Trade Tariffs
Scotland exports around £4 billion of goods to the United States each year—it is our largest export destination. Donald Trump’s tariffs will cause significant harm to many of our industries, including food and drink, textiles, engineering and pharmaceuticals. Will the First Minister instruct the Government and its business agencies to do whatever they can to support businesses and protect Scottish jobs?
That is absolutely what the Scottish Government and our enterprise agencies are doing. On all occasions, we work with the business community to strengthen the economic prospects of and opportunities for Scotland.
The imposition of tariffs is not good news. It will be damaging for economic activity not only in Scotland and the United Kingdom but across the world. What was applied yesterday will also have negative implications for the population of the United States.
We will, of course, engage with the United Kingdom Government, which carries the responsibility for international trade as part of the constitutional settlement. We have been engaging for some time, and we will continue to do so as part of our efforts to promote and protect Scottish business.
The Scottish Chambers of Commerce says that many of our firms will now struggle to survive. The US is the largest overseas market for Scotch whisky, which is worth almost £1 billion in annual sales. When US tariffs on Scotch were introduced, six years ago, they cost the industry £600 million in lost sales.
Deploying some diplomatic understatement, the Scotch Whisky Association says that it is “disappointed” by the new tariffs. Help is needed. Those tariffs follow an increase in whisky duty that was imposed by the UK Government six months ago. Will the Scottish Government back my call for the UK Labour Government to lower its record-high tax on whisky?
The United Kingdom Government will make its financial decisions, and Mr Findlay is well able to make his representations to it. I point out that, when the Conservative Government was in power, it was not shy about putting tax on Scotch whisky into the bargain. It is nice to know that Mr Findlay has had a conversion on the road to Damascus on that particular question.
Significant issues affect the Scotch whisky industry. That is why the Government has had extensive dialogue with the Scotch Whisky Association, and it is why I will be engaging with it when I am in the United States over the next few days to mark tartan week.
I assure Mr Findlay that the Government will leave no stone unturned in ensuring that we take forward the concerns of the industry and will work with the United Kingdom Government and the industry to protect its prospects, given that it contributes very significantly to the economic wellbeing of Scotland.
When I speak with representatives of the Scotch whisky industry, they tell me that it is the Scottish Government that they are worried about. We need to maximise the opportunities for Scottish businesses to sell their products abroad, which will help to grow our economy and to fund public services.
Last year, the Scottish Government announced a USA export plan to identify the best opportunities for Scottish businesses, but within months it was cancelled. We called that decision short-sighted at the time. Was it a mistake? Ahead of his trip to New York for tartan week, will John Swinney reverse that decision and produce a new USA export plan?
I find that line of questioning very odd, coming from a party that wants the Scottish Government to scale back—
Answer the question.
—all our international representation.
Excuse me, First Minister. Mr Ross, please adhere to our standing orders.
I find that line of questioning absolutely bizarre, because the Conservatives are the ones who demand that the Government close our international offices, which are critical to the representation of Scotland abroad and the economic success of our country. I am proud of what Scottish Development International does on our behalf, and I know that the export strategies of the Scottish Government are focused on the needs of the industry.
I can assure Mr Findlay that the Scottish Government will take forward the interests of Scottish industry in all that we do. We will look at the opportunities to promote our products overseas, and we will stand shoulder to shoulder with Scottish industry as we promote our important products to overseas markets.
So, no answer to that question, then.
The new Trump tariffs will put Scottish jobs at risk, they will stop businesses from growing and they will slow economic growth. John Swinney cannot stop the tariffs, but he can lower bills in Scotland.
This week, Scottish families faced more tax rises because of the Scottish National Party and Labour. Our analysis shows that an average person’s bill will rise by around £1,000 because of higher income tax, national insurance, energy costs, train fares, water bills and council tax. The cost of tariffs surely makes it vital for John Swinney to look at lowering the burden on hard-working Scots and businesses—will he do so?
The budget that the Scottish Government has successfully put to Parliament, and which is now going to be implemented, involves more than £700 million of business rate reductions for companies in Scotland, and that is just one of the pro-business measures in the Scottish Government’s budget. There is also the investment that we make in the enterprise agencies and in our representation overseas, which, of course, the Conservatives are opposed to.
Mr Findlay makes his call for business tax reductions, but he also made a call in the budget for income tax reductions, which would reduce public expenditure by £1 billion and would undermine the investment that we are making in the economy.
I can reassure Mr Findlay that the Scottish Government has taken forward an economic agenda that has seen gross domestic product per person in Scotland grow by 10.3 per cent, compared with 6 per cent in the United Kingdom. That is the record of a Government that is investing in the economy to boost economic performance and to create jobs and wealth in this country. That is what my Government is all about, and that is what we are delivering for people in Scotland.
National Health Service
On Monday, the Scottish National Party published yet another national health service recovery plan—that makes it five plans in just four years. I know that Biffa is suing the Government, but that is not the kind of recycling that Scots are looking for.
A pledge for a digital front door was made in 2021 but have not been delivered. Fast-track cancer diagnostic centres in every health board were promised in 2021 but have not been delivered. The height of the SNP’s ambition is that patients will wait “only” a year for treatment. Does the SNP really think that that is success? It is little surprise that Colin Poolman, the director of the Royal College of Nursing Scotland, said that
“nursing staff reading this will be left scratching their heads wondering just how the aspirations in the plan will be achieved in reality.”
Is it not the case that the SNP Government is desperately scrambling around because it knows, as everybody else in Scotland does, that it has broken Scotland’s NHS?
No—I do not agree with that. I accept that there are challenges in the national health service, and I am very candid about that.
I set out in my speech at the National Robotarium in January exactly how the Scottish Government is going about addressing that. Let me give Jackie Baillie some reassurance about the progress that we are making.
In April 2024, the Scottish Government provided additional funding to NHS boards to deliver 64,000 additional procedures by March 2025. By the end of January, 75,500 additional procedures had been delivered. We promised 64,000 over a whole year, and within 10 months we delivered 75,500. In addition to that, all four key radiology diagnostic tests have shown a 4 per cent decrease in the total waiting list size for diagnostic tests.
I accept that there are challenges, but the Scottish Government is focused on delivering progress for the people of Scotland, and that is what we are delivering now.
The First Minister talks as if this is year zero. It is not. After 18 years in charge of our NHS, there is no one else left to blame.
Let us take the crisis in primary care as an example. Back in 2018, the SNP unveiled a big new plan with the usual fanfare. It promised to deliver 800 more general practitioners. The result is that, today, there are fewer whole-time equivalent GPs while demand has soared. In fact, since 2013, the number of whole-time equivalent GPs has fallen by more than 200 while the SNP has cut funding time and again. It is the SNP’s constant cycle of failure: create a problem, announce a plan and things get worse, so rinse and repeat.
Dr Iain Morrison, chair of the British Medical Association’s Scottish GP committee, told the BBC that general practice is at “crisis point”. Is he wrong?
I accept that, as I have said throughout all my answers about the health service since I became First Minister, there are challenges. Jackie Baillie ignores the impact on population health of a global pandemic that has had a colossal impact not just on the health service in Scotland but across the United Kingdom and in every affected country in the world. I recognise the challenges in the NHS.
On GPs, we have seen an increase in numbers—the total headcount—by 307 since 2017. In Scotland, we already have 82 GPs per 100,000 of population, compared to 64 in England, 67 in Wales and 75 in Northern Ireland.
We have invested in general practice to ensure that it is strong to meet the needs of the current period. We have also invested in broadening the staff base in general practice and in recruitment through health boards to ensure that allied health professionals are able to contribute to meeting the demand that, as a result of the Covid pandemic, now presents itself in the national health service.
Let me assure Jackie Baillie that the Government is absolutely focused on delivering improvements in the national health service. We are beginning to see the fruits of that plan, which is resulting in more procedures, more activity and more engagement in the national health service. There will be more of that to come in the period ahead, because the Government has put a record sum of money in to support the service.
Once again, we see the SNP spin machine wanting to pretend that everything is fine, but John Swinney cannot escape his record. After a global pandemic, he was the one who cut hundreds of millions of pounds from Scotland’s GPs, social care and mental health budgets. What is the result? Cancer targets are missed, waiting lists are out of control, deadly disease diagnosis is delayed and thousands of patients are forced to go private. However, we should not worry—the fifth NHS recovery plan in four years will definitely sort it all out. When it does not, there is still time to fit in a few more before the election.
NHS nurses, doctors and ambulance workers are not fooled. Neither are 800,000 Scots who are stuck in pain on an NHS waiting list. They deserve more than the SNP’s hollow apologies and half-baked plans that never get delivered. Is it not the case that, after 18 years in charge, if the SNP had a plan to fix the NHS, it would have done it by now?
Well, that is just what we hear from Jackie Baillie every single week, and it ignores—[Interruption.] It ignores the facts of what is going on.
Jackie Baillie raised some really important issues about cancer care. I want to reassure members of the public—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
It is not good enough for Jackie Baillie to create alarm by putting those questions. Let us take the 31-day treatment standard. Some 94.7 per cent of patients were treated within 31 days of a decision to treat. The median wait is four days. Those figures are a demonstration of the national health service’s achievements.
Most importantly, we are treating more cancer patients on time, within both standards, compared with the same quarter five years ago: the figures are 4.5 per cent more patients being seen within the 31-day standard and 1.6 per cent more within the 62-day standard. Jackie Baillie mentioned mental health services. For the first time, we are now meeting the 18-week treatment standard for child and adolescent mental health services, which reflects an important commitment to support the mental health of children and young people in our society.
Yes, there are challenges, but this Government is absolutely focused on delivering on the national health service. That is why we put record funding in place, and it is also why Ms Baillie could not find it within herself to back the Government’s budget. She is not interested in investing in the national health service—it is just politics, politics, politics for Jackie Baillie.
Rent Increases (Controls)
On Monday this week, the Scottish Government withdrew critical protection against rent rises. For the first time in years, landlords will now have the power to instantly set rents back to uncontrolled free-market levels. Tenants will not be able to stop that, and they will not be able to afford it.
Let us be clear about the scale of the Scottish National Party’s rent hikes. Data from Generation Rent and Living Rent shows that, even when the recent protections were in place, some landlords still tried to break the rules. In Glasgow, one landlord tried to double the rent from £700 to £1,400 per month. However, until this week, thanks to the temporary rent protections that I was proud to introduce, people such as that could be stopped. That unbelievable increase was capped by the regulator, with the rent at £784 instead of £1,400. Does the First Minister now understand why tenants across Scotland are so fearful about what he has done?
Presiding Officer, before I answer the substance of Patrick Harvie’s question, I wonder whether you would allow me to express to Mr Harvie my good wishes on his decision to step down from co-leadership of the Scottish Green Party. I have always enjoyed our encounters—we will have many more of them before the summer—and I wish him well for the future.
On the substance of Patrick Harvie’s question, I will make two points. First, part of the answer that I would give is in the evidence that Mr Harvie put to the Parliament a moment ago. There are opportunities for tenants to seek a review of a rent increase that they believe to be unacceptable. That right was exercised, with success, in one of the examples that Mr Harvie put to me. Secondly, I underline the importance that the Government attaches to the principle that underlines Mr Harvie’s point, which is why we have introduced a bill that includes the concept of rent controls. Parliament is considering, at stage 2, the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which will make provision for such issues as we move forward.
I am very grateful for the First Minister’s kind personal remarks, but I fear that his comments on the policy issue are complacent. He talks about the protections that I just described, but the point is that those protections ended this week—they are no longer there to protect people. Such complacency is similar to what we heard recently from the Minister for Housing. When those figures were put to him, all that he could say was that he was asking landlords to be sensible with these new, utterly uncontrolled powers.
In truth, there is now nothing to hold back a tide of unaffordable rent rises. The Scottish Government has not even published an assessment of the number of people who will lose their homes as a result. The protection that the Greens introduced succeeded in preventing eye-watering rent increases. Rents in Scotland are already too high—
A question, please, Mr Harvie.
—and with energy bills going up and social security under attack, people need a Government here that will be on their side. Will the First Minister think again, stop watering down the new bill and ensure that it can cut rents instead of locking in ever more rent rises for the future?
The public can be assured that they have a Government that is on their side—that is the Government that I lead. That is why we introduced the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which contains the important protections that I set out.
It is important that we recognise that there are strict legal processes that ensure that private landlords and their agents follow very strict rules about ending any tenancies. Mr Harvie makes a point about evictions; that is not an area that is without protections under the current legislative arrangements. Measures are also in place to enable tenants to seek a review of a rent increase.
I assure Mr Harvie that the Government is absolutely committed to the terms of the Housing (Scotland) Bill that is before the Parliament. We will scrutinise that to its completion and make sure that we implement the protections that he is seeking. That is the process that the Parliament is going through, and the Government will see it through to its conclusion.
North Sea Transition
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reported comments made by the chair of the North Sea transition task force that the North Sea’s future should be a “national mission”. (S6F-03982)
The North Sea is vital to Scotland’s energy transition. However, decisions on offshore oil and gas licensing, consenting and the fiscal regime are all currently reserved to the United Kingdom Government. We have consistently called for the UK Government to approach those decisions on a rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. We are clear in our support for a just transition for Scotland’s oil and gas sector that recognises the maturity of the North Sea basin and is in line with our climate change commitments.
Among other things, the task force’s report recommends
“a long-term, large-scale investment in low carbon technology, and ensuring that the continued (and planned) oil and gas extraction is in line with ... net zero commitments.”
Does the First Minister share my view that, while it remains in charge of energy policy, the Labour Government must resource the transition appropriately to maintain and secure jobs and must map out credible energy security transition and net zero strategies in order to get this right for the future? Does he agree that, ideally, the national mission could and should be undertaken by an independent Scotland?
Mr Stewart and I share the aspiration that an independent Scotland should be able to take forward the issues and challenges that Scotland faces across all policy areas. That is what independence is all about.
The most constructive and immediate thing that can be done is that the United Kingdom Government can give an early—actually, an immediate—commitment to the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. That would transform the economic prospects of the north-east of Scotland and enable us to take forward the just transition.
Mr Stewart will know my frustration at the lack of progress that has been made with successive United Kingdom Governments on the Acorn carbon capture project, as it could enhance the opportunities for Scotland and deliver the future of the oil and gas sector and our net zero transition. I just wish that the UK Government would get on and take a positive decision about Acorn.
The transition task force also said that, while we are transitioning towards renewables, it makes absolute sense to take what we can from the North Sea. Does the First Minister recognise the vital role that oil and gas will play in the transition? Will his party abandon its presumption against new oil and gas and ditch its hostility to the sector, which supports more than 80,000 jobs in the north-east?
The Scottish Government has no hostility to the oil and gas sector—[Interruption.] I will say it again to reassure the Conservatives that they heard it the first time—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
There is no hostility in this Government to oil and gas. We are committed to a rational transition to net zero that enables us to fulfil our climate objectives. We will have to rely on elements of oil and gas for some time to come. That will be part of the approach that the Scottish Government takes, but we also have to fulfil our climate objectives.
I know that there has been another change of position in the Conservative Party. A few weeks ago, Russell Findlay said that it was refreshingly honest of Kemi Badenoch to say that we should abandon our climate change targets. What does that say about the Conservatives? It says that they are prepared to vote in this Parliament for climate change targets but, when it becomes opportune to cuddle up to Nigel Farage and Reform, they abandon the climate change targets. We all now know, because people are now deserting the Tory party, that the Tory party is in a dance with Farage. I will leave them to all of that.
The developers of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields have obtained their necessary exploration and other licences. They have complied fully with all Government regulations. On the strength of that, between them, they have invested well over £1,000 million thus far. If they are now declined final permission because the rules have changed and the goalposts have been moved, the UK Government will almost certainly be pursued for legal claims by those companies for recovery of the sunk costs and, possibly, for the loss of profits extending to several billion pounds or more, and there will be a consequential reduction in the Scottish budget of hundreds of millions of pounds. Will the First Minister, who is not hostile to the oil and gas sector, confirm that the Rosebank and Jackdaw projects must now go ahead?
As Mr Ewing knows, I am a very strong believer in the rule of law. The issues that are—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
I will say that again, because my belief in the rule of law is part of my entire being. I know that the Conservatives are cavalier about the rule of law, but I am not—not one bit of it.
Some of the issues that Mr Ewing raises in his question are influenced by court judgments that have been made. The Scottish and United Kingdom Governments will have to consider the implications of those court decisions, and Mr Ewing, as an experienced parliamentarian and lawyer, will understand the importance of considering those particular rulings as we make decisions. Of course, there could be implications of those judgments. I assure Mr Ewing that the Scottish Government will always take a considered approach to those rulings, which we must bear in mind in any decisions that we take.
US Tariffs (Impact of Extension on Scottish Businesses)
To ask the First Minister what engagement the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding what assessment has been made of the potential impact of an extension of US tariffs on Scottish businesses that export to the US market. (S6F-03977)
There can be no doubt that the tariffs that have been announced by the United States will cause damage to the global, UK and Scottish economies. Scottish Government officials and ministers have been making representations to the UK Government on the matter for some time. Yesterday, the Minister for Business, Richard Lochhead, spoke with Douglas Alexander, the UK Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, and emphasised the need to ensure that Scotland’s interests are protected in the negotiations with the United States. Scottish Government agencies will work with businesses to advise and support them through this difficult and uncertain period.
I might take a slightly different tack to the issue. There is no doubt that the new tariffs that were announced last night will hit some of Scotland’s most valuable exports—Scotch whisky, salmon, pharmaceuticals and power-generating equipment among them. Will the First Minister use his visit to the United States this weekend to make the case for fair and reciprocal trade? Will he work closely with the UK Government to protect Scottish jobs and businesses? Rather than retaliate, we need to stay calm, keep a level head and focus on reaching a deal that shields Scotland from the worst economic impacts.
There is a lot in Mr Kerr’s question with which I agree. I am a believer in free and open trade, and I am a believer in exporting and international business activity. That serves Scotland well. Organisations such as the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, which is now known as Prosper, have led the debate for most of my life on the importance of exporting and broadening the export base of the Scottish economy.
As I said, there is a lot in what Mr Kerr said with which I agree. However, we have to recognise the severity of the economic impact that will come as a consequence of the tariffs. Different responses to those can be formulated. I give him the assurance that there will be close dialogue with the UK Government on the question—as I said, Mr Lochhead discussed the subject yesterday. Before Lord Mandelson took up his role as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States, he and I had a conversation about the important issues that mattered to Scotland in relation to that role. Lord Mandelson generously gave of his time to make sure that he was aware of those issues before he took up his office.
We will leave no stone unturned to promote and protect Scottish business and to find our way through the challenges, but we must all be aware that, based on what we heard yesterday, there will be negative implications.
Prisoners (Annual Costs)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether the reported increased annual cost of Scotland’s prisons to over £77,000 per prisoner represents good value for public money. (S6F-03996)
The figure of £77,000 is wrong. It mistakenly includes capital spending in estimating the cost of a prisoner place in Scotland, by taking total spend and dividing it by population. The average cost of a prisoner place in 2023-24 was £47,140. That information was released by the Scottish Prison Service in February.
As the First Minister knows, Scotland has the highest number of prisoners in western Europe, per head. If we want to reduce prison costs, we must reduce the number of people in custody and the levels of offending. Some people must be kept in custody but, as a country, we spend comparatively little on community justice. Does the First Minister accept that we need to shift resources significantly to robust alternatives to custody, which the evidence suggests are more effective at reducing offending for many prisoners?
Fundamentally, I agree with the point made by Katy Clark. We incarcerate a greater proportion of our population, per head, than almost all other European countries do. That results in a larger prison population. Katy Clark and other members will know from the transparent engagement of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs with the Parliament that the size of the prison population is a significant challenge that we are managing.
Katy Clark made a point about the importance of investment in community justice. I agree with her. That is why, over a two-year period, there has been a £25 million increase in investment in community justice activity. The Government will look for opportunities to ensure that we expand that capacity, because doing so is one way of ensuring that we achieve better outcomes and avoid the situation that we are experiencing of record levels of incarceration.
In November 2022, when flat cash funding was proposed for the Scottish Prison Service, Katy Clark said:
“The most basic functions of our criminal justice system and prison service are under threat because of these cuts ... A properly supported criminal justice system is fundamental to our democracy—but these dangerous and disastrous cuts threaten its very existence.”
Today, in her initial question, she complained that too much is being spent on our Prison Service. Does the First Minister agree that that type of opportunistic nonsense simply discredits the Labour Party, and that Scotland’s Prison Service deserves much better?
First Minister, your answer should be only on matters for which you are responsible.
The Government is working carefully to ensure that we have a sustainable prison estate. That involves ensuring that we have adequate capacity in the prison estate but that we also take measures to shift the balance of criminal justice, where it is safe to do so, to enable individuals to have different approaches to remedy as a result of criminal justice cases, rather than simply the option of incarceration.
The lack of a holistic strategy has led to the cost of our overcrowded prisons spiralling. In response, the Government dropped a proposal to let long-term prisoners out early, but it did not rule out doing so in future. Victim Support Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid all say that such a move would be a threat to victims and to the public. Will the First Minister put the public interest first and rule out the early release of long-term prisoners—yes or no?
In a sense, that question sums up the problem that we have here. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
Apparently, the Conservatives believe in free speech—unless it is me who is speaking. Really!
Liam Kerr has said that there is a lack of a holistic strategy, and he has then gone on to suggest one of the options that could be considered as part of such a strategy. I dispute Mr Kerr’s claim—I think that we have a holistic strategy. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has been completely open with the Parliament about all the challenges that we face, and, in my opinion, she has handled those challenges superbly well.
Liam Kerr has asked me for a holistic strategy but has ruled out one of the possible options in that regard. If the Conservatives want to be treated seriously—it is becoming increasingly difficult to treat them seriously because of the way in which they go about exercising their politics, as one of their members has found out and has today publicly made clear is the case—they should engage constructively in a debate about how we can meet the real challenges that this Government is focused on addressing.
We move to constituency and general supplementary questions. As ever, I am keen to enable as many members as possible to take part, so concise questions and answers would be appreciated.
Kirkcudbright Bridge (Closure)
What discussions has the Scottish Government had with Dumfries and Galloway Council, Transport Scotland and partners regarding the closure of Kirkcudbright bridge, which is causing massive disruption for everyone in the town? As well as impacting lifeline services, it will have an impact on the busy tourist season ahead. What practical support can be offered to enable the bridge to be repaired and reopened or even replaced?
Government officials have been in dialogue with Dumfries and Galloway Council on the issue. Obviously, the bridge is part of the local authority infrastructure, and the local authority has an obligation to bring forward plans to ensure that the closure of the bridge, which I understand is disrupting connections between communities in Kirkcudbright, is properly addressed. The local authority cannot ignore the issue of public safety, but if there is any advisory support that the Government can make available, I would be happy to arrange such discussions with the local authority.
ADHD and Autism (Continuing Care)
The only way that ministers have been able to meet their target on waiting times for child and adolescent mental health services has been by removing from the waiting times figures young people and children who were waiting for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism diagnoses. That is a fact. It is a shameful situation.
I have been contacted by many parents in Edinburgh who have been forced to go private to seek a diagnosis for their children. In follow-up meetings, their general practice has told them that it will not accept responsibility for the continuing care of those children or deliver the prescriptions that they need. Will the First Minister review that policy? More specifically, will the Government distribute national guidance on prescribing for such young people?
I addressed some of those points in the answer that I gave to Murdo Fraser last week, in which I made it clear that I thought that the approach that was being taken in Tayside to seek to provide earlier intervention to support young people who presented with mental health challenges had been ill communicated. I think that that approach is the right way to proceed. We should move forward by providing early intervention that meets the support needs of young people, but that provision must be properly planned, delivered and communicated in all localities.
I will not dictate what the prescribing policy should be. It would be ridiculous for me, as First Minister, to set that out. Clinical judgments must be made by clinicians who are trained to undertake such expert analysis, and I trust them to make those judgments.
Carse Medical Practice (Closure)
The First Minister is aware of yesterday’s announcement that Carse medical practice will close in September, which will leave 3,600 people without a local practice. Unless a solution is found, patients will face significant travel to alternative practices in Dundee or Perth, to which there are no direct buses. For years, staff have been operating in an inappropriate temporary surgery, with an insecure and uncertain future. The situation is totally unacceptable. What does the First Minister think the solution is?
I should be transparent in saying that the issue affects my constituency and that I am closely connected to the concerns of my constituents on the matter. NHS Tayside has the responsibility for working with the local community and general practitioners on the provision of physical facilities to meet the needs of the local population, and I am engaging in those discussions in my capacity as the local member of Parliament. It seems unacceptable to me that patients in the Errol area and in surrounding villages in the Carse of Gowrie would have to travel the extensive distances that Claire Baker has set out. I will work with NHS Tayside to address the issue and find a solution to that particular challenge.
United Kingdom Government Policies (Impact on Scotland)
The UK Government’s austerity agenda is putting significant budgetary pressure on Scotland as we try to protect the most vulnerable here, who are increasingly being targeted by the Labour Party. Given the devolved impact, will the First Minister urge Keir Starmer to act on a new study, published by the London School of Economics, that says that, if the UK Government were to follow Scotland’s policies, 700,000 children would be lifted out of poverty? How could Scotland reinvest that money to benefit my Maryhill and Springburn constituents, and those beyond, if it did not have to pick up the failures of the UK Government?
Mr Doris raises an issue that matters enormously to me. He knows, as the Parliament does, that the focal point of my Government’s agenda is the eradication of child poverty. In the London School of Economics study that he cited, Professor Ruth Patrick said:
“The progress Scotland has made on driving poverty rates down shows another way is possible.”
We certainly need another way when the United Kingdom Government has voluntarily set out welfare reforms that, based on analysis by a Labour Government, will push 50,000 children into poverty. What on earth is the point of a Labour Government that is forcing more and more children into poverty? We are taking better decisions in Scotland, where child poverty rates are falling, whereas they are rising in every other part of the United Kingdom. That demonstrates that the Labour Government in Westminster is not delivering for the people of Scotland.
Banking Hubs
The number of banks on Scottish high streets declined by 60 per cent between 2015 and 2023. Getting access to cash in rural towns is like searching for water in a desert. Will the First Minister back my calls for the establishment of more shared banking hubs in towns such as Eyemouth and Selkirk so that residents and businesses do not feel so far removed from essential services?
There is a lot of merit in the concept of shared banking facilities. I have been exploring that very possibility in the highland Perthshire area of my constituency, so I understand the difficulties that Rachael Hamilton cites.
I encourage banks to work together on that proposition. There are a number of examples in Scotland of banks coming together as a way of trying to broaden access to cash in rural areas. I understand the viability challenges that individual banks find in particular towns, but there are solutions to be sought on a collaborative basis, and I encourage the various banks to engage constructively in local areas on that question.
University of Dundee (Recovery Plan)
On 19 March, the management of the University of Dundee and the leaders of the Scottish Funding Council committed to the Parliament to providing a new recovery plan for the university within two weeks. That deadline passed yesterday, but there is no new plan. That could not be more urgent, because every day that passes without a plan further imperils the most important institution in my city. There is a complete absence of leadership. When will a voluntary severance scheme open, and when will we see a new plan?
I assure Mr Marra that there is no absence of leadership on that question, which is commanding a huge amount of the Government’s time, attention and focus and was discussed extensively at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. The Deputy First Minister, who is leading cross-Government work, is working closely with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, who has portfolio responsibility for universities, with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, because of the extraordinary significance of life sciences in the University of Dundee, and with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs in relation to the role of the Leverhulme research centre, which is fundamental to the university.
I have made it absolutely clear that the original financial recovery plan is completely unacceptable and that there has to be an alternative. That work is under way. There were discussions this morning that have narrowed down some of the options that are being taken forward, and the Government will consider further proposals.
I assure Mr Marra that there is a real focus on ensuring that we chart a pathway forward, but it is also important that I make it clear that there is a secure future for the University of Dundee. I want students to accept their offers from the university confident in its future, and I want researchers to be confident that they can continue their involvement in the university, because this Government is determined to secure that future for the university.
That will take us time. We have put in place the financial liquidity support, as requested by the University of Dundee, to make sure that it is secure in what it does in the period ahead, but the design of an alternative recovery plan is an absolute prerequisite for the next steps that we must take, and the Government is determined to take them.
Raven Attacks
As the First Minister knows, this is lambing season in farming communities across Scotland, but he will also be aware that there has been an alarming rise in attacks by ravens on lambs and ewes, leading to shocking and often fatal injuries. In Orkney, I have heard from distressed farmers who have lost stock in horrendous circumstances and from vets who talk about serious animal welfare concerns.
Given that it is clear that the raven population has increased significantly in recent years, does the First Minister agree that a survey of raven numbers is now urgently required? Will he ask NatureScot not just to carry out that survey but to provide whatever support farmers need, through licensing, to deal with attacks, ideally before they occur?
I acknowledge the significance of the point that Mr McArthur raises. Indeed, the issue was raised with me by farming representatives when I visited Orkney recently. There is the opportunity for licences to be issued by NatureScot to tackle the issue that Mr McArthur raises. If local farmers wish to take that up, that can be encouraged. I will certainly encourage NatureScot to engage with the farming community in Orkney and other communities to address the issue.
On the specific question about whether a population survey is the best way forward, I am not certain that that is the answer, but I will explore that issue with NatureScot and write to Mr McArthur with a response.
That concludes First Minister’s question time.
May I have your attention, please? A fire has been reported in this area. Visitors in the public gallery should please follow the directions of security staff and evacuate to the public foyer immediately. People who require assistance to evacuate and those with a personal emergency evacuation plan requiring the use of a refuge point should move to the nearest available refuge point now. Members and other chamber occupants should evacuate immediately to the garden lobby. Further directions will be broadcast presently. Thank you.
12:47 Meeting suspended.Air ais
General Question Time