Official Report 822KB pdf
12:08
Social Security (Cost)
::We are blessed to live in a country that provides its people with the safety net of social security. Any one of us, or our loved ones, might need a helping hand at some point in our lives.
However, we have a duty as politicians to remind ourselves that that is paid for by taxpayers. Already, £1 of every £7 spent by the Scottish National Party Government is spent on benefits. Does John Swinney think that that is fair and affordable?
::I do believe that it is fair and affordable. The Government successfully took a budget through Parliament that was passed with the support of members of different persuasions from across Parliament and that puts in place the resources to enable us to provide the type of support that we all designed when the social security legislation was passed unanimously. That legislation ensures that people who require support are treated with dignity, fairness and respect.
::John Swinney has just said that his benefits spending is fair and affordable. It is neither. Hard-working Scots who are struggling with the cost of living are already forced to pay £1.8 billion more each year in SNP income tax. That is £1.8 billion more than they would pay if they did the same job for the same wage elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is the only reason why John Swinney can fund his benefits spending, and it is going to get worse.
A new report from the Scottish Fiscal Commission says that 1 million Scots will be in receipt of benefits by the end of the decade. At the same time, 1 million Scots will be paying income tax at the higher rate of 42p or more. Does John Swinney think that that is fair and affordable?
::I think that the Government’s approach in its budget and in its social security expenditure is fair and affordable. What the Government is doing in relation to cost of living support, for example, has a whole variety of different elements to it. It results in people in Scotland paying lower council tax, on average, than people in other parts of the United Kingdom. It results in the abolition of peak rail fares, which means that, if a person is a commuter between Edinburgh and Glasgow, their travel costs have been halved as a consequence of the Government’s action. [Interruption.]
I hear a Conservative member talk about rural areas. The Government is piloting a £2 bus fare cap in the Highlands and Islands, and I heard on my visit to Shetland that it is going down fantastically well as a measure to support the cost of living.
Of course, if people live in Scotland, they also have access to the social contract, which means that they do not pay prescription charges, they do not pay for personal care and they do not pay for tuition fees—as we have heard this week, the whole issue of student debt in the United Kingdom is becoming such a significant issue, but people living in Scotland do not pay tuition fees in Scotland.
I think that the Government has got the balance right in asking people on higher incomes to pay slightly more in taxation. Of course, the majority of taxpayers in Scotland pay less in taxation than they would pay if they lived in other parts of the United Kingdom and they get access to the social contract, which protects people from the rises in the cost of living.
::No one is asked to pay more tax—they are forced to pay more tax. This Government should get people off benefits and into work, because that is how we improve people’s lives. Instead, the SNP hammers workers and businesses to pay for its expensive benefits.
It is going to get even more unfair and even more unaffordable. An SNP Government report wants more people to qualify for adult disability payment, which already accounts for more than half of all benefits spending in Scotland. Astonishingly, that report even says that those whose condition is not serious enough to qualify should be paid the benefit. Implementing that report would add another £1 billion to the SNP’s already bloated benefits bill. Does John Swinney think that that is fair and affordable?
::The Government has not taken any decisions about those particular issues.
What this exchange highlights, once again, is that Russell Findlay has come into this Parliament to go after disabled people in our country and to undermine their quality of life. [Interruption.]
::Thank you, members.
::I am very pleased to put on the record that, while Russell Findlay goes after the benefits of disabled people, my Government will stand shoulder to shoulder with disabled people in our society and support them in their journey into employment and into activity. I simply point out—[Interruption.]
::Let us hear one another.
::I simply point out to Russell Findlay that the Government’s budget, which was passed yesterday, contains significant support for employability schemes to enable people to access the labour market. That is what I want people to do to help us to reduce child poverty, which is already falling in our society. Of course, Scotland, under an SNP Government, has significantly lower unemployment than other parts of the United Kingdom do. That is because this Government delivers for the people of our country.
::The First Minister is doing what he always does—resorting to nonsense smears—because he is in a state of complete and utter denial. [Interruption.]
::Let us hear Mr Findlay.
::This entire place is in a state of denial. The SNP, the Greens, the Lib Dems, Labour and Reform think that they can keep spending more money and giving more benefits while expecting Scottish workers and businesses to keep paying for it. We cannot—we just cannot.
The Scottish Conservatives know that we must reduce the benefits bill so that we can cut taxes to help people pay their bills, yet the SNP’s deeply irresponsible budget does absolutely nothing whatsoever to address its benefits time bomb. John Swinney should be honest for a change. He should tell the public which taxes he will raise and which services he will cut to pay for his benefits bill.
::If I needed any lessons on how to smear people, I would take them from Russell Findlay, who does it every single week in the chamber.
In the budget yesterday—which, of course Russell Findlay could not support—there was investment for employability schemes to get people off benefits and into employment, which is what he is asking for, but he could not even bring himself to vote for the budget yesterday.
Russell Findlay comes here with empty rhetoric about delivering tax cuts without telling us what services are going to be cut as a consequence. [Interruption.]
::Let us hear one another.
::To reassure Russell Findlay and the Conservatives about the situation that we find ourselves in, I say that the Government asked the credit rating agencies to assess Scotland’s position, and what did they tell us? They told us that we have prudent fiscal management here in Scotland. That is what you get with an SNP Government.
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital
::For years, families have been searching for answers to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital scandal. As everyone in the Parliament now knows, the hospital was opened before it was safe and, as a result, children and adults died. John Swinney said that the Government first knew about problems at the hospital in March 2018, but, even after that date, the Government denied the scale of the problem.
Although there has been understandable focus on the lives lost, many others were harmed. Prophylaxis drugs, which are powerful anti-infection drugs, are typically used for short periods, but many children at the hospital were prescribed them for prolonged periods—as long as nine months—with side effects. Patients were told that that was standard treatment and was not connected to the hospital environment. Why were they lied to?
::Mr Sarwar has raised an important issue about clinical care for children in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. The inquiry that the Government set up, under the leadership of Lord Brodie, is designed to provide families with answers on that material issue. I am not a clinician, but I accept that clinical judgments will be made in the care of individuals. The inquiry that the Government established into the Queen Elizabeth university hospital is designed to provide families with the answers that they deserve. That is why the Government set up the inquiry. I want to ensure that Lord Brodie has every opportunity to provide his answers on that question.
::There is a group of victims whose story has not been told enough so far. Those families believe that their children have been left with lifelong debilitating conditions as a result of prolonged use of those drugs due to infection risks that were caused by the hospital environment.
I want to share some of those cases today. All of them took place after March 2018. Aneeka’s daughter, Eshaal, who is 9, wakes up most mornings screaming and clutching her stomach in pain; Karen’s son, Caleb, who is 10, has chronic tummy pains and incontinence issues and struggles to walk; Leann’s son, William, who is 13, was so sick on those drugs that he burned all the enamel off his teeth; and Charmaine’s daughter, Paige, who is 9, has pain in her limbs and severe stomach issues, so she cannot go to school. Her parents told me that there is a culture of cover-ups and that people were playing God with these children’s lives.
I asked the families what they would ask if they were standing here, facing John Swinney. Mark, whose daughter Charlie, who is 14, has to take regular hormone injections, simply said:
“I would ask John Swinney: how do you sleep at night?”
::I cannot give an opinion on the clinical decisions that are offered in individual cases. What I can do is express my sympathy to the families who are involved, recognise their suffering and provide them with the reassurance that the inquiry that the Government has established, under the leadership of Lord Brodie, is designed to capture the evidence and provide answers to those families. Lord Brodie has the remit to do that. The Government has supported Lord Brodie in the provision of information to ensure that he can undertake that task, and that is what we expect Lord Brodie to do.
I will always listen with care to the perspectives and interests of families who have been affected by the national health service, and the circumstances that they face, and I will do all that I can to address their suffering. That is the commitment that I give to those families.
::All the families whose tragic stories I have shared are here today in the Parliament. Each and every one of the people who are standing right now has spent years having to stand up for themselves against a system that has misled them and treated them appallingly. There have been cover-ups, secrecy, misdirection and downright deception, with tragic consequences. They all want the truth about what happened to their children, and they want no other family to suffer like they have.
John Swinney has twice referred to the public inquiry, but he knows that the public inquiry is not looking at individual cases and, therefore, cannot give those families the answers that they deserve and are looking for. Will he commit today to setting up a genuinely independent expert panel, not connected to the health board or the Government, to look at each of those cases on an individual basis and to allow each of those families to ask all the questions that they have, so that they can get the answers that they need and, finally, the truth that they deserve?
::I want families who have suffered to get the truth. That is why the Government established the inquiry into the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, as it was asked to do by the Parliament, and we have provided the inquiry with all the information that we have done to enable it to undertake its activities.
Today, I will be meeting families who have been affected by the issues at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. I will also be seeing other families in the next couple of weeks, because I am absolutely committed to making sure that families get the truth.
Mr Sarwar asked me to put in place a process. In all honesty, I have to reserve my position on that until we get the report from Lord Brodie. The Parliament has asked for a public inquiry to be undertaken and, as First Minister, I cannot prejudge its outcome. That is the rational thing to do. However, I will consider Mr Sarwar’s point.
I give candid answers to the Parliament. That is my style as First Minister. That is what I want to do. Having established a public inquiry, we have to enable that inquiry to take its course. That is the approach that the Government will take.
I will consider Mr Sarwar’s request, and I will discuss those issues with the families I meet in the next few weeks.
Childcare (West Lothian Council)
::High-quality, affordable childcare should not be a luxury in Scotland, but the current system is not delivering. This week, West Lothian Council voted to cut all funding for cross-boundary placements, meaning that parents where I live, Falkirk, who use private nurseries in Linlithgow are set to be hit with a huge unexpected bill.
Parents who have applied for places for their children will be denied them from 1 April and will now have to find alternative childcare at terrifyingly short notice. Children who are halfway through their current placement will be forced to move in August. That is an unacceptable level of disruption for young children and families who were promised funded childcare.
Will the First Minister intervene and help the families who will be impacted? Will his Government provide an urgent solution to councils cutting funding for cross-boundary childcare?
::I have every sympathy with the issue, which gets to the nub of some of the dilemmas about the delivery of local authority services that the Government has to wrestle with. Statutory guidance is clear that families accessing cross-boundary placements should be treated on the same basis as families accessing local provision.
West Lothian Council—which is, I point out, a Labour-led council—is not following the statutory guidance that is in place. That is a salutary warning to us all about what Labour does when it gets into power.
I want to make sure that people understand the financial circumstances in West Lothian Council. West Lothian Council will receive an additional 7.8 per cent in its budget compared with its funding for 2025-26, and the Government is fully funding 1,140 hours of high-quality early learning and childcare.
The Government is limited in what it can do, because local authorities are self-governing organisations. I simply point out to members that it would be helpful if West Lothian Council could deliver on the commitment, which we are all signed up to, to provide affordable childcare to individuals in Scotland, so that it does not put the difficulties that Gillian Mackay raised in front of families in West Lothian and Falkirk.
::The Scottish Greens want to deliver free places for every child in Scotland from six months up, but the Scottish Government is not delivering the current commitment on funded childcare once a child turns three, which is an issue that we raised with the First Minister ahead of this year’s budget.
Thanks to Scottish Green councillors, Glasgow City Council is now the only local authority left that offers funded childcare to all children starting the week after a child turns three. Many families elsewhere have to pay thousands of pounds out of their own pockets while they wait for the start of the next school term.
The Scottish Government promised free childcare at three, but it has not funded it. I appreciate the issues with councils not passing on the funding, but councils are trying to plug the gap. When will the First Minister come good on his party’s promise and make sure that childcare in Scotland really is free at three?
::Since 2021, the Government has put in place about £1 billion a year to provide 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare for all three and four-year-olds. That is the Government’s commitment. We have set out in the budget proposals other provisions that relate to extending some early learning and childcare. The Government will have more to say in the coming weeks in relation to other measures that we are able to take to tackle child poverty.
Adequate funding has been put into the local government settlement to deliver on the Government’s commitment. This is supposed to be a partnership endeavour, but it does not help when local authorities do not work collaboratively with the Government to deliver the Parliament’s aspirations.
Transmission Charges (Wind Farms)
::To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of warnings from industry leaders that high transmission charges are making wind farms in the north of Scotland uncompetitive, including any implications for its work to grow the renewable energy sector. (S6F-04717)
::The current system of transmission charging is wholly unfit for purpose and unfairly penalises Scottish generators, putting them at a commercial disadvantage and reducing their viability. The levers to effect change are reserved to the United Kingdom Government, and we have repeatedly called on it and Ofgem to set out equitable long-term solutions as well as immediate measures to protect Scottish generators from unfair, high and volatile charges. Furthermore, we have been clear that the views of Scotland’s renewables sector must be at the heart of any reforms.
::The First Minister will have noticed that, this week, Scottish Renewables published a report setting out the damage that the Labour UK Government’s transmission charging regime is doing to Scottish generators. Westminster’s charging regime is fundamentally unfair and hinders renewables projects in Scotland, and that is happening while Labour’s tax on Scotland’s energy is destroying around 1,000 jobs a month.
Will the First Minister join me in calling on the UK Government to end the discriminatory transmission charging regime for existing projects right now? Does he agree that Scotland needs full control over our energy sector, which, of course, only Scottish independence can bring?
::I very much agree that the transition charging regime is hindering renewables projects in Scotland. It is wholly unfit for purpose and it unfairly penalises Scottish generators. Vast amounts of renewable energy are being produced in Scotland, and there are many more prospective projects. However, under the current United Kingdom arrangements, people in Scotland will not get the benefit of the renewable energy that is being generated. I agree with Michelle Thomson that if Scotland wants to have lower energy costs for households and businesses, its energy wealth must work for the people of Scotland. That will come only when Scotland becomes independent.
::Does the First Minister agree with his Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy’s comment that, if people do not want pylons, battery storage or other destructive infrastructure in rural Scotland, they are on the far right? If he does not agree with her, will he apologise for her disgraceful remark?
::First Minister, please answer in relation to the substantive question.
::I am interested in Tess White’s comment. Members of the public are free to express their views on all questions. We all live in a democracy, and we are all free to express the points of view that we hold. It is important that all opportunities for engagement on any issues in relation to renewables projects are available to all members of the public through the planning process. That will always remain so.
Lord Advocate’s Role(Separation of Functions)
::I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in that I hold a practising certificate as a solicitor.
To ask the First Minister, in light of reported renewed calls over the weekend to end the Lord Advocate’s dual role, when the Scottish Government will publish its proposals and begin a consultation on separating the prosecution function from the role of providing legal advice to the Scottish ministers. (S6F-04705)
::The law officers operate with integrity and entirely independently of any other person as they undertake their prosecutorial and investigation of deaths functions and provide legal advice to ministers. Separating the functions would require legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament. A draft research paper on the law officers’ roles and functions, which set out factual information, context and analysis, was produced by the former chief executive of the Scottish Law Commission, Malcolm McMillan. The paper was subsequently peer reviewed and will be published before the end of the parliamentary session. Although the Scottish Government is exploring whether any change might be desirable, it considers that the current position is appropriate.
::I am pleased that we finally have a publication date for the research, but it is extraordinarily late, given that Malcolm McMillan’s appointment to do it was more than three years ago. For the sake of the system’s integrity, for public confidence and to achieve a clear separation of powers, the Lord Advocate’s dual role must be split, which the Scottish National Party promised to do in its 2021 manifesto. The First Minister will be pleased to note that Conservative MP John Cooper has tabled a bill in the UK Parliament that would enable such a split. Will the First Minister instruct Stephen Flynn and the SNP’s MPs to support Mr Cooper’s bill? If the bill should pass, will the First Minister immediately take the steps required to split the Lord Advocate’s role?
::There are a number of hypothetical elements to that question. However, for me to be able to fulfil what Mr Kerr has asked of me, I will first have to win the forthcoming election and ensure that I lead the Government after it. I am glad that Liam Kerr believes that that is exactly what I am going to be doing.
::I hope that I say on behalf of the whole chamber that any language that is used, by anyone in the Parliament or elsewhere, that suggests for a second that the Lord Advocate is in any way corrupt does a huge disservice to the person who holds that role and to the independence of the judiciary. We have to put that on the record as MSPs.
Mr Kerr makes a valid point. The issue has been rumbling along for many years. It has been four years since Mr McMillan was tasked with finding a solution to the conundrum. I have always believed that the dual role puts the Lord Advocate in an impossible position and that it should have been taken away many years ago. If the report is published in the coming weeks, is it likely that we will see some action and resolution to the issue before the Scottish Parliament election, or is there a risk that the issue could be kicked into the long grass of the next parliamentary session? I do not think that that would benefit anyone.
::The first thing to say is that I very much welcome Mr Greene’s comments about the language that must be used in Parliament. As I indicated in my original answer, the law officers operate with integrity and entirely independently of any other person. That is what I believe, and, as I put on the record to Parliament last week, the Lord Advocate—and, for completeness, the Solicitor General—carry my complete confidence in being able to exercise those functions on the basis that has been set out.
I noticed yesterday that not all Conservative members support the kind of language that their leader used in Parliament last week. That is both encouraging and depressing: it is encouraging that members of the Conservative Party do not agree with their leader and the smears that he was putting out last week, and it is depressing that the leader of the Conservative Party repeated the contemptible rubbish that he said in Parliament last week.
On the substantive point that Mr Greene put to me, the issue is about the publication of the research paper. I have committed that that will be undertaken. Mr Greene knows that parliamentary time is limited between now and the election. The next session of Parliament will have to consider that issue, but it will be able to do so with the benefit of the dispassionate research evidence that Malcolm McMillan has produced, which will be available to inform debate.
There has to be thorough and substantial debate on the issue, because it raises significant constitutional questions. The issue must be carefully considered by Parliament before it acts. Further, as I highlighted in response to Mr Kerr’s question, interaction with the United Kingdom Parliament would obviously be required, because this Parliament does not have the power to amend the Scotland Act in the fashion that Mr Greene’s proposal would require it to do.
University of Aberdeen(Proposed Strike Action)
::To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the outcome of the University of Aberdeen UCU ballot, which resulted in 83 per cent of those voting in support of strike action and 90 per cent in favour of action short of a strike. (S6F-04709)
::Although ministers cannot intervene directly, I encourage the University and College Union and the University of Aberdeen to work constructively to seek a resolution to the dispute. I am keen that all parties work together to minimise the risk of disruption for students.
My clear expectation is that staff and trade unions are consulted meaningfully on the potential impact of any measures that would have an effect on the university’s workforce, in line with the fair work principles that are taken forward by the Government.
::Just two years after strike action was averted, thanks to trade union negotiation, UCU members at the University of Aberdeen have voted overwhelmingly in support of industrial action. They voted in defence of their jobs, their workplace and their students’ learning conditions, because, over the past two years, more than 440 jobs at the university have been lost.
Elsewhere, the University of Dundee has seen more than 500 job losses since July 2024. Strike ballots have been held at Heriot-Watt University, the University of Strathclyde and the University of Stirling, and a new ballot opened today in Edinburgh. UCU members are having to fight the same battle, again and again, up and down the country.
I am pleased to hear the First Minister urging university principals across the country to meet campus unions. They must listen to their workforce, but what is his Government doing to address the financial crisis in our higher education sector?
::I reiterate the points that I made earlier to Mercedes Villalba. I want to make sure that there is good dialogue between the university leadership and the trade unions to resolve these issues.
On the financing of universities, the Government has increased the resources that are available to the university sector through the Scottish budget. We have also increased the budget that is available for colleges.
I welcome the launch of the framework for sustainability and success of Scottish universities, which will explore options for securing a successful and sustainable future for the world-leading university sector that we benefit from in Scotland. The Government is fully engaged in that activity.
::I share the First Minister’s keenness for all parties to get round the table to resolve the dispute, so that the impact on students in Aberdeen is minimised.
Universities received a record sum of funding from the Scottish Government in the budget yesterday—a budget that, of course, Labour did not vote for—and students in Scotland receive a much more comprehensive package of support, including paying no tuition fees, than students in England do.
Can the First Minister confirm that the University of Aberdeen should be supporting students? Can he further set out how students in Scotland are benefiting under the Scottish National Party?
::Please answer on the points that relate to the original question, First Minister.
::As I indicated in my answers to Mercedes Villalba, I encourage dialogue to resolve this dispute. The budget demonstrates that the Scottish Government remains firmly committed to the principle that access to higher education should be based on the ability to learn and not the ability to pay.
The Government’s commitment to free tuition ensures that Scottish students studying in Scotland do not accrue the additional tuition fee debt of potentially more than £28,000 over three years that is owed by their peers in other parts of the United Kingdom. Any of us observing the debate in the rest of the United Kingdom can see the punishing burden of tuition fee debt that has been carried by individuals in our society. I am glad that the leadership and commitment of the SNP Scottish Government have ensured that students in Scotland are not carrying that burden.
::We move to constituency and general supplementary questions.
Sexual Crime Statistics
::Crime statistics that were released on Tuesday show that sexual crime is up by 10 per cent, rape and attempted rape are up by 12 per cent and domestic abuse is up by a shocking 25 per cent. Those figures are a national humiliation and the result of 19 years of the SNP Government and its soft-touch approach to justice. Last month, the First Minister refused to support my Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill. If he thinks that my bill was unnecessary, what plans does he have to tackle those despicable statistics?
::It is important that I put some context around the points that Pam Gosal has made. Scotland is a safer place since this Government came to office. Recorded crime is down by 38 per cent since the Government came to office in 2006-07, and it has halved since its peak in 1991. This country is a safer country but, within that data, there is a rise in a number of elements of sexual crimes and domestic violence. Some of that is to do with the approach that has been taken, as I set out to Parliament last week, by the Lord Advocate in making sure that significant progress is made on bringing crimes of violence against women and girls to the courts with confidence and effective prosecutorial strength, to make sure that more and more of those cases are prosecuted. I pay tribute to the Lord Advocate for what she has done in that respect.
With regard to what Ms Gosal said about a soft touch, there are more people serving longer sentences in Scotland because of the decisions of the Lord Advocate to prosecute and secure convictions on those cases.
Lastly, I am absolutely committed—and I give leadership on this across Government—to make sure that violence against women and girls is tackled in our country, and that will always be at the heart of my Government’s steps.
Cervical Cancer Screening (Uptake)
::Colleagues may have read the article in The Herald this week that gave figures from Public Health Scotland showing that fewer women are attending cervical cancer checks in Scotland. According to Cancer Research UK, mortality rates for cervical and uterine cancer in the UK are 47 per cent higher in the most deprived quintile, compared with the least deprived. Percentages and phrases such as “deprived quintile” seem a bit dehumanising.
What will the Scottish Government do to urgently ensure that all women’s health services are accessible to women with the most economic and social challenges? Will the First Minister join me in amplifying the important message that, even when you have had the vaccination for human papillomavirus—HPV—you must attend screenings when you are invited to them?
::Let me begin by saying that Ruth Maguire has, not for the first time, given very powerful advice to Parliament and to members of the public and women in our society about the steps that we have to take. I unequivocally reiterate the message that Ruth Maguire has set out to Parliament and I urge every woman, whether vaccinated or not, to attend their cervical cancer screening.
The uptake of screening is not where we want it to be—let me be open about that with members. There are complex reasons for that, but we must take steps to deliver services differently to make sure that we improve those rates of performance. One of the measures, which will begin this March, is the offering of the first self-sampling tests, which will be focused on some of the most deprived areas of Scotland.
We have also recently provided funding to three health boards for patient navigators to directly encourage underscreened individuals to attend screening. We continue to commit £1 million annually to tackle cancer screening inequalities.
We will be resolute in taking forward those measures. I am grateful to Ruth Maguire for so powerfully putting this issue on the parliamentary agenda, and I give her the assurance of my commitment and the commitment of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to ensuring that the progress that Ruth Maguire demands is delivered in the period to come.
Poverty-related Attainment Gap
::More than a decade ago, a former Scottish National Party First Minister promised to close the poverty-related attainment gap, and, five years ago, the current First Minister promised a parliamentary session that was focused on Covid recovery in our schools. This week’s attainment and initial leaver destination statistics show that he and his Government have failed in that task. The gap between those from the most and least deprived backgrounds who go on to positive destinations widened compared with the previous year. The gap in relation to those leaving school with five or more passes at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 4 and level 6 also increased compared with both last year and 2018-19. At all levels, the gap in relation to those leaving with one national, higher or advanced higher qualification has widened since 2018-19.
Does the First Minister agree that that widening gap does not represent a strong recovery, as his cabinet secretary appeared to claim? Does he also accept that, after 19 years in charge, his party is nowhere near close to closing the poverty-related attainment gap?
::I recognise that the statistics this week demonstrate that there is further work to be done. However, what Mr O’Kane puts on the record—not for the first time—is not a complete demonstration of the picture. Attainment levels are at record highs in literacy and numeracy in Scotland’s schools. The poverty-related attainment gap across primary and secondary literacy and numeracy is at a record low in our country. That is a consequence of the Scottish Government’s commitment to invest in education. In addition to all that, there were reduced gaps in each of last summer’s national 5, higher and advanced higher results, as a consequence of the Government’s interventions.
I simply say to Mr O’Kane that, as part of its agenda in the aftermath of Covid, which has been a hugely disruptive period of our lives in Scotland, the Government is focused on making sure that we support families. We do that by reducing child poverty, which we, in Scotland, are doing, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom. We are also putting the resources in the budget to support the closure of the attainment gap.
Yesterday, Mr O’Kane could not bring himself to vote for the Government’s budget and to invest in all those public services. We will not be deflected by the empty rhetoric of Mr O’Kane and his Labour colleagues.
Energy Bills
::Despite the fanfare from the United Kingdom Government, the latest energy price cap from the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets will see average energy bills from April that are almost £400 higher than what the Labour Party promised voters. On the Labour Party’s watch, energy bills in energy-rich Scotland have soared. That is an inescapable disgrace. Does the First Minister agree that it is Scotland’s energy, and that only through a fresh start with independence can we build a wealthier, fairer Scotland where our natural resources mean lower bills for our people?
::I do not know whether I heard them properly, but I think that, in response to Mr McLennan’s question, members of the Labour Party said from a sedentary position that what Mr McLennan was saying was not the case. Let me prove them wrong. The Labour Government pledged to cut bills by £300, but even with the price cap from April, bills will be £73 higher than at the time of the election. As I frequently have to do in the Parliament, I will provide members with an elementary lesson in arithmetic: £300 and £73 makes £373, which is rounded up to £400. The Labour Party has failed to deliver on its commitment to reduce energy bills for the people of Scotland, and it will not be forgiven for any of that.
Paramedic Training
::Ambulance technicians in Dumfries and Galloway have been left without meaningful career progression since the move to a university-only paramedic route, despite warnings that removing internal pathways would harm recruitment, retention and morale. All paramedic training now requires attendance at one of a small number of universities, meaning that rural technicians travel long distances—often several hours—to reach the nearest campus. The requirement to physically attend a university leaves technicians in rural areas at a significant disadvantage, worsening the challenges that rural and remote ambulance stations already face. Will the First Minister commit to reinstating a supported internal progression route that includes blended or apprentice-style training, so that experienced technicians can progress while remaining in employment and rural services are no longer left at a disadvantage? When will you fix that?
::Always speak through the chair.
::Mr Carson makes a reasonable point. No individual, regardless of their geography in the country, should be prevented from developing career progression. If that is happening as a consequence of the changes, I will look into it carefully with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care.
Let us take the model of the University of the Highlands and Islands as an example. I saw personally how it allows members of the public to remain in the communities in which they and their families live while accessing initial teacher education in the UHI learning environment. Such models can work, and we have to look at them for paramedics.
I will take that point away so that the health secretary and I can consider it, and the health secretary will write to Mr Carson about what steps we can take.
Social Care Funding
::The Accounts Commission has reported a £450 million gap in funding for social care in 2014. Fast forward a year, and the gap is a staggering £562 million. That is simply not sustainable, and it has a devastating effect on vulnerable people and their families. Overnight support is being removed from disabled people, respite care is being slashed and care packages for older people are simply not available, leading to a spike in delayed discharge. The First Minister said earlier that he stood with disabled people. Does he not think that that is the height of hypocrisy, when it is his Government that is slashing their care packages?
::I find that a very odd point for Jackie Baillie to advance, because her party tried to remove the voices of disabled people from integrated joint boards when their inclusion was a policy commitment of the Scottish Government. The Government is putting increased resources into the health service and local authorities. As a consequence, social care should be effectively funded. Jackie Baillie could not bring herself to vote for the Government’s budget yesterday, so this is just more posturing, more empty rhetoric and more of the same from the Labour Party, which lets the people of Scotland down, including people with disabilities.
GP Walk-in Centres
::This week, the First Minister set out plans for a further 15 general practitioner walk-in centres across Scotland, in both rural and urban areas, including in my region, in Stranraer. Meanwhile, waiting times have fallen for eight months in a row, as we start to see our national health service turn a corner. For some unknown reason, the Labour Party opposes GP walk-in centres and wants to rip up the GP contract, with Anas Sarwar’s half-baked plans being referred to as
“flailing election hopes on life support”.
Does the First Minister agree that the Labour Party’s opposition to GP walk-in centres shows that it has no ambition for our NHS and is completely out of ideas?
::I ask members to remember that questions should be on matters of devolved responsibility. [Interruption.] Mr Stephen Kerr, I had not asked you to contribute to this discussion, so please resist the temptation to do so.
::Speaking in relation to my responsibilities, I am very pleased that we have announced plans for 16 walk-in GP centres, and there are more to come. When I was in Shetland on Tuesday, there was a very warm welcome for the proposals that I have put in place. The announcement in Wester Hailes a few weeks ago was also warmly welcomed. The only people who seem to be disappointed about the Scottish Government tackling the 8 am rush are members of the Labour Party, because the Government is offering solutions where the Labour Party offers absolutely nothing.
Alongside that, I am very pleased that, as I promised the people of Scotland, long waits continue to fall, and they have done so for eight months in a row. The public can be assured that the NHS is safe in the Scottish National Party’s hands and that the SNP is delivering for the national health service in Scotland.
::That concludes First Minister’s question time. Our next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Roz McCall. There will be a short suspension to allow people to leave the chamber and the public gallery.
12:54
Meeting suspended.
12:56
On resuming—
Air adhart
Childcare Support for Parents