Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the member for the question and recognise her work to raise the profile and use of British Sign Language in the Scottish Parliament.

Although inclusion is more complex than a simple pro rata of budgets per population using a language, each year we spend around £90,000 to £100,000 on our services and staff to support and grow BSL inclusion.

The SPCB is proud of its achievements through its first BSL plan and is about to launch the consultation on its second plan. The second plan will build on our current work, not least in continuing to expand the proportion of chamber business that is BSL interpreted from the current level of around 12 per cent, and in continuing to provide interpretation of every First Minister’s question time.

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?

[Made a request to intervene.]

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. Two members—Humza Yousaf and me—have been mentioned by Tess White in a rather disparaging manner. Is not it incumbent on her to let us intervene and respond?

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.”

I asked the member whether she was challenging the quotes, which have been used in the Labour Party’s election campaigning. She did not challenge them, so I adhere to them.

In Labour-run Wales, when the draft budget was published, the Minister for Finance, Rebecca Evans, said:

“After 13 years of austerity, a botched Brexit deal, and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, this is the toughest financial situation Wales has faced since the start of devolution. Our funding settlement, which comes largely from the UK government, is not enough to reflect the extreme pressures Wales faces.”

What is true for Wales is true for Scotland.

On top of that, Scotland is still living with the bruising legacy of Labour’s private finance initiative, which has landed us with a bill of £30 billion. That was handed down to taxpayers by Labour, which built in Scotland using a “build now, pay later” scheme. The SNP Government had to buy out, for example, the contract levying car parking charges at the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh because of the PFI contract.

Until we are independent and have control of all our resources, the stark truth is that the Westminster Government might change from Tory blue to a lighter Labour shade of blue, but that will be the only change.

In conclusion, I will again quote Labour’s shadow health secretary Wes Streeting, who is now one of my favourite people. He said:

“all roads lead back to Westminster”

and

“The NHS is in crisis and all decisions that are taken in Westminster don’t just affect England – but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”

That should be borne in mind when Labour’s proclamations of change mean Labour’s creeping NHS privatisation plans, with a predictable reduction in Scotland’s NHS budget. We will not even be able to firefight, let alone do preventative medicine and treatment, because no reform can cope with that.