Michael Matheson (Sanction)
This week, John Swinney spoke about the process of sanctioning Michael Matheson and said:
“In no other walk of life would this be judged to be acceptable.”
In what other walk of life would Michael Matheson still be in a job?
The issues relating to the case of Michael Matheson have been well exercised within Parliament, and Parliament came to its conclusions yesterday. I accept the conclusions that Parliament arrived at last night.
I am not surprised that John Swinney wants to move on as quickly as possible. He accepts the judgments that Parliament came to last night, but what the people of Scotland want to know is John Swinney’s judgment, because we have not heard that yet. He refused to support any sanction at all for his friend Michael Matheson. That MSP has now been banned from Parliament for 27 days, but he has not been suspended from the Scottish National Party by John Swinney.
People across Scotland think that Michael Matheson should have been sacked, because they would have been sacked in the same circumstances. It is one rule for the SNP and another for everyone else in Scotland. Not only has the SNP refused to support any sanction for Michael Matheson; incredibly, one SNP member of this Parliament said yesterday:
“we need more MSPs like Michael Matheson”—[Official Report, 29 May 2024; c 61.]
That is incredible, just as it is incredible that the First Minister is still defending his disgraced colleague.
Given that the First Minister refused to support the 27-day ban for Michael Matheson, what does John Swinney personally think would have been a suitable punishment for the disgraced former health secretary?
I fear that Douglas Ross was not listening to my earlier answer, because I said that I accepted the decision that Parliament arrived at last night.
The reason why I did not vote for that last night is that I felt that the process was tainted, for the reasons that I rehearsed at First Minister’s question time last week.
Yesterday, Parliament said, in relation to the points that I have raised—and Mr Ross voted for this—that the actions that led to the issues that caused me concern ran the risk of the committee report
“being open to bias and prejudice and the complaint being prejudged, thereby bringing the Parliament into disrepute.”
That is what I put to Parliament last week, and that is why I took the view that I could not support the sanction—[Interruption.]
Mr Ross.
—because the process was tainted.
I make it clear now, for a third time, that I accept the decision that was made by Parliament yesterday.
That is not clear, because the First Minister has just said that he does not support the sanction. Those were his words: “I don’t support the sanction.” Will he tell us what he would support? What sanction against Michael Matheson would John Swinney accept as being reasonable?
He has spoken about the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and has spoken previously about his own correspondence to the convener of that committee. What John Swinney has not mentioned in all these deliberations is the correspondence that he himself received from one of his Perthshire constituents, which is included in the Parliament report that we discussed yesterday and that I have here today.
John Swinney’s constituent said that Michael Matheson’s £11,000 expenses claim was the equivalent of five years’ tax on their retirement income, four years of council tax payments or three years of energy bills. In the words of John Swinney’s Perthshire constituent, Michael Matheson
“removed that money from the public purse, for his own personal gain, in a false claim.”
That letter was sent to John Swinney in November. His constituent was calling for Michael Matheson to resign then, but John Swinney ignored his constituent so that he could protect his friend.
How can John Swinney keep his own integrity if he backs a man who has none?
For the fourth time, I accept the decision that Parliament arrived at yesterday. That includes an acknowledgement by Parliament that the process that was undertaken by the committee risks bringing the Parliament into disrepute, and Mr Ross cannot escape what he voted for last night.
That means that Parliament has to consider how it exercises its responsibilities in accordance with the principles of natural justice. That is why I am glad that Parliament agreed last night that the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body should
“initiate an independent review of the Parliament’s complaints process to restore integrity and confidence in the Parliament and its procedures.”
That is what Parliament has decided to do.
I will continue to engage directly with my constituents, who have returned me to this Parliament on six occasions, on a regular basis and to serve them as faithfully as I have always done, and I will extend that to faithfully serving the country of which I have the privilege of being First Minister.
John Swinney claimed that he is a safe pair of hands, but even he must accept the shambles that he has made of this scandal. Let us listen to what John Swinney previously said when Henry McLeish claimed expenses and then paid them back. John Swinney’s words—if the SNP members would like to listen—were:
“People around Scotland will be staggered by the amount of money that is involved. Crucially, the bond of trust that must exist between Scotland’s First Minister and the people has been broken.”
John Swinney finished by saying:
“For the good of the Scottish Parliament ... Mr McLeish should now resign.”
What happened to that John Swinney? Where has he gone? When it does not involve someone in the SNP, John Swinney tries to talk like a man of integrity. He demands resignations. He speaks of trust. He preaches about honesty. However, now that it is his SNP friend, he has abandoned the principles that he once had. What does John Swinney’s personal handling of the scandal say about his own character?
I remind Douglas Ross that, in 2018, the Conservative group in this Parliament—I appreciate that Mr Ross was not a member of the group at that time, as he had left the Scottish Parliament—voted against sanctions that were applied by the standards committee to one of Mr Ross’s members. So, Mr Ross has absolutely no credibility whatsoever in coming here and suggesting that my conduct or my actions have been in any way inappropriate. [Interruption.]
We will hear the First Minister.
In addition to that, the issues that I raised and went through at length last week in answering Mr Ross have now been endorsed by Parliament.
But not by you.
Mr Ross, you are aware that we should not be hearing any member other than the member who has been called to speak.
The issues that I raised have now been endorsed by Parliament.
Not by you.
Mr Ross, I am going to ask you to apologise.
I apologise. I was simply saying that they have not been endorsed by John Swinney.
Mr Ross, if this occurs again, I will be extremely frustrated and disappointed.
The issues that I raised last week have now been endorsed by the democratic national Parliament of Scotland, and a process that the corporate body will lead is now under way to address the issues and restore, in the words of the parliamentary motion,
“integrity and confidence in the Parliament and its procedures”,
which matter deeply to me as a member of this Parliament. For the fifth time, I indicate that I accept the conclusions that the Parliament came to yesterday.
The last thing that I am going to say to Mr Ross is this. I think that—this is pretty instructive—when Mr Ross goes through his sequence of questions and then eventually gets to the pouring out of the volume of personal abuse that he pours out, it tells us that Mr Ross has lost the argument, just as he has lost the argument throughout all of this, because he cannot do anything other than resort to nasty personal abuse. That is what Mr Ross contributes to this Parliament.
NHS Waiting Times
Yesterday, the Parliament agreed to suspend the former Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care, Michael Matheson, for attempting to misuse £11,000 of public money. Rather than defending Scots and protecting the integrity of Parliament, John Swinney chose to put his party before the country. Had Michael Matheson been at Westminster, he would now be facing a recall petition and, potentially, a by-election, but yet again, those in the Scottish National Party hold Scotland to a lower standard and believe that it is one rule for them and another rule for everyone else.
While John Swinney spent all his time this week managing his party and defending sleaze, waiting lists in Scotland reached a record high. More than 840,000 Scots are now stuck on a national health service waiting list, and more than one in 10 have been waiting more than a year. Why is John Swinney putting the SNP, not Scotland, first?
I am the first to acknowledge that we face challenges in the national health service as a consequence—the issues have been well rehearsed in Parliament—of the aftermath of Covid and the implications that that has had in terms of the amount of time for which people are having to wait for treatment.
I am sorry for the amount of time for which people are having to wait. We are reducing the longest waits and making headway on that. With regard to the volume of activity in the national health service, the statistics this week indicate an increase in the level of activity in the NHS to begin to eat into those long waiting times, which I accept are far too long for too many people.
The Government is taking steps including investment of £30 million in the waiting times programme and the establishment of the national treatment centres, which are already making an impact and producing some of that welcome level of increased activity, combined with the focus in the national health service on tackling the longest waits. Those are the measures that the Government is taking forward to ensure that we tackle the legitimate issue that Mr Sarwar raises with me.
Waiting lists in Scotland are going up, not down. John Swinney has to get his head out of the sand, because every day that he spends putting the SNP before Scotland has consequences for our NHS, and for patients such as Natalie from Glasgow.
In 2017, Natalie had emergency surgery for a brain tumour. In 2021, she began to feel symptoms, specifically pain around her eye. She has a tumour around her optical nerve that is causing her pain and pushing on her eye socket. In December last year, she was told that she would need surgery, and that part of her skull would need to be removed and not replaced. She has heard nothing since then. She has a brain tumour, and she has heard nothing for almost six months. She has been told that she could lose her sight if it is not treated.
This morning, Natalie told me:
“That just makes the anxiety and the concerns worse. I’m worried about the pain being an indication that the tumour is getting worse, but I have no way of knowing. I’m in the dark and feel completely alone during all of this.”
Does the First Minister understand that patients like Natalie should be his priority, rather than defence of a failed health secretary who attempted to misuse public money?
First, I say to Natalie that I understand entirely the anxiety that she faces, and I am sorry that she has not heard anything since December. If Mr Sarwar, in the aftermath of today’s exchanges, would like to advise me of the details, I will take the issue up, as he will understand I would do.
I say also that patients like Natalie are my focus. I am spending huge amounts of my time as First Minister focusing on the real and legitimate concerns of people in Scotland about our public services. I said to Parliament last week that my priorities would address the challenges in our public services, and that that would be one of the four major themes, along with eradicating child poverty, the transition to net zero and the stimulation of economic growth.
Those reforms and developments, and progression in our public services will be, and are, at the heart of my priorities. That is what the Cabinet was talking about in our meeting this week, and we will continue to do that. I assure Mr Sarwar, and l assure Natalie, that the concerns of people in Scotland about getting access to healthcare treatment when they need it, at the earliest possible opportunity, will be fundamental to the priorities that I take forward on behalf of the people of Scotland.
We hear the same answer week after week, month after month and year after year, but things keep getting worse for people right across the country. I have heard what the First Minister has said, but it does not change the fact that he has spent the past week fighting for Michael Matheson when he should have been fighting for patients such as Natalie and hundreds of thousands of Scots like her.
After 17 years of this SNP Government, one in six Scots is stuck on an NHS waiting list. Our NHS desperately needs change. In 1948, Labour created our NHS; in 1997, we rescued our NHS; and on 5 July, the 76th birthday of our NHS, we will begin the process of rescuing it again.
However, that also needs change in Scotland, because the priorities of the SNP Government are all wrong. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
Why is John Swinney more interested in defending Michael Matheson than in defending our NHS? Why is John Swinney putting his party before the country? Why is John Swinney failing NHS staff and patients every single day?
I reiterate that my primary concern is to make sure that people such as Natalie receive the treatment that they want at the earliest possible opportunity, to address their anxiety and acute health requirements. If Mr Sarwar gives me the details, I will attend to that after First Minister’s questions.
However, some of the rest of what Mr Sarwar went on to say is just a little bit hollow. On Wednesday morning, the Labour shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, said:
“The NHS is in crisis in every part of the United Kingdom because decisions that are taken in Westminster don’t just affect England, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
Earlier in the month, he said that
“all roads do lead back to Westminster”
because of the austerity that we have suffered for 14 years.
In relation to that austerity programme, 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. That amounts to austerity on stilts from any incoming Labour Government.
If that was not bad enough, Wes Streeting said yesterday that he will
“hold the door wide open”
for the private sector in the national health service. He went on to say:
“We will go further than New Labour ever did. I want the NHS to form partnerships with the private sector that goes beyond just hospitals.”
Mr Sarwar should not give me that stuff about the anniversary of the national health service, because Labour is preparing to sell us out on austerity and the national health service, and cannot be trusted to deliver for the people of Scotland.
Public Sector Contracts (Illegal Settlements)
This week, the First Minister gave clarity on one issue, when he called on the United Kingdom Government to recognise the state of Palestine and end arms sales to Israel. However, the same clarity is needed on the Scottish Government’s devolved responsibilities in relation to Israel’s genocidal action against Palestine.
The United Nations has published a list of about 90 companies that it considers to be complicit in the illegal settlements that Israel has been constructing on Palestinian territory in the west bank. In November, my colleague Ross Greer asked the former First Minister to agree that those companies should be banned from receiving public sector grants and contracts in Scotland from within the devolved Government’s responsibilities. The then First Minister agreed in principle that no company that is profiting from occupation should profit in Scotland, too.
It is now seven months and tens of thousands of deaths later, including those of at least 13,000 children. In the west bank, hundreds of Palestinians have been killed by Israeli soldiers and extremists, but the Scottish Government has not yet taken action to ban companies that are on the UN’s list of complicit companies from receiving grants. Will the First Minister send a clear signal today by immediately banning those companies from receiving grants and other support from the Scottish Government?
I acknowledge the seriousness of the issues that Mr Harvie raises with me. The other day, I indicated that there should be an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, that the hostages who have been taken should be returned to their loved ones—to whom they should have been returned a long time ago—and that arms sales to Israel should stop. As Mr Harvie correctly said, I went on to say that I believe that the United Kingdom should recognise the state of Palestine as an independent state. That is long overdue, and it would be a contribution towards trying to stabilise the situation in the middle east. I hope that Mr Harvie takes from that the direction of my thinking on the matter and my desire to do as much as I can to help to resolve the situation from our position.
I will consider carefully the points that Mr Harvie has raised about any support for companies that are involved in this activity. Our enterprise agencies have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that any funding provided is used only for the specific purpose for which it is intended. From Mr Harvie’s question, I suspect that he wants me to extend beyond that protection. On that matter, I would have to take great care to ensure that we had a legal justification for so doing. If Mr Harvie and Mr Greer would care to provide me with the material about which they are concerned, I will investigate and determine whether the Government can do more. I will, of course, update Parliament on those investigations.
I strongly agree with every element of what the First Minister said that the UK Government should do, but he is not yet providing clarity on what the Scottish Government should do within its powers. I mentioned the companies on the list that the UN deems complicit in illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. The First Minister might have been moving on to answer in relation to arms companies that are provided with grants and other forms of financial support by the Scottish Government. He is right that those grants do not support the production of munitions, but that simply is not enough. If we contribute to building a bigger bomb factory, we do not get to say that we have not funded the production of the bombs. Even since 7 October, Raytheon, BAE Systems and Leonardo have all received eye-watering sums from the Scottish Government’s agency, Scottish Enterprise.
I must have a question, Mr Harvie.
This is in a time when the world is recoiling in revulsion at the appalling attacks, including the most recent attacks against Palestinians sheltering in Rafah. It is shocking and inexplicable that, at the same time—
Mr Harvie, can I have a question, please?
—as the Scottish Government is calling for an end to arms sales, it is directly funding those manufacturers. Will the First Minister change that policy immediately?
I take seriously the point that Mr Harvie puts to me. I do not think that the analogy that he strikes about the construction of a weapons factory is a particularly fair analogy for the support that we put in place, but I will go away and look at that carefully.
The point that I was making in my earlier answer is that there will be a legal basis for us to apply safeguards in relation to the issuing of grants, but we have to have a legal basis for saying, for matters that are not related to the Israel-Gaza conflict, that we are not providing a grant. That is not me being pedantic—that is simply the legal basis on which the Government has to act. We must always act within the law, and I must take the views of the law officers deadly seriously in the actions that we take. If Mr Harvie would care to correspond with me in more detail, I will happily explore the issues that he raises, which I recognise are important and sensitive to people in our country.
Health and Care Worker Visa Applications
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I hold a bank nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the potential impact on the health service in Scotland of Home Office data showing that health and care worker visa applications are 76 per cent lower in January to April this year, compared with last year. (S6F-03174)
Workers from overseas are filling vital roles supporting people who rely on them for the care that they provide. This Government values people who have chosen to come to Scotland to make a positive contribution to our public services. Stopping people from bringing dependants to the United Kingdom is short-sighted and risks exacerbating shortages in the care sector. It is wrong that those changes have been driven by arbitrary decisions to reduce numbers rather than the needs of our public services and communities. It is therefore very concerning that the number of health and care worker visa applications has fallen, as Clare Haughey has recounted.
The impact that the UK Government’s cruel immigration policies are having on Scotland’s health and social care sector is a substantial concern. Will the First Minister confirm that the Scottish National Party, both in Holyrood and in Westminster, will ensure that Scotland remains a welcoming and fair country for health and care staff to live and work, particularly those from overseas?
I give Clare Haughey that assurance. The question that Clare Haughey puts to me highlights some significant issues. Mr Sarwar completely legitimately raised an issue about national health service waiting times with me today. One of the challenges that we face in the health service is the congestion in our hospitals that is created by delayed discharge. One of the issues with delayed discharge is that we do not have enough people able to deliver care packages in our communities and, as Clare Haughey indicates in her question, some of the supply of those workers is being eroded by the decisions that have been taken on immigration by the United Kingdom Government. There is a very direct effect on our ability to deliver sustainable health services because we simply do not have an available workforce to enable us to do that. As members will know, we have a very low level of unemployment in Scotland today.
The issue that Clare Haughey raises may be about immigration, but it has a direct effect on the delivery of public services in Scotland. I assure Clare Haughey and Parliament that the Government will do all that we can to address the issue in order to ensure that we have adequate supplies of people to deliver social care and other healthcare activities in our country.
Synthetic Opioids
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports of a National Crime Agency warning about synthetic opioids being linked to rising numbers of deaths. (S6F-03185)
The Scottish Government is working closely with Public Health Scotland, as we are very concerned about the growing threat posed by synthetic opioids and, in particular, the increased appearance of nitazines in the drug supply. Public Health Scotland has been issuing alerts via RADAR—rapid action drug alerts and response—to healthcare staff and the public to highlight the increased dangers associated with nitazines. That alert was last updated in March 2024.
The Scottish Drugs Forum launched a public campaign in December 2023 to spread awareness and to reduce risk. We are working with third sector delivery partners and with directors of public health to ensure that health boards are prepared at the local level. We are meeting regularly with the United Kingdom Government and other devolved Governments to ensure that we are aligned in our activities.
There have been almost 50 known deaths in Scotland linked to synthetic opioids, and it is inevitable that more people will die. Just last week, there was a mass overdose in Paisley. The terrifying potency of these man-made narcotics cannot be overstated. The death and devastation that they cause nails the lazy lie that there is any safe way to consume them. Does the First Minister agree that it is entirely right that they remain categorised as class A substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971?
I have quite a bit of sympathy with the depth of concern that Mr Findlay raises and expresses to Parliament, because the potency and devastating impact of synthetic opioids is difficult to fathom—it is on such a different scale. Mr Findlay is absolutely correct to sound the warnings that he is sounding. That is why Public Health Scotland, in association with RADAR, is communicating that message.
Mr Findlay will appreciate that a combination of activity is necessary to tackle the threat. It is a combination of three elements: first, there is awareness raising, which Mr Findlay has contributed to in raising the issue with me at First Minister’s questions; secondly, an effective policing response is needed to counter the supply of synthetic opioids; thirdly, there is the whole process of harm reduction that the Government is engaged with. I assure Mr Findlay that the Government is deeply engaged in activity on those three grounds to address what I recognise is a significant threat.
Teacher Numbers
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether teacher numbers should be maintained, in light of the reported concerns of many parents, pupils and school staff in Glasgow. (S6F-03176)
We remain fully committed to protecting teacher numbers and are offering local authorities £145.5 million in this year’s budget for that purpose. That funding will allow councils to protect teacher numbers in order to support children’s education. I hope that our local government partners share that goal. The Government remains determined to close the poverty-related attainment gap and to reduce teacher workload, and I do not believe that those aims will be achieved by councils employing fewer teachers in our schools. We are currently in discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and wish to work with our local authority partners to deliver our shared commitments on education.
I thank the First Minister for that answer, but I am afraid that it will be cold comfort for teachers, parents and pupils in Glasgow, because the reality is that his Scottish National Party and Green colleagues there are slashing teacher numbers, which impacts the poorest and most disadvantaged pupils the most. It is not the first time that that has happened on the First Minister’s watch. As one young person said at the most recent rally against the cuts, the First Minister owes it to young people to intervene after his decision in the 2020 exams fiasco resulted in the downgrading of the poorest pupils.
Today, the First Minister has talked about Parliament endorsements. On 15 May, Parliament sided with teachers, parents and pupils and endorsed calls on the Government to intervene and protect job losses. What exactly is the First Minister’s Government doing to deliver the will of Parliament, and when will the jobs be saved?
Obviously, those are matters for individual local authorities to take forward. That is the constitutional arrangement in this country, which ensures that the delivery of education is a matter within the competence of local authorities.
Pam Duncan-Glancy asked me what the Government is doing to help with that situation: the Government is offering £145.5 million to local authorities to protect teacher numbers. That is what the Government is doing.
I have to say that I find Pam Duncan-Glancy’s concerns about this rather difficult to accept. If the Labour Party had its budget proposals accepted in the city of Glasgow—£30 million cuts in education on Glasgow City Council—that could have meant the loss of up to 650 teachers. The Labour Party’s proposition to people in this election is to prolong austerity—that is what Labour will carry on with. There will be no new money coming along the track, there will be prolonged austerity and Labour will continue where the Tories have left off. When the Labour Party is in council chambers around the country, it wants to reduce teacher numbers by 650. That is just unacceptable. The Scottish Government is doing what it can to support local authorities to protect teacher numbers, and we will engage with local authorities to enable that.
In 2021, the SNP promised not merely to maintain teacher numbers but to deliver an additional 3,500 teachers and classroom assistants. However, the latest data shows that there are 250 fewer teachers than there were when that promise was made. Will the First Minister confirm that, like the laptops, bikes and free meals, that is another broken promise?
You know, when they were giving out brass necks, they gave them out in abundance to that part of the chamber—[Interruption.]
Members!
Since 2021, two significant factors have undermined the public finances in the United Kingdom. The first has been the rampant inflation that has eroded the value of public sector budgets. Although inflation is lower today than it was a year ago, prices are still very much higher because of the effect of double-digit inflation—the first time that we have that in the United Kingdom for over 40 years.
The second thing that has happened is that the cost of investing in and supporting our public services has gone through the roof, because of the mistakes that were made by Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng in that ridiculous statement to the House of Commons. [Interruption.]
Members!
I have to say to Liam Kerr that it is preposterous for the Conservatives to come here and demand that I do more and spend more money when the consequence of their management of the United Kingdom economy has been so damaging to Scotland’s interests.
We now move to constituency and general supplementaries.
Rail Services
The Scottish National Party Scottish Government’s continued investment in our rail services is very welcome, with ScotRail being brought into public ownership, action being taken to drive down ticket prices and investment being made in new infrastructure. The recently opened Levenmouth rail link will bring a transformation to the area and to many of my constituents, improving access to leisure, economic, employment and educational opportunities.
Does the First Minister agree that the next United Kingdom Government must follow the Scottish Government’s lead and start to invest properly in the UK rail network while returning services to public hands?
I was delighted to have the opportunity yesterday, with local members Mr Torrance and my colleague Jenny Gilruth, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, to be present at the opening of Levenmouth rail link. It is a wonderful project, which has come about because of tenacious campaigning by the Levenmouth rail campaign, which garnered support on a cross-party basis for a new rail link. It will connect the communities around Leven to the rail network, opening up educational, social and economic opportunities for that community and also opening up that community as a place to visit and a destination on the rail network. It is a superb investment, and I congratulate everyone involved in the Levenmouth rail link.
I would certainly want the investment and resources to be available to ensure that we can undertake other projects of that character around the country, but that will only come if there is a stimulation to capital investment, which is absolutely and desperately required after 14 years of austerity.
Baberton Explosion Site (Progress)
On Friday 1 December 2023 at 10.25 pm, an explosion ripped through homes on Baberton Mains Avenue, tragically resulting in the loss of one life. Some six months on, families living on the avenue and neighbouring streets relive the horror of that night every day when going about their daily lives. Families whose homes were destroyed are none the wiser regarding the future of their homes. No visible or perceivable progress has been made, and the site looks much the same as it did on that bleak morning of 2 December. Last week, one resident described the situation between the City of Edinburgh Council and insurance companies as being like a Mexican stand-off.
Will the First Minister meet me and the families and do all that he can to influence that stalemate and move things on for those who have been left in limbo?
I am very happy to agree to that. I was born and brought up in Edinburgh, not far from Baberton, so I know the area very well. I saw those scenes with absolute horror and I can observe from afar the horror that people there have suffered. I am happy to meet Sue Webber and her constituents on the matter.
There is a question that may be lurking about where statutory investigations are regarding the incident, which may be contributing to delays—but I am probably saying more at this stage than I should, without delving into the detail. I will look closely at the matter, and I would be very happy to meet to discuss it.
Computer Science Teachers
Yesterday, Reform Scotland published its “Computing the Future” report on the state of computer science teachers. It found that one in eight schools is without a dedicated computer science teacher, which is denying 32,000 pupils access to that resource. It found that there had been a 25 per cent drop in the number of computer science teachers over 15 years, which represents a denial of opportunity to young people and a brake on growth in that critical sector.
Four years on from the publication of the “Scottish Technology Ecosystem Review”, Mark Logan, its author, stated to the Education, Children and Young People Committee yesterday that trying to drive reform in the system, especially with Education Scotland, had been like dragging a heavily sedated bull elephant backwards through cold treacle. Referring to the “Computing the Future” report, he said that it all adds up to a bad static picture, and it sounded to him like a crisis.
Does the First Minister agree with the Scottish Government’s chief entrepreneur?
I take very seriously what the chief entrepreneur says, and I understand that Mark Logan has been working on the implementation of the recommendations and trying to make progress. If he needs a bit more assistance from the First Minister, I will certainly offer it.
I know that the Deputy First Minister will be keen to support him in his efforts, because pupils accessing computer science education is vital as an investment in the future of Scotland. Work is being delivered to establish new courses with the University of Aberdeen, if my memory serves me right, to take forward those priorities. I am very happy, as will be the Deputy First Minister, to engage with Mark Logan on that important question.
Brexit Impacts
Thanks to Westminster economic mismanagement, businesses across Scotland, including in my constituency, Falkirk East, are facing pressures, including extra costs and red tape due to Brexit. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact of the United Kingdom Government’s new post-Brexit border checks on business in Scotland—checks that are costly, unnecessary and supported by Tories and Labour alike?
I have touched on some of the implications of Brexit already today in response to Clare Haughey’s question about the availability of people.
Michelle Thomson is absolutely correct. I cannot speak to a business in the country that is not suffering from the effects of Brexit, whether that is about the availability of staff, the cost of doing business or the loss of opportunity, because it is just so much more difficult to advance some of those questions.
The most recent information that I have is that the National Audit Office undertook a report that estimated that UK traders were facing additional costs of £469 million per year. That is on top of annual costs of £7.5 billion since 2019 for completing customs declarations on UK-European Union trade. That is the scale of the competitive disadvantage that has been inflicted by the folly of Brexit, which, unfortunately, is supported by both the Conservative and Labour parties and which the Scottish National Party would want to address by establishing Scotland’s independent membership of the European Union.
Athletic Success
Last weekend in Oregon, Josh Kerr from Edinburgh Athletic Club smashed the British mile record in an astonishing 3 minutes 45 seconds, eclipsing the great Steve Cram’s record, which he had held for 39 years. Josh is now ranked sixth in the world all-time list. He is already the world 1,500m champion and the world indoor 3,000m champion, and he holds an Olympic bronze medal.
Behind Josh, from Giffnock North Athletics Club, was Neil Gourley, running an astonishing 3 minutes 47, and Jake Wightman, from Edinburgh AC, a former 1,500m world champion, running 3 minutes 47.
Does the First Minister agree that those athletes, along with female counterparts such as Laura Muir, Jemma Reekie, Eilish McColgan and Erin Wallace, are an inspiration to future sportsmen and women? Will he join me in wishing them well at the upcoming Olympic games in Paris?
I am absolutely delighted to do so and to pay tribute to the astonishing achievements of all the individuals whom Mr Whittle has mentioned, because they are utterly and totally inspiring.
I have to say to Mr Whittle that they will be a great deal faster than both him and me, if I may say so. They are certainly a great deal faster than I was when running through the centre of Edinburgh at the ungodly hour at which I was running this morning.
I pay warm tribute to them. They are an encouragement to us all to exercise—perhaps not as fast as they are able to exercise and compete—and to take due care of ourselves to ensure our own physical fitness. I am happy to associate myself with Brian Whittle’s comments and to encourage all the athletes in the forthcoming competitions.
Glasgow (Capital Project)
If the First Minister agrees that there is, indeed, a climate emergency, why is the Government’s biggest capital project in Glasgow—rebuilding a 50-year-old motorway viaduct—now estimated at a staggering cost of more than £150 million, with no consultation with my constituents, while it cuts the city’s public transport budget to zero?
There will be essential projects that have to be undertaken to ensure public safety and to guarantee that we have the appropriate level of connectivity in our communities. Obviously, there is a debate to be had about the merits of individual projects, but the Government has an obligation to work with local authorities in a spirit of partnership to agree the infrastructure improvements that are necessary to ensure that we have connectivity in our country.
Small Vessel Replacement Programme (Announcement)
Can the First Minister clarify whether the permanent secretary’s guidance concerning the United Kingdom election on 4 July will result in the delaying of the announcement on the small vessel replacement programme?
In an answer to a parliamentary question that I gave on Tuesday, I included the guidance that has been given to me by the permanent secretary. Regrettably, from my perspective, that means that a significant amount of the explanation of the Government’s programme will have to wait until after the United Kingdom election has been concluded.
We do not anticipate that an announcement on the small vessel replacement programme will be made before the end of the pre-election period, as consideration of the business case by ministers remains on-going, but if there is any alteration to that view, I will share that with Parliament.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will now be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.
12:46 Meeting suspended.Air ais
General Question TimeAir adhart
NHS Physiotherapy Workforce