Official Report 1154KB pdf
The next item of business is First Minister’s question time.
Tax Increases
Labour increased taxes by £40 billion in yesterday’s Halloween budget—the biggest tax heist ever. Anas Sarwar’s party put up national insurance, whisky duty, inheritance tax and North Sea taxes. It brought in a family-farm tax, pension tax and VAT on independent schools. Labour has chosen to hammer workers and to declare war on business, but the Scottish National Party’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government described Labour’s budget as
“a step in the right direction”. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Findlay.
If a £40 billion tax rise is just
“a step in the right direction”,
how much does the First Minister think the rise should be?
I have sympathy with the Labour Government in the United Kingdom in that it has inherited an entirely unsustainable set of circumstances in the public finances, because of the absolutely menacing agenda of the Conservative Government for 14 years. It is the ultimate deceit for Mr Findlay and the Conservatives to criticise those of us who must take difficult decisions to clear up the mess that the Conservatives have created.
It is nice to hear the First Minister defending Labour for shamelessly breaking its promises not to raise taxes on working people. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the vast majority of Labour’s national insurance rise
“will be passed on to workers.”
That comes after years of crippling SNP tax rises. Scotland’s taxpayers cannot afford and do not deserve more taxes next year—they need a break after years of the SNP swiping their cash. Is it not about time that John Swinney considered reducing income tax for hard-working Scots?
Russell Findlay misconstrues the remarks that I am making. It is up to the Labour Party to defend its position.
I will set out my analysis of the horror show that the Conservatives have inflicted on this country through their management of the economy for the past 14 years. It is an absolute horror show that the Conservatives have inflicted on our public services, on working people in this country, on people with any vulnerability and on anybody who is paying a mortgage. Every one of them has been punished by the incompetence of the Conservative Government. Mr Findlay—I know that he does not like this—was one of those who told me that I had to follow in Liz Truss’s footsteps. Thank goodness I never did that in any of my decisions.
I say to Russell Findlay that we have taken decisions to increase tax in Scotland because we wanted to invest in our public services. That investment has improved our public services to meet the needs of people in Scotland. We have faced the reality. If Mr Findlay wants to stand here and defend spending cuts to the people of Scotland, he is welcome to do so. I will not follow in his footsteps.
I tell you what, John Swinney has got some front. He is the man whose dirty fingerprints are all over the trams scandal, the ferries scandal, the Salmond inquiry scandal and the named-person scandal. How much have this man’s mistakes cost all of us? I am on the side of Scotland’s taxpayers, who want fairness and justice.
The same goes for Scottish business, which has been quick to cast its verdict on Labour’s tax-raising budget. The Scottish Hospitality Group, the Scotch Whisky Association, Offshore Energies UK and the NFU Scotland have all hit out. Labour has broken its promises to businesses. Will John Swinney keep his pledge, which was made in last month’s programme for government, to support Scottish business owners? Will he now act decisively to cut taxes on Scottish business?
It is part of my duty as First Minister to ensure that Parliament is properly informed about its history. That has been part of my duty since I have been here—since the very beginning.
On the question of trams, I did not want to spend a single farthing on the trams. I wanted to spend that £500 million on dualling the A9, but the Tories forced me to spend it on trams. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
It is so important that Mr Findlay does not do anything that might mislead Parliament, and it is part of my duty to correct his mistakes when he comes to the chamber.
When it comes to working with Scottish business, I am delighted with the engagement that the Deputy First Minister is taking forward in leading the Government’s approach to investment and dialogue with business. I look forward to discussing those issues when I attend Scottish Financial Enterprise’s annual event tonight in the city of Glasgow. I look forward to discussing the success of the financial sector in the competitive climate that we create in Scotland. That is what business will get from my Government.
I think that I have touched a nerve. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Findlay.
John Swinney protests his honesty, but let us not forget that the trams inquiry found that he was responsible for a “lack of candour”.
The tax burden on Scottish workers and businesses is far too high, but the SNP and Labour think that they are entitled to keep taking more and more, while Scotland’s public services get worse and worse. That drives the disconnect between politicians and people. John Swinney could go another way with the Scottish budget: the SNP could stop raising taxes and let people keep more of their own hard-earned money. Why will John Swinney not look to bring down bills for Scottish workers and businesses?
Mr Findlay is standing in front of me arguing for a reduction in taxation. The problem with what he and his colleagues bring to the Parliament is that that would involve a reduction in public expenditure.
That is not correct.
I am being told that that is not correct, so I will say it again, because that is what is involved.
If we reduce taxation, we must reduce public expenditure by a commensurate amount, because we have to balance the budget. Of course, we have done that for 17 continuous years as the Scottish Government. The problem is that Mr Findlay is talking about tax cuts. Every other day of the week, the Tories are demanding that we spend more money on various aspects of public services. When Mr Findlay talks about touching nerves, the issue is not that he has touched a raw nerve in me; the issue is the nerve of Mr Findlay, who comes to the Parliament calling for reductions in tax when he wants us to spend more. That takes some nerve.
United Kingdom Government Budget
Yesterday, Rachel Reeves announced the first Labour budget in 14 years. After 14 years of Tory chaos, division and decline, it was a transformative and game-changing budget for Scotland. It delivers on the promises that were made in the election—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar. [Interruption.] Are members quite finished? Can we please hear Mr Sarwar? No one else has been called to speak.
After 14 years, the budget delivers on the promises that were made in the election, ends the era of austerity, provides vital new investment for our public services and prioritises economic growth. It includes the largest block grant settlement for the Scottish Parliament in the history of devolution: £1.5 billion of additional funding for the Scottish Government this year, and a further £3.4 billion next year. That means that the block grant will be £47.7 billion next year—a Labour Government delivering for the people of Scotland. Will the First Minister welcome the transformative budget, welcome the end of the era of austerity and welcome the new investment for Scotland?
I do not think that any of us is surprised that Mr Sarwar is so excited in asking his questions in the Parliament today. Let me provide a calming influence in this afternoon’s parliamentary discourse. The budget is a step in the right direction. I accept and welcome that.
The increased funding for this financial year largely accords with the Scottish Government’s expectations with regard to dealing with the issues of pay and inflation pressures, which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has shared with the Parliament.
The funding for next year is welcome. The budget delivers an increase in funding for Scotland as a result of the Barnett consequentials for health and education, but we must be conscious that negative consequentials will arise as a result of the budget’s financial implications for areas such as culture, environment and transport. Therefore, we need to consider the net implication of the budget for Scotland’s public finances.
Significant uncertainty remains about the impact on public spending in Scotland of the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. We have to publish a budget on 4 December, and there is currently uncertainty about whether our finances will be compensated in full for all that is involved in that regard. The cost of the change to national insurance contributions is not an insignificant sum; it is a £500 million question.
We will engage constructively with the United Kingdom Government on those questions. I suppose that my regret comes from the fact that, in the financial estimates that the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out yesterday, she indicated that, over a three-year period, there will be a £10 billion surplus in the budget. That is encouraging, but she was unable to find a single penny to lift the two-child cap, which is forcing families into poverty in our country today, and I deeply regret that.
The Scottish public accept that we cannot fix every problem with one budget. John Swinney was desperate to be disappointed with this budget, and it is very much through gritted teeth that he is having to welcome the record level of investment in Scotland and the fact that this is a historic budget rise for the Scottish Government, delivered by a Labour Government. On top of that, the budget delivered a £1.4 billion investment in Scottish infrastructure; a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid workers; an extension to the fuel duty cut, which will benefit 3.2 million Scots; massive investment in the publicly owned Great British energy company, which will be headquartered in Aberdeen; a Covid corruption commissioner to get our money back from dodgy Tory deals—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
The budget also delivered compensation for the infected blood victims and the victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal and an end to the pension injustice for miners. There is just so much for Scotland in this budget—I could go on.
Does the First Minister therefore accept that this change is possible only because Scotland voted to get rid of the rotten Tory Government and elected a Labour Government that ended the era of austerity and is changing the lives of people across Scotland?
Mr Sarwar is very, very excited today. I have the sense that he doth protest too much. There are many welcome measures in the budget. I am particularly pleased that a reliable source of funding is being made available for the victims of the infected blood scandal—both those affected and infected—because I have constituents who have demonstrated tenacious leadership in ensuring that that injustice was corrected. I think of my constituent Bill Wright whenever I think of this issue. I am very pleased—and it is to its credit—that the Labour Government has done that.
There are many welcome measures in the budget. For example, I argued that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to change the fiscal rules. During the election period, she said that she would not do that, but I have obviously been very persuasive in getting her to change the fiscal rules so that we can get more investment—the very investment that Mr Sarwar talked about. It is important to invest in our infrastructure and our housing stock and to ensure that this country’s competitiveness is enhanced by that investment.
I welcome all those things. However, Mr Sarwar will have to try to convey some of his enthusiasm to people other than me—people who are living in poverty and the children of families who will move into poverty because the two-child cap has not been lifted. The Resolution Foundation estimates that, by next April, an additional 63,000 children will be affected by the failure to lift the two-child cap. There will be pensioners who have lost their winter fuel payment who will not be greeting with enthusiasm the points that Mr Sarwar is making.
Mr Sarwar has to recognise that—
Briefly, First Minister.
—although there are welcome steps in the budget, there are issues that will prolong the agony of individuals in our society. A Labour Government should address those and right the wrongs that it is presiding over now.
I have always been clear that we cannot fix every Tory mess in one budget; of course we want to make further progress over the course of the Labour Government.
However, let us come back to this Parliament, which will get £1.5 billion of additional money this year and £3.4 billion of additional money next year. That is more money for Scotland’s national health service, schools and other vital public services. More money is one thing, but how the Scottish National Party Government chooses to spend it is another. The fact is that this is an incompetent SNP Government that is bad with taxpayers’ money, so more of the same will not cut it.
With almost one in six Scots on an NHS waiting list, with Scotland’s education system falling down the international league tables and with record levels of homelessness and 10,000 children living in temporary accommodation, we need a change of direction. Will the First Minister finally end the blame game, end the SNP’s financial mismanagement, incompetence and waste, and ensure that Scots benefit from yesterday’s transformative budget?
I will go back and look at the parliamentary record of what I have said so far today, but I do not think that I have blamed anybody for anything. Mr Sarwar has blamed the Tories—quite fairly. Actually, to correct the record, I did blame the Tories—I blamed them for 14 years of austerity. That is correct; I agree with Mr Sarwar on that point.
However, let us take a couple of the examples that Mr Sarwar talked about. On schools, when this Government came into office, 63 per cent of pupils in Scotland were educated in good or satisfactory school buildings. That figure is now more than 90 per cent, because this Government did the heavy lifting of investing in the school estate of Scotland.
Yes, there is a housing challenge, and far too many families are living in temporary accommodation, but this Government has presided over more affordable housing being built per head of population than in any other part of the United Kingdom—and, crucially, more than was built when the Labour Party was in government in Scotland before we were. [Interruption.] My dear friend Christine Grahame gives me some prompted comments from the side, which I shall pick up on. The Labour Government that was in power before we came into office was so incompetent that it could not even spend the money that was available to be spent on behalf of the people of Scotland.
We will continue to do what I have always done as a minister: we will deliver careful stewardship of the public finances to deliver for the people of Scotland, we will balance the books and we will deliver value. That is what people get from a Swinney Government.
Climate and Nature Emergencies (Funding)
Yesterday, the United Kingdom Government presented a budget that it claims will put £1.5 billion back into the Scottish Government’s budget for this year. That money should ensure that some of the most damaging cuts that were announced by the Scottish Government earlier this year do not now need to go ahead.
Spending on the climate and nature emergencies is essential if we are to ensure that our planet has a liveable future. While the Scottish Greens were in government, climate and nature spending reached record levels. Will the First Minister commit to using the additional funding that was announced yesterday for this financial year to restore the funding cuts to the nature restoration fund and active travel budgets? Does that mean that the Scottish Government no longer needs to use up all the ScotWind funding, which was supposed to be invested in our green future?
I understand the importance that Lorna Slater and her colleagues attach to those areas of funding. It was a matter of deep regret to the Government that we had to remove funding from those priorities to enable us to create a path to balance. One of the points that I made in my earlier comments was that the increase in funding for this financial year largely accords with the expectations in our internal planning of what will be necessary to meet the costs of increased pay settlements and the effect of inflation that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has previously explained to Parliament.
My expectation is not that any new capacity will open up in this financial year. I expect that the resources that have been allocated so far will be required to enable us to balance the budget during this year, because of the pay and inflationary costs that we are facing.
It is very disappointing to hear that about this year.
I will now ask the First Minister about next year. One of the proudest moments for the Scottish Greens during our time in government was the rolling out of free school meals for all children in primary 4 and 5, because we know that that is a simple and effective way to address the impact of child poverty and to ensure that every child has the best chance at school.
We were on course to expand that to every child in primary school by the end of this session of Parliament, until the Scottish Government put an indefinite delay on that roll-out as part of this year’s programme for government. Given the predicted £3.4 billion that is due to be added to next year’s Scottish budget, will the First Minister reinstate the promise to deliver free school meals for primary 6 and 7 pupils by 2026, as endorsed by the Parliament a few weeks ago?
We will certainly give consideration to that proposal as part of the budget process for the next financial year. Lorna Slater puts to me a substantial proposition that can certainly be considered for the next financial year. We will look at whether the resources are available to support that as part of the whole budgeting process, but I give Lorna Slater the assurance that we will look at that question.
I recognise that Parliament resolved on the issue, but that obviously has to have financial support within the budget. I give her the assurance that the issue will be considered. The finance secretary is engaged in detailed discussions with all political parties in Parliament to secure the passage of the Government’s budget for next year and we look forward to discussion on that, and other questions, with Ms Slater and her colleagues and with other parties in Parliament.
United Kingdom Government Budget
To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has undertaken of the impact of the UK Government budget on Scotland. (S6F-03477)
I called on the United Kingdom Government to prioritise increased investment in public services, infrastructure and tackling poverty. Although the measures announced by the chancellor yesterday are a step in the right direction, we still face significant future cost pressures, which is hardly surprising after 14 years of underinvestment by the previous United Kingdom Government.
We are assessing what the UK budget means for Scotland’s public finances and, in particular, whether the increased cost of up to £500 million for higher national insurance contributions in the public sector will be fully funded and when we might receive reimbursement. There is a danger that we will not have that certainty in time for the 2025-26 Scottish budget process. It is clear that we will need to see continued investment in the coming years to provide the funding that our public services need.
Does the First Minister agree that the UK budget fails to deliver the transformative change that the people of Scotland were promised and that, in fact, it continues the same broken austerity ideology of the Tories—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Brown.
—especially for those who are losing their winter fuel allowance—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Brown.
—and for those suffering under the hated two-child cap?
In particular, does the First Minister agree that the UK Government’s decision to increase national insurance contributions could have a severe financial impact on Scotland’s public sector, potentially costing the Government, the national health service, schools and the police and fire services hundreds of millions of pounds? Does he agree that the UK Government must, at the very least, fully mitigate any negative impact on the Scottish Government and on public services in Scotland and that any mitigation must be provided in addition to, not as a substitute for, increases to Scotland’s block grant?
Mr Brown used a couple of examples that illustrate some of the many remaining challenges that we face. Pensioners have lost their winter fuel payment as a consequence of a decision by the United Kingdom Labour Government, and the persisting maintenance of the two-child cap is forcing more and more children and families into poverty. It is beyond me to understand why, when there is a projected budget surplus in a three-year period, the two-child cap has not been lifted immediately by the UK Government. We were told in the summer to be patient until the UK budget, but we have been patient and the Labour Government has not delivered what people expected.
I recognise the need to increase taxation in the budget and, during the election campaign, I argued that that issue had to be confronted. However, I believe that some of that increase could have come from the UK Government following the Scottish Government’s tax approach in asking people on higher incomes to pay more in taxation, which could have generated about £20 billion in increased revenue and avoided some of the punishing business taxes that have been applied, particularly to the Scotch whisky industry and other sectors of the Scottish—[Interruption.]
First Minister, I am aware that, as I try to listen to your response, a conversation is carrying on across the benches. I ask members to stop.
The point that I was making is that there are tax choices to be made, and I am one who has argued for taxes to increase. We have actually increased taxes, and there was a way in which the UK Government could have done that, by asking people on higher incomes to pay more in taxation. That would have generated about £20 billion of revenue and would have avoided some of the damaging tax increases, such as the one that is going to undermine the competitiveness of the Scotch whisky industry. I understand why the Scotch whisky industry and business are aggrieved at the Labour Government, because they were promised economic stability, but they are not getting that from the Labour Government.
Michelle Thomson has a brief supplementary question.
After the budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility significantly downgraded its economic growth forecasts, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that the vast majority of the national insurance tax hike will hit working people through lower pay. To what extent will the UK budget usher in the new era of growth that the Secretary of State for Scotland promised?
Some of the data that has been published is illustrative of the economic impact of the budget. The information from the Resolution Foundation indicates that, over the course of the UK parliamentary session, there is likely to be about half a per cent increase in average household incomes as a consequence of the measures that have been taken in the budget. That will leave a lot of people feeling that their living standards have not increased in any meaningful fashion over the course of the parliamentary session. That reinforces the point that Michelle Thomson made, and the Labour Government will have to explain that to the public.
Police Scotland (Professor Sam Eljamel)
To ask the First Minister what engagement the Scottish Government has had with Police Scotland officials who are responsible for investigating whether the actions of Professor Eljamel amounted to criminal conduct. (S6F-03468)
The investigation of any crime is an independent matter for Police Scotland, and the Scottish Government has no involvement in such matters. Scottish Government officials met Police Scotland in June this year to discuss the establishment of the public inquiry and other developing work, and they had further engagement with Police Scotland in September.
In his letter to me, Willie Rennie and Michael Marra on 17 October, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care rightly referred to the independent status of any Police Scotland investigation, and we respect that.
However, in November 2022, Police Scotland detectives appealed to Scottish Government health officials for help, and that was four years after the first complaints were made to police. Officials made a plea for support to Craig White, a senior health director, who, as the Parliament knows, was later assigned to help set up the public inquiry into the Eljamel scandal. Mr White replied to the Scottish Government officials that he would be happy to help investigating detectives. As a matter of public interest, and based on what the First Minister has just said in his first response, can he tell me the exact basis on which that advice was sought?
I might need to have further exchanges with Liz Smith to understand exactly the point that she wishes me to address.
Police Scotland must properly and independently conduct a police investigation, and Liz Smith accepts that point. Whatever information Police Scotland wishes to obtain from the Scottish Government, I expect Scottish Government officials and ministers to engage fully and substantively with Police Scotland on that question. If there are any concerns about that, I will happily address them, but my expectation is for the Government to engage in addressing any request for information or assistance from Police Scotland in order to support its independent investigation.
The First Minister will understand the deep anxieties that are felt by Professor Eljamel’s ex-patients, especially as some of his constituents are in that position. There is deep anxiety among them about the circumstances with the police asking for help from Craig White. Will the First Minister explore what can possibly be done to restore the confidence of those ex-patients in the process and to ensure that they see that the process is above board?
Willie Rennie is familiar with the fact that I, too, have constituents who are affected by the issue. I engage with them in my constituency capacity.
On the question of engagement with Police Scotland, what I said to Liz Smith was an attempt to be helpful in that respect. I would expect the Government to provide Police Scotland with whatever information it is looking for in relation to its inquiries. If there are deeper anxieties, I am happy to meet Willie Rennie, Liz Smith and any other members who wish for me to intervene on the question. I am happy to do so if there are any outstanding issues following my answers today.
Sex Crimes
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the reported rise in sex crimes. (S6F-03488)
Let me state strongly, as I have done previously, that violence against women is totally abhorrent.
Although I want to see a reduction in the number of sexual crimes, we all know that sexual crime is underreported. One of the multiple factors behind the rise includes a greater willingness among victims to come forward, alongside increased support for survivors, including the use of pre-recorded evidence and a greater consistency in approach and the use of specialist police officers.
However, it is the ending of such violence that should be our goal. Those who perpetuate sexual violence and abuse, the majority of whom are men, must be held to account. It is only through fundamental societal change in the behaviours and attitudes of men that women can be protected.
Police Scotland received more than 7,000 reports of sexual crimes between the start of April and the end of September this year, showing the upward trend. That also included a 20 per cent rise in the number of reported rapes. I acknowledge what the First Minister said—more people are reporting, which is progress. Of course, the rise is indicative of the fact that male violence against women remains endemic, which the First Minister and I agree on. There is no part of the world where women are safe from such crimes—I am sure that we agree on that, too.
Does the First Minister agree that Scotland should be a leading country in tackling the issue and in how our criminal justice system treats victims of rape and sexual violence? However, the Government voted to extend the limits for trials until the end of next year. Given that one of the most distressing aspects for victims of sexual assault is the length of time that cases take to come to court, can the First Minister give the Parliament a guarantee that the Government will not seek any further extensions to court time limits, as it did yesterday, to give victims some comfort that delays in our courts will continue to be reduced?
I agree with the overwhelming majority of what Pauline McNeill has said, if not all of it. I commend Police Scotland for the work that it has done in driving some of the increase in reporting through the very successful “That guy” campaign, which I think is acknowledged across the parliamentary chamber as one of the most effective means of communication.
The Government is still dealing with the implications of the Covid pandemic on the criminal justice system, and we have sought approvals from the Parliament for further extensions. However, we will not seek any further extensions to those arrangements—I give Pauline McNeill that assurance.
Obviously, there are other steps that we can take. Indeed, yesterday, the court of appeal determined on the Lord Advocate’s reference in relation to corroboration, which will obviously have an effect on questions in relation to prosecution.
Figures that were released earlier this week show that 1,400 rape allegations were made in Scotland between April and September this year, which represents an increase of around 20 per cent on the same period last year. Although it is encouraging that more survivors are coming forward to report such abuse, more needs to be done.
Last year, I worked with a rape survivor, Ellie Wilson, to urge the Scottish Government to introduce guidance on how higher education institutions should handle cases of sexual misconduct. What progress has the First Minister’s Government made to ensure that such guidance is issued?
I will have to write to Pam Gosal with the definitive answer to that question. During my time as education secretary, with my ministerial colleagues I undertook work on what has become known as the Emily test, in response to the terrible case of Emily Drouet, who was a victim of sexual violence. That approach was rolled out across our higher education sector. I will look carefully at the point that Pam Gosal makes. We must make a range of interventions to ensure that individuals are able to come forward in such circumstances. However, we must also take steps to change the culture among men and their attitudes towards sexual violence. That will have to happen if we are to improve the lives of women in our society.
As convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, I have heard much testimony from survivors of sexual violence and what they perceive to be barriers to their cases getting to court. Will the First Minister outline whether yesterday’s appeal court decision on corroboration will improve access to justice for victims of sexual crimes?
The Lord Advocate’s view of yesterday’s decision is that it has the potential to transform the way in which all offences, and in particular sexual offences, are prosecuted, and that it will contribute to the
“development of a progressive and humane justice system.”
I welcome any decision that will do so, as, I am sure, all members will. As Audrey Nicoll will recall, I served on the Criminal Justice Committee, under her convenership, last year, and I heard much of the powerful testimony to which she refers. The Government is taking forward the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which commits us to having a trauma-informed justice system that puts victims and witnesses at its heart. We want to ensure that anyone who has been a victim of a sexual crime has confidence in our justice system.
Veterans Services (Funding)
The First Minister will be aware that, without any notice to the Scottish Government, NHS Lothian has withdrawn its share of funding for the Veterans First Point service—some £200,000 or thereabouts—thereby leaving the Scottish Government alone to fund it. As Glencorse barracks is in my constituency, I am aware of how vital that specialised service is for veterans, to whom it provides mental and emotional support, both through professional interventions and with the help of peers. Does the First Minister agree that that is a very wrong decision on the part of NHS Lothian, which seems particularly cruel and thoughtless as we approach remembrance day?
I understand that there is currently engagement with NHS Lothian on that very question. Such services are vital. It is important that our veterans community is well supported at all times, but particularly in the period around remembrance day. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, along with the Minister for Veterans, Graeme Dey, will take a close interest in the issues that my colleague has raised.
Moss Park Care Home (Proposed Closure)
Last week, the health secretary and the Deputy First Minister met local people who were campaigning to keep open Moss Park care home in Fort William. However, since that meeting, there has been no announcement of any progress. Social workers have begun to contact residents’ families to tell them that their loved ones are to be moved. I am sure that the First Minister will appreciate the fear and frustration that that is causing those residents and their families, and that he will agree that they deserve answers on what efforts are being made to keep them in the place that many of them now call home. Can the First Minister advise me, and those who today are protesting outside Highland Council about the closure, what role the Scottish Government has played in efforts to keep Moss Park open? What support has the Government offered Highland Council and NHS Highland to make that happen?
I understand the significance of the point that Mr Halcro Johnston raises. I am concerned about the delayed discharge situation, especially in Highland, where it is particularly acute. The proposed closure that Mr Halcro Johnston raises will only exacerbate that situation, so it would be moving things in the wrong direction. The Government has engaged substantively. The health secretary, along with the Deputy First Minister in her local representative capacity, have been engaged in those discussions, and all possible options have been explored by the Government. I understand that the issue that Mr Halcro Johnston puts to me is being considered by Highland Council today. The Government stands ready and willing to engage on finding a solution, because the impact of the proposed closure would mean matters moving in entirely the opposite direction to the one that I want to see happening.
Flights (Western Isles)
At the weekend, the Loganair chief executive said that the flight from Stornoway to Inverness is “difficult to sustain”. That flight is a lifeline service for people who need to access healthcare services that are not available locally. We have already seen patients no longer accepting treatment due to the downgrading of the Uist flights. That would also happen if the Stornoway to Inverness flight were to stop or become less accessible.
I appealed to Scottish ministers to find a solution to the situation with the Uist flight, but nothing has changed. Therefore, I ask the First Minister to intervene personally to ensure that the Uist flights are fit for purpose and to protect all those flights with a public service order. If he does not, lives will be lost.
Some weeks ago, I had a discussion in Stornoway with an organisation that provides support and care to patients who require access to cancer treatment—the name is not at the front of my mind just now—about the substantive challenges that Rhoda Grant has raised with me regarding the practicalities of accessing hospital treatment from the islands when a sustained period of care is required.
I give Rhoda Grant the assurance that the health secretary and the transport ministers are looking closely at the situation to ensure that we are providing all the support that we can so that individuals who require to access healthcare needs are able to do so, regardless of their location.
Third Sector Funding (Edinburgh)
A number of third sector organisations across Edinburgh Pentlands, including the Dove Centre, the Health Agency in Wester Hailes and the Community One Stop Shop in Broomhouse, have been notified by the Edinburgh integration joint board that their funding will soon be cut by more than £800,000, as part of a £4.5 million cut across Edinburgh. If those cuts go ahead, how will the Scottish Government ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency are supported to lead healthier and more stable lives?
I understand the significance of the issue that Mr MacDonald raises. I am familiar with the Broomhouse area of the city. I grew up very close to Broomhouse, so I know its challenges and circumstances.
The Government attaches great importance to supporting the third sector in the delivery of services and the impact that they can make. I understand that, on this particular issue, decisions have not yet been made by the Edinburgh integration joint board, and that those proposals will be discussed tomorrow.
I stress to Mr MacDonald the importance that the Government attaches to ensuring that we have in place the proper services that will meet the needs of individuals and communities.
Consent Process Handling
The First Minister will be aware that Stephen Flynn lobbied for an offshore wind project, which the Scottish Government approved, and that, one month later, he received a £30,000 donation from one of the beneficiaries of that project. A Scottish Government official acting on behalf of Gillian Martin appeared to fast-track a ministerial reply in response to Flynn’s request and, a few months later, the project was approved.
If the First Minister has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear, so will he order an investigation into the handling of that consent process by the Scottish Government?
I have no intention of doing that, because the process has been properly conducted, and information—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
I do not think that it should be a surprise that a Government that, in its policy position, is supportive of renewable energy developments has taken a decision to authorise a renewable energy project.
Fast-tracked.
Mr Lumsden, you have put your question. I would like to hear the response.
Earlier this year, information was released under freedom of information requests that showed that there had been no breaches of protocol.
I really do not think that it is a big surprise that a Government that has had a consistent policy position for 17 years in favour of renewable energy development should take a decision to grant consent to a renewable energy development. What the question represents is the grubbing at the bottom of a barrel by Douglas Lumsden and the Conservatives. It debases this Parliament, it debases the Conservative Party and it shows that it has nothing constructive to say in Scottish politics.
District Nurses’ Pay (NHS Tayside)
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of the GMB trade union.
In 2019, a job evaluation process for district nurses working for NHS Tayside resulted in their jobs being upgraded. Thus far, NHS Tayside has refused to honour that pay rise and pay the women what they are due. GMB Scotland has appealed to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to intervene, but he has refused, citing the fact that the job evaluation process is an independent process. He is right, of course, but that process is long since complete. The question now is whether the health board pays the workers the money that they are due. I ask the First Minister to take a personal interest in the matter to ensure that those workers at NHS Tayside, which serves his constituents, get the money that they deserve.
I understand all the issues that Mr Marra puts to me. The complication here is that there is a due process to be gone through, which involves the possibility of a tribunal. I understand that the issue is going to tribunal, which is a material part of the process of determining the issues. I know that that is cold comfort to anybody who is affected by the matter, but it is the process that we have to go through to determine on the issues. If there is anything further that can be added to that, I will consider whether there is a case for it.
That concludes First Minister’s question time.
Air ais
General Question TimeAir adhart
Point of Order