Seòmar agus comataidhean

The member might be interested to know that we interpreted or translated into BSL 12 per cent of chamber business in the first five months of this year, 15 per cent of our committee calls for views, and 20 per cent of our festival of politics events in 2023, which has risen to more than 30 per cent in the 2024 programme.

However, I return to the fact that we are launching our draft BSL2 plan to build on that work, not least in continuing to expand BSL-interpreted chamber business, as well as providing interpretation of every FMQ. The member raises an important issue, so if she can be more specific about what she requires, particularly with regard to committees, I am sure that we can explore and consider that in the draft BSL2 plan.

To give some context, in the school year that is just ending, the education service has supported more than 400 education establishments; welcomed 214 schools to Holyrood; visited 164 schools; and held online sessions for 59 schools. We have been in every constituency, with a good diversity of age ranges and education settings and reached into schools in areas of deprivation. We know the importance of the impact of visiting the Parliament, but travel is not the practical option or the highest priority for many schools, which is why we offer the digital and outreach services.

I hear, however, what the member has said about the UK Parliament, which the SPCB knows offers a travel subsidy based on distance from the building, starting at 30 miles. We are working with the UK Parliament to understand the impact that that subsidy has had on the profile of the schools that use the service. The policy intention that the SPCB will continue to address in the autumn is whether spending money on a travel subsidy will help to achieve our public engagement goals in the most effective way, in line with the Scotland Act 1998. We are still reviewing and considering the position.

I hope that you feel that my question is relevant, Presiding Officer, as it is about affordable homes.

I believe that there are more than 43,000 empty homes in Scotland at large—perhaps this issue is more for the Minister for Housing—including more than 400 in Midlothian and 1,000 in the Scottish Borders. What levers are open to the Scottish Government to bring those homes into the market legally?

To ask the Deputy First Minister whether the Scottish Government will review the impact of the short-term let licensing legislation, in light of the upcoming summer tourist season. (S6F-03216)

During the debate on the legislation, I raised concerns about its reach, as it includes, for example, yurts, tree houses and even lighthouses. I also raised concerns about local pressures for accommodation at times of popular tourist events, such as, in my constituency, the Melrose sevens, the Borders book festival in Melrose and common ridings across the Borders. I understand that flexibility to local authorities was part of the solution. I understand from what the Deputy First Minister said that the Government is monitoring the issue. Can she advise Parliament whether that flexibility is working?

The Scottish Government, in choosing to invest more than £19.5 billion in health and social care in 2024-25, is giving our NHS a real-terms uplift in the face of UK Government austerity. I understand that NHS funding comprises almost 40 per cent of the Government’s budget. It has more than doubled under the present Government, and staffing is at a record high, as colleagues have said, with far more doctors and nurses per head in Scotland than in England. By working with the trade unions, the Government prevented a single day of strike action over pay in our health service, unlike elsewhere in the UK. We all know that Scotland has an increasing ageing population and, therefore, increasing demands on health and social care, and the fallout from Covid continues to add pressure to NHS services.

I now turn to the financial context, which Sandesh Gulhane and Jackie Baillie conveniently sidestepped. There is a perfect financial storm, which started with austerity under the Tories, following the 2008 bank crash, and continues to this day. There was Covid; Brexit, with its costs; the raging inflation, which peaked at 11 per cent, that was brought about by the disastrous Liz Truss budget, and the natural wage demands that followed as a consequence; and the energy inflation that resulted from Ukraine’s invasion by Russia, which was compounded by a failure of UK Governments to invest in home-grown energy over decades, having squandered North Sea oil revenues, unlike independent Norway.

Before we tackle reform, let us lay to rest some myths. A good place to start is to follow the money. If any UK Government makes public sector cuts, because of Barnett consequentials, we suffer, too. That is significant when I refer to Labour’s plans, should it come to power. For example, if more health is delivered through the private sector, public funding decreases in England, so funding that is devolved to Scotland decreases when the Scottish Government is determined to keep the NHS in public hands.

Yes, I will take an intervention.

[Made a request to intervene.]

Will Paul Sweeney take an intervention?

I say with respect to the member that she had better check how the money is allocated to Scotland.

Labour’s shadow health secretary has admitted that, when it comes to NHS funding, Westminster is damaging Scotland’s NHS because of the Westminster austerity that we have suffered for 14 years. Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, has indicated that the Labour Party, if it is elected to office, will not increase income tax, national insurance, corporation tax or VAT, and that it has accepted very strict borrowing limits within very strict fiscal and tax rules, and squeezed spending budgets. Does Labour have several money trees?

The Labour health spokesperson also said that the party wants

“the NHS to form partnerships with the private sector that goes beyond just hospitals”,

having previously admitted that he will be

“holding the door wide open”

to private interests in the NHS. To me, that is privatisation.

Private healthcare investors have also stated that the Labour Party would

“kick-start private sector investment much more proactively than the Tories were able to do.”