Official Report 1155KB pdf
Good afternoon—morning, actually. The first item of business is general questions.
Waste Incineration (Environmental Concerns)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency regarding how it will address any environmental concerns that arise from new waste incineration sites that have already received approval. (S6O-04330)
As a statutory consultee to the planning process, and Scotland’s environmental regulator, SEPA considers the environmental operation and management of waste facilities. That is a duty that is independent of the Scottish Government.
Through SEPA permits, waste incineration facilities must apply best available techniques, which were recently reviewed, to limit emissions. The new limits are now in force at all operational facilities. SEPA requires incinerator operators to publish emissions results and undertake their own monitoring to verify them, and it addresses non-compliance, in accordance with its enforcement policy.
I thank the minister for that helpful update. He might be aware of a new site in Irvine on the west coast that was given planning permission before the moratorium came into play. The permission was granted during Covid, and many local campaigners felt that the consultation process was not quite adequate. SEPA has yet to grant an operating permit for the site’s opening.
I recently met outside Parliament campaigners who are concerned that local voices and concerns about the site have yet to be answered and that consultation and information sessions are not taking place with the new site’s operator. Will the minister encourage the site’s owners to engage with local community activists, and will he ask SEPA to take that into account when it assesses whether to grant a permit?
It is fair to say that I would be reluctant to intervene in a conversation that SEPA is already having about an operating licence. Suffice to say, I would expect communities to be involved in all those conversations.
The member alludes to the fact that no new planning permissions have been granted since the publication of the review on the matter. That continues to be the Scottish Government’s policy nationally.
Alongside Blantyre, Cambuslang and Halfway community councils, I campaigned successfully against a proposed incinerator in Hamilton. I know that many local people welcomed the Scottish Government’s announcement of a moratorium on new incinerator sites. Can the minister update Parliament on the actions that the Government is taking to limit and reduce the amount of waste sent to existing incinerators?
We have met our target to reduce total waste in Scotland by 15 per cent against 2011 levels, and in 2022, our recycling rate in Scotland was 62.3 per cent, which is the highest since records began. The Government has made a significant investment in modernising recycling in Scotland.
Protecting our environment and communities from pollution and waste should be a priority of the Scottish Government. The waste management hierarchy lays out how waste should be prevented first of all, then reused, recycled, recovered and only then disposed of. Energy from waste incinerators should be the last step before disposal. During the passage of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, Scottish Labour fought for a legal requirement to adhere to the waste management hierarchy, but how is the Scottish Government working to ensure that that hierarchy is followed in managing Scotland’s waste?
As I have mentioned, there are independent mechanisms by which some of that is overseen. The Scottish Government has set itself exacting targets, and Scotland has made significant progress in reducing waste; the overall recycling rate in Scotland of 62.3 per cent is the highest since records began, and official statistics show that we now landfill less than a quarter of all waste. As the member has mentioned, there is much still to be done, but I believe that Scotland is making significant progress in the right direction.
Community Resilience (Storm-related Disruption)
To ask the Scottish Government what consideration is being given to increasing community resilience and supporting communities’ ability to respond to storm-related disruption such as power outages. (S6O-04331)
The Scottish Government supports communities by providing national guidance to Scotland’s statutory emergency response organisations, as well as advice and online learning through the Ready Scotland website and the public information campaign, and convening online and face-to-face events with communities and voluntary organisations to support the sharing of best practice.
Within Scotland’s established resilience partnership arrangements, local authorities are the main link to communities, supporting them in developing emergency resilience activities and plans, including those for significant power outages. During storm Éowyn, local authorities, power companies, voluntary sector organisations and other local responders rose to the challenge and supported communities across the country.
Storm Éowyn left many people without power for days, and communities relied heavily on local authorities, energy companies and charitable support during that time. What steps are being taken to help communities support themselves during significant power outages?
As I have mentioned, support exists through a number of channels, but supporting and building community resilience is key to all of that. As a Government, we recognise that communities are best able to address their own priorities. It is worth saying, too, that, at national level, the Scottish Government, through agencies such as the civil contingencies division, facilitates that conversation and that work in the voluntary sector resilience partnership.
Dundee Heritage Trust (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government what support it can provide to Dundee Heritage Trust to ensure the long-term future of the organisation. (S6O-04332)
I am aware of the challenges facing Dundee Heritage Trust, which is a very important organisation that is responsible for the RRS Discovery and the Verdant Works museum. I also recognise the challenges faced by heritage organisations across Scotland, which is why we are continuing to support the sector through the awarding of £4.2 million of funding in the draft 2025-26 budget to Museums Galleries Scotland and the development of a new £4 million culture and heritage capacity fund. We are continuing discussions with the trust and Dundee City Council with a view to the future.
I welcome the conversations that I know the cabinet secretary has had with Dundee Heritage Trust. It does vital work in preserving Dundee’s key tourism landmarks, including RRS Discovery and the Verdant Works museum, and, importantly, my community’s heritage, for the next generation. Without the trust, Dundee City Council will be left with a very beautiful and very large old ship, but no one to care for it and no money to preserve it. Given that the budget for the organisation is being set today, will the cabinet secretary set out what he can do to give it some assurance that the Government can assist?
Michael Marra makes powerful points that have been the subject of discussions with Dundee Heritage Trust, the leader of Dundee City Council, Mark Flynn, and the constituency MSPs and MPs. I will make sure that Mr Marra is updated on progress, but I hope that he appreciates the important additional funding allocations for Museums Galleries Scotland and the new £4 million culture and heritage capacity fund, and that he will vote for those in the budget process next week.
One way of providing resilience to Dundee Heritage Trust, and heritage sites more generally, is to boost visitor numbers. In that regard, will the Scottish Government explore a visitor incentive scheme for Tayside, as well as share best practice on interactive displays and exhibitions from iconic venues ranging from the national museum of Scotland to smaller venues?
I am open to any suggestions of the kind that Maurice Golden has made. Indeed, I welcome them very much, and I would be grateful if he could forward to me any further thoughts.
There is also the potential for integrated travel with visitor opportunities and the work that we are doing with festivals. I know that the question was specifically about locations rather than festivals, but I think that bringing together public authorities to support the heritage and cultural scene is part of the answer to the challenges that they face, as are the additional funds that I hope Maurice Golden will vote for in next week’s budget process.
Gaelic-medium Education (Support for Local Authorities)
To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to local authorities to sustain and expand Gaelic-medium education. (S6O-04333)
We are committed to supporting the growth of Gaelic-medium education throughout Scotland. A range of measures are in place to promote that growth, including capital and revenue funding, the provision of resources, professional support for Gaelic-medium education teachers, guidance for local authorities and support for parents. In addition, a range of additional measures will be included in the Scottish Languages Bill, which is making progress through the Scottish Parliament.
Falkirk Council is due to decide on the removal of transport provision for pupils who attend GME in neighbouring local authorities and is engaging on the implications with Bòrd na Gàidhlig. As ever, costs are a consideration. Although the Scottish Government provides £13,000 directly to cover costs, the actual cost to the authority in 2024-25 was £83,000. Given the Scottish Government’s commitment to enhancing opportunities for GME, what specific measures can the cabinet secretary outline to combat the significant shortfall in transport funding, which threatens opportunities for learners?
I say at the outset that I hope that the issue can be resolved in a way that allows young people from the Falkirk Council area to continue to have access to Gaelic-medium education provision. My officials have been in touch with the council on the matter. As Michelle Thomson says, I understand that any decision has been delayed for at least a month.
The Scottish Government provides £13,000 directly to Falkirk Council to support transport costs. Further to that, we have invited the local authority to work with us in relation to its Gaelic grant bids for next year, including in relation to school transport. Local authorities will receive additional support based on their need to transport Gaelic-medium education pupils to neighbouring authorities. For Falkirk Council, that support equates to an additional £19,000 in its local government settlement for 2025-26. I am happy to keep Michelle Thomson updated on the progress of the discussions.
Trade Barriers (Impact on Economy)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact trade barriers have on the Scottish economy. (S6O-04334)
Trade barriers can pose significant challenges to our economy by restricting international trade—that depends on the countries and the products or services that are affected. Addressing trade barriers is important for economic growth, making it easier for Scottish businesses to trade, improving efficiency and reducing costs and prices.
Recent analysis suggests that Scottish exports could be approximately 7 per cent lower than they would have been if we had continued to hold European Union membership, which equates to a loss of about £3 billion for sectors such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals, with output down by 9 per cent, computer and electronics equipment, with output down by nearly 8 per cent, and agrifood, with output down by 5 per cent. What representations has the Scottish Government made to the United Kingdom Government about forging closer co-operation with the EU to mitigate those impacts and reduce the trade barriers that are in place?
As Gordon MacDonald sets out, it is clear from the statistical evidence that Brexit has had a severe impact on Scotland’s economy. Economic analysis such as that provides further evidence of the scale of that impact. It has been a major contributor to food prices going up and has wiped billions of pounds from the economy and tax revenues compared with EU membership—money that could and should have been spent on our national health service.
We continue to engage with the UK Government as it attempts to repair EU relations, and we support action to improve the trading environment, especially through a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement for our food, drink and agriculture sectors and regulatory co-operation to improve conditions for trade. However, as I am sure the member will agree, the best relationship that Scotland can have involves being in the EU.
What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the cost to the Scottish economy of ripping us out of the UK single market and erecting trade barriers, such as a different currency, with our nearest neighbours and our largest marketplace?
It is a classic Conservative approach to ignore the damage that is being wrought on our industries and businesses—the very same industries and businesses that the Conservatives like to proclaim that they represent—and turn a blind eye to the damage being done to Scots and our workers, which is, indeed, a major contributor to the cost of living crisis that we are all grappling with.
Employer National Insurance Contributions (Public Sector Reimbursement)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the representations that it has made to the United Kingdom Government regarding reimbursements to the public sector in Scotland due to the increase in employer national insurance contributions. (S6O-04335)
I have raised with the UK Treasury our concerns about the impact on public services if the reserved tax increase is not fully funded. On 3 January, the First Minister and the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with their concerns. They were supported by 48 public and voluntary sector organisations, which demonstrates the wide-ranging concerns across Scotland.
The Treasury has confirmed that we will receive only a Barnett share of funding for UK departments, which will undoubtedly fall far short of what is needed. I will raise that further with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when we meet next week.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that a delegation from Inverclyde Council, including the chief executive and the council leader, recently travelled to London to discuss support for Inverclyde with the UK Government. With increases to employer national insurance contributions affecting every council budget, including that of Inverclyde, will the cabinet secretary advise whether she has received feedback showing that the issue has been raised in that way, and whether there has been any movement from the UK Government on the policy?
I am not aware of any outcome of the meeting that Stuart McMillan refers to but, to provide some certainty for councils in Scotland, I announced an additional £144 million for local government, which is equivalent to a 5 per cent rise in council tax. That still clearly leaves a shortfall, and I repeat my call to the chancellor to fully fund the costs of the Labour tax rise, which will harm services and the third sector. As I said earlier, I will raise the issue further with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when we meet next week.
Employer National Insurance Contributions (Impact of Increase)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the impact that the United Kingdom Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions will have on Scottish public services and the economy of Scotland. (S6O-04336)
The UK Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions is undermining our efforts to support businesses in Scotland, jeopardising jobs and hurting employees’ pay packages.
On 18 February, the Scottish Government published updated estimates of the impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions on the Scottish public sector. Those estimates indicate that the combined impact on the public sector and commissioned services is more than £700 million. If the UK Government’s reported allocation is all that is provided, the UK Government will be short-changing services that the public depend on by more than £400 million.
The Labour Government’s employer national insurance hike is not only a tax on jobs; it is also a tax on Scotland’s public services, if the UK Government continues to refuse to fully compensate the costs of the increase for our health services, our care providers and our schools. In her previous answer, the cabinet secretary said that the First Minister and the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities were joined by 48 organisations to pressure the UK Government to see sense on the issue. What can the cabinet secretary do to increase that coalition of concern, relay our thoughts to the UK Government and get it to see sense on the issue and pay up for our public services?
I agree with Kevin Stewart that that coalition of concern, as he describes it, is very important to keep the pressure up on the UK Government and the Treasury. As I set out in my answers, the hike in employer national insurance contributions places a higher burden on businesses, the public sector and the third sector and is fundamentally a tax on jobs that will impact the Scottish economy. My concern, particularly around commissioned services, is that the hike will impact on the public sector at the end of the day, and that is not acceptable.
I call Christine Grahame to ask the briefest of question 8s.
Inclusion (Presumption of Mainstreaming in Education)
I anticipated your request to be brief, Presiding Officer.
To ask the Scottish Government what research it has recently completed into the efficacy and standardisation of the presumption of inclusion in mainstream education. (S6O-04337)
Our young people should learn in the environment that best suits their needs. We continue to seek ways to improve the experience of inclusion for all our young people, and the draft budget sets out an additional £29 million for additional support needs.
Our most recent relevant analysis, which was undertaken in the Morgan review in 2020, found no deficit in the legislative framework for additional support for learning. Indeed, the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 has clear exceptions to the presumption of mainstream education to enable children and young people to learn in a special school or in a specialist unit if that best suits their needs.
I fully support the presumption on inclusion that was introduced in legislation more than two decades ago. However, I know of several cases in which it simply is not working in the interests of the child or of the class. I know that there is a balance, so I ask the minister to keep it under review. We want the child and the class to get the best out of the situation.
Last year, the Education, Children and Young People Committee led an inquiry into additional support for learning and considered the issues thoroughly. We accepted the committee’s recommendations and are taking further action. I will keep the points that Ms Grahame raises in mind.
That concludes general question time.
Air adhart
First Minister’s Question Time