and enhance the facility and to ensure that it can play its role in the celebration of the outstanding and timeless work of Robert Burns. I am happy to reaffirm to Oliver Mundell the Government’s support and encouragement for the work that is under way. That work involves attracting funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund, South of Scotland Enterprise and Museums Galleries Scotland. I encourage the Robert Burns Ellisland Trust to continue its engagement with Museums Galleries Scotland in taking forward the trust’s plans.
I would be delighted to visit Ellisland farm to see at first hand the plans that are being taken forward and to give my active support. It is a daily experience for me to walk past the Nasmyth portrait of Robert Burns that hangs in the drawing room of Bute house, where it should hang as a tribute and commitment to the timeless work of Robert Burns, which we celebrate at this time of year and which underpins the values of our country.
Child Poverty
The head of Scotland for Save the Children has welcomed the Scottish National Party Government’s budget plans for a top-up to the Scottish child payment for families with a baby under one. This week, she said:
“This crucial extra support can’t come soon enough for families. We hope it receives cross-party support in Parliament.”
Will the First Minister join me in calling on Opposition members to listen to Save the Children and back the SNP Scottish budget so that we can deliver such landmark policies to continue our work to eradicate child poverty?
The point that Paul McLennan makes is an important one. The Scottish Government is underpinning its support for the Scottish child payment, which is helping to keep children out of poverty and to deliver a falling level of child poverty in Scotland. From 2027-28, the Government will boost the Scottish child payment to £40 per week for all children under one, which Save the Children has said will
“sow the seeds of a brighter tomorrow.”
I encourage members of all parties to support the Government’s budget, which makes provision for those aspirations.
Edinburgh Central Mosque (Vandalism)
The First Minister will be aware of the disgraceful vandalism of the Edinburgh central mosque last week. What is the Scottish Government doing to address the intolerance that was displayed by that action? What assurances can he give to all religious communities in Scotland that do not feel safe following such attacks?
I was deeply troubled to hear of the vandalism at the central mosque in Edinburgh and I associate myself entirely with Mr Balfour’s points. Nobody should be on the receiving end of hatred in our society today.
I regularly meet various groups in Scotland, as do the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and the Minister for Equalities, to ensure that we are acting together to tackle hate in our society. There are groupings in our society—it was the Muslim community on this occasion, and on other occasions I have had representations from the Jewish community in Scotland—that are on the receiving end of hate. The Government is supporting communities and investing in the cohesive communities work that we undertake to make sure that Scotland is a country free of hatred, as it should be.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will be a short suspension before the next item of business to allow those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.
12:47
Meeting suspended.
12:49
On resuming—
Air ais
General Question TimeAir adhart
Growing2gether