Official Report 1104KB pdf
Taxation
I begin on a positive note, by welcoming something that the Scottish National Party Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government did yesterday—not announcing the disastrous SNP budget, of course, but holding up my letter to John Swinney for all of Scotland to see, which I thank her for. That letter set out how my party is proudly on the side of Scotland’s hard-working taxpayers and businesses, and I brought my own copy here today.
Instead of reducing tax, the SNP has dragged more Scots into paying higher income tax. Every worker here who earns more than £30,000 a year will be forced to pay more than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. How can the SNP boast about always taking more for public services that only ever get worse?
I reassure you, Presiding Officer, that, unlike Mr Findlay, I will not be using props in the course of my answer.
Mr Findlay helpfully reminds the public of the problem with the letter that he sent me the other week. His letter discloses a £950 million gaping hole at the very heart of Conservative taxation proposals to this Parliament. That reeks of economic incompetence, and that economic incompetence is a consistent approach for the Scottish Conservatives.
Because I know how much John Swinney appreciated my first letter, I sent him a second one this morning, which set out the savings that we would make. Our plans are reasonable, affordable, fully costed and fully funded and would deliver fairness for Scotland’s taxpayers, but the SNP proudly boasts that it will make Scottish workers pay £1.7 billion more next year than they would if they lived elsewhere in the UK.
The finance secretary even had the audacity to shout about reducing bills for lower earners, but the SNP’s con trick is worth, at most, £1 a month to people who earn less than £30,000—£1. What are people supposed to do with that? Buy a selection box from Poundland?
I think that Mr Findlay will have to practise his gags a little more after that one.
I have not seen Mr Findlay’s letter yet, because I was at an early learning centre this morning explaining the importance of the Government’s commitment to lift the two-child cap that the Conservatives imposed, which is sending children in our country into poverty.
I will have a good look at the letter when I get back upstairs, but I will tell Mr Findlay two things. First, if we look at tax alone, more than 50 per cent of taxpayers in Scotland are better off than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, as a consequence of the tax decisions that we have made. When we take tax and social security together, 60 per cent of taxpayers in Scotland are better off than they would be if they lived in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what I call delivering for Scotland.
I hope that John Swinney learned something from the children at the early learning centre.
We know that public services never improve under the SNP. More taxpayers’ money is going to the national health service, but the SNP has no plans to reduce waiting lists or bureaucracy. This week, Scotland’s independent Auditor General said that the Government has no vision for our health service and that changes are “urgently needed”. Hospitals across Scotland are already in crisis, and while the SNP health secretary takes taxpayer-funded limos to Pittodrie, ambulances are being sent away from Aberdeen royal infirmary, yet the SNP Government makes only a rehashed pledge to reduce waiting times. That same promise was supposed to have been delivered by September—three months ago. Why would anyone believe that the SNP will keep its word this time?
Mr Findlay made the point that there is apparently no enhancement of public services in Scotland, but the early learning and childcare centre that I visited this morning is part of a network around the country that is supported by £1 billion of early learning and childcare investment. That has meant that, in this country, three and four-year-olds—and many two-year-olds—have access to 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare. That promise was made by the Scottish Government and delivered by this SNP Government.
Mr Findlay talks about efficiency in government. The Minister for Public Finance, Ivan McKee, who is sitting in the chamber, was referenced by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government yesterday as having a remit to address the issues of productivity and performance in public services. He is devoting his energy to doing that as part of the plans that the health secretary and other ministers are taking forward in our public services.
For Mr Findlay’s benefit, I say that this Government is absolutely determined to improve the performance of our public services. There are challenges in our public services that arise out of the disruptive effects of Covid, but this Government is 100 per cent focused on making sure—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
This Government is 100 per cent focused on ensuring that the resources that we have decided to allocate to our public services have the effect of meeting the needs of the people of Scotland. That will happen only if this Parliament supports the Government’s budget. I invite Mr Findlay to do so.
I, for one, am delighted to hear that John Swinney is going to fix the mess that he has made over the past 17 years. He is going to begin fixing the mess that he has made over 17 long, miserable years.
The budget perfectly illustrates what a John Swinney Government looks like, with broken promises rehashed, no plans to fix the NHS, benefits rising out of control, bigger bills for businesses, higher taxes on workers and more waste on ferries and nonsense projects. People have had enough of taxes going up while public services decline. The budget might work inside the left-wing Holyrood bubble, but how does it help workers and businesses in the real world?
I suspect that businesses around the country will welcome the tripling of investment—[Interruption.] Mr Burnett is laughing and Mr Lumsden, as usual, is out of his seat shouting and bawling. Maybe—[Interruption.]
Members, let us settle.
Maybe Mr Lumsden and Mr Burnett can find it in themselves to welcome the tripling of investment in offshore renewables that the Government has put in place. Maybe they could welcome the £768 million investment in housing to boost affordable housing expenditure in Scotland. Perhaps they could welcome the £200 million refuelling of the Scottish National Investment Bank to strengthen the Scottish economy. That is this Government delivering to strengthen the economy in Scotland.
National Health Service
Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government laid out the Scottish National Party Government’s budget for the upcoming year. Thanks to a United Kingdom Labour Government getting rid of the Tories and ending the era of austerity, the Scottish Government has an additional £5.2 billion to spend. That was an opportunity to confront the challenges that our country faces and take us in a new direction—an opportunity that was, clearly, missed. [Interruption.]
Members!
Nowhere is that more important or clearer than in our national health service. Given that one in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list, why is it the height of John Swinney’s ambition that, by March 2026, Scots will not have to wait for more than a year just for an appointment?
As I explained to Russell Findlay, the Government is absolutely focused on improving waiting times, and the record financial settlement for the health service of £21 billion is a very significant contribution to enabling that to happen. Ministers will work with health boards, as I saw when I visited Forth Valley royal hospital on Monday, on initiatives to practically improve waiting times in our hospitals. Anas Sarwar has my commitment that the Government will do that.
I am interested in Mr Sarwar’s language about a “new direction”. If Mr Sarwar does not like the direction that we are taking on health service expenditure, shall I take that to mean that he does not support the increase to £21 billion? Does he want less than that? Is that the new direction that Mr Sarwar wants, with less investment in the national health service? [Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
I say simply to Mr Sarwar that I welcome the investments that are being made in our public services and public finances as a consequence of the United Kingdom Government’s decisions. That is welcome. I have made that clear before.
Your MPs voted against it.
Mr Johnson!
What now matters is whether the Labour Party will support the Government by making sure that those numbers can be put into practical reality. Will the Labour Party support the Government’s budget to make sure that we can invest £21 billion in the national health service?
John Swinney has forgotten that he is not a bank manager and is meant to be running a country and delivering positive outcomes for it. All he does is what he normally does: the SNP Government focuses on the inputs, not on the outcomes for patients across the country.
Within the past week, we have had damning reports from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Audit Scotland. According to the IFS, despite having proportionally higher spending and more staff, Scotland’s NHS is “lagging behind England’s”; on almost every measure, performance is worse; and there are poorer outcomes for Scots. According to Audit Scotland, despite higher funding and more staff, fewer patients are being seen, there is no clear plan for reform, there is no delivery plan, and “greater leadership” is needed.
However, yet again, those warnings have been ignored. Why is the SNP Government squandering the opportunity of £5.2 billion of additional money and record levels of spending, which could take our NHS in that new direction?
On performance, there have been increases—for example, in the number of operations that have been performed in the national health service over the past 12 months and in the performance on waiting times in a number of disciplines. In cancer care, there have been improvements in performance in relation to the 31-day standard, so that more patients are being treated and are treated within a quicker timescale.
Mr Sarwar asked about the “squandering” of the opportunity. The only squandering of the opportunity will be if the Government is unable on 1 April to put the practical proposals in the budget into practice. That means that the Parliament has to pass the Government’s budget. We are very open to constructive discussion with political parties about the contents of the budget. However, Mr Sarwar will—to use his word—squander the possibility of strengthening our public services if he does not vote for the Government’s budget.
I remind John Swinney that SNP MPs voted against £5.2 billion of additional money coming to the Scottish Government.
John Swinney did what he always does: he read out a long list of inputs and did not address the issues that would improve outcomes for patients. That is the usual sticky-plaster approach, which is all about inputs and not about outcomes. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
I can understand why his blood pressure is high. Do not worry, Presiding Officer.
It is not just about how much we spend; it is about the quality of care that patients receive and the health of our nation. It is not just about how much we spend; it is about supporting businesses to thrive and grow. It is not just about how much we spend, it is about our children leaving school with the skills that they need.
On all measures, John Swinney and the SNP have failed. They just hope that they can spend more money in the same way and get a different result. Is it not clear that the Government has no plan, no leadership and no vision for Scotland?
I think that there is a big problem if an Opposition leader in the Parliament cannot change his script to adjust to the answers that I give. In a very basic exchange, Mr Sarwar said that I have talked only about inputs, but I have talked about the outcomes and performance of the national health service. It is not good enough, if Mr Sarwar cannot even step up to be a decent leader of an Opposition party, for him to aspire to do anything else. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another!
If Mr Sarwar is concerned about business, he should be concerned about the impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions. He need only look at his UK Government’s data on that—the changes to employer national insurance contributions will not improve the standard of living of people in the United Kingdom over a five-year period. That is a rather gloomy outlook that Mr Sarwar has attached himself to.
I simply say to Mr Sarwar that I am interested in making progress for Scotland—it is what I have been about all my political life—and we have delivered big progress. I told Mr Findlay about the progress on early learning and childcare. Economic performance in Scotland has improved faster than it has in the rest of the United Kingdom. I want to build on that, but it will happen only if Mr Sarwar and his colleagues support the Scottish Government’s budget, which will repair the damage from the Labour Government’s winter fuel payment cuts and erase the two-child limit. Mr Sarwar should support the Government’s budget and deliver a good outcome for the people of Scotland.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. (S6F-03599)
The Cabinet will next meet on Tuesday.
Rural healthcare is a key priority for the Scottish Liberal Democrats. The Government listened to some of our demands by including in the draft budget yesterday provisions for a long-overdue replacement for the Belford hospital in Fort William. Now, we need shovels in the ground. However, the Government stopped short of replacing the Gilbert Bain hospital in Lerwick or ensuring 24/7 access to emergency care at Portree hospital.
I will remind the First Minister about what is going on in the far north. Mothers are forced to travel 100 miles through snow and ice to give birth in Inverness. An investigation by the Scottish Human Rights Commission received testimony that the situation was “barbaric”. Women have been left terrified by four-hour drives in the dark, with deer on the road. Some women have even lost their fertility because of delays in accessing Raigmore hospital in emergencies. No wonder people are moving away or choosing not to have any more children.
Liberal Democrats have repeatedly asked for midwife-led maternity care in the far north. What is the First Minister going to do about it? Those mums are still in danger.
Mr Cole-Hamilton has raised a number of issues with us, both in our discussions and in the points that he has put to me today. We have set out in the budget a number of steps that will address some of the issues with access to general practice services. We will look further at the issues relating to Portree that Mr Cole-Hamilton mentioned. I am glad that we have made progress on the Belford hospital, and my colleague the Deputy First Minister is delighted with that announcement, too.
The Caithness situation is slightly different, because it is informed by assessments of patient safety, given the volume of maternity cases that can be dealt with at Caithness general hospital. It is a question not of investment but of the clinical safety of the service that is involved. I totally understand the challenges and difficulties with that journey that Mr Cole-Hamilton narrated to me—it is a long and difficult journey. However, when ministers receive advice on clinical safety, we have to have very strong reasons for not following that advice.
I will happily engage with Mr Cole-Hamilton and his colleagues, as will the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, on this important question to try to address the concerns that I know exist in Caithness about that issue and to find a way of reassuring the individuals on whose behalf Mr Cole-Hamilton asked the question.
Social Care Providers (National Insurance Contributions)
To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the reported concerns of not-for-profit social care providers regarding the impact of increased employer national insurance contributions on the sector in Scotland. (S6F-03615)
Not-for-profit social care providers play a vital role in delivering care across Scotland, and I am grateful for the hard work and dedication of everyone working in the sector. The Scottish Government firmly shares the concerns about the profound impact that the increase in national insurance will have in Scotland, which is estimated to cost the adult care sector at least £85 million per year. We have outlined that to the United Kingdom Government and asked it to reimburse the national insurance increase for charities and social care providers in Scotland. We will continue to press the UK Government to do the right thing and reimburse that cost, and I ask all other parties in Parliament to do the same.
The increase to contributions has been described as “catastrophic” for Scotland’s social care sector. Will the First Minister join me in calling on Anas Sarwar’s Labour colleagues in Westminster to fully reimburse costs to the Scottish Government for Labour’s short-sighted plans to increase employer national insurance contributions in order to enable us to protect our social care services across the country?
I certainly make that call. We have made that point to the United Kingdom Government, because Scotland’s care providers will face a significant increase in the cost of their operations as a consequence of that activity, and we depend on those individual organisations to contribute to the delivery of social care in Scotland.
The danger of the increase in employer national insurance contributions is that it is, essentially, ushering in austerity by the back door. Although there is a welcome increase in investment in public expenditure, there is also a commensurate increase in costs in the delivery of public services. I ask the United Kingdom Government to recognise that, so that we can take forward the effective investment in the care services on which our public depend.
Labour has let down the Scottish social care sector with its tax on jobs, but does the blame for the worsening crisis in care not rest with John Swinney just as much as it does with Keir Starmer? Since 2021, the care sector has been in limbo, waiting for the national care service, which has swallowed up £30 million that could have been spent to mitigate Labour’s national insurance hikes.
Will the First Minister now take this opportunity to confirm that the national care service is dead and buried, and allow ministers, councils and care providers to focus all their attention and money on the worsening crisis in Scotland’s social care?
I assure Mr Hoy that there is no lack of focus in my Government on addressing the challenges around delayed discharge and social care. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and I spend a great deal of time on that question, and it has been a substantial issue for discussion with our local authority colleagues as we have undertaken the budget dialogue that I promised would be undertaken.
There are conclusions to be arrived at about the national care service but, fundamentally, what the national care service is designed to do—this is an important point that Mr Hoy cannot ignore—is address the fact that there is huge variation in the availability of social care services in different parts of the country. In some parts of the country, the availability is absolutely first class, and in other parts of the country it is poor. That is not good enough for the citizens of Scotland, and I intend to fix that.
Peat Removal (Environmental Risk)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is regarding any potential risk to the environment of excessive removal of peat during excavation projects. (S6F-03603)
Scotland’s peatlands are critical to mitigating and adapting to the climate and nature emergencies. They store carbon, support biodiversity, control flooding and improve river quality. Excavation of peat during development can increase emissions and damage nature. Our fourth national planning framework includes policies to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development.
We pay grants for peatland restoration but, at the same time, allow peatland to be ripped up. Constituents at Barrhill in South Ayrshire are concerned about the significant removal of peat to make way for the construction of a battery storage facility. They are concerned about lorries making hundreds of journeys along dangerous and unsuitable roads to facilitate that. Currently, there are 50 lorry loads a day, but it has been suggested to Barrhill and Pinwherry villagers that that number would rise to 200 per day from January.
South Scotland residents are worried about the overindustrialisation of their part of the countryside. What guarantees can the First Minister give to people in South Ayrshire that their lives will not be adversely impacted by another controversial energy project?
The development that Sharon Dowey raises with me is a live planning application, so I cannot make any specific comment about it. What I can say, however—[Interruption.] I am simply pointing out that I would be breaching the ministerial code if I commented on a live planning application. [Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
Where development is proposed on peatland and carbon-rich soils or on priority peatland habitat, a detailed, site-specific assessment will be required to identify effects on peatland quality, habitats and emissions, so that mitigation can be built into project design and subsequent management. That is the obligation contained within national planning framework 4, and I would expect that to be applied by all planning authorities.
The Scottish Government has invested heavily in nature-based solutions to climate change, including by doubling the rate of peatland restoration over the past two years to reach record levels. Can the First Minister outline how yesterday’s Scottish budget will continue to support our efforts to reduce emissions and tackle the climate crisis?
Please respond with reference to the substantive question, First Minister.
On the question of peatland restoration, which is implicit in the question that has been raised, the Government allocated additional resources to strengthen the work that is being undertaken to improve the quality of Scotland’s peatland resource. It is a huge asset for Scotland in dealing with the climate and nature emergencies, and I am glad that we are able to secure the necessary investment to support that development within the Scottish Government’s budget that was announced yesterday.
Green Hydrogen
To ask the First Minister what progress is being made with the Scottish Government’s efforts to establish the country as a world leader in the green hydrogen sector. (S6F-03607)
Scotland has the potential to be a world-leading hydrogen nation, and the Scottish Government is committed to helping the Scottish hydrogen sector to develop and grow. The publication last week of Scotland’s first hydrogen export plan marks a milestone in the country’s journey to becoming a hydrogen-exporting nation. The plan sets out the key steps required to establish large-scale hydrogen production domestically, strengthen existing international partnerships and build new ones to enable exports and investment.
The Scottish Government has an international vision for the hydrogen economy in Scotland. Indeed, research from PwC confirmed that Scotland is leading the United Kingdom in the creation of green jobs. Given that the establishment of Scotland’s hydrogen sector has the potential to become a key driver of green growth and prosperity, can the First Minister say more about how the Scottish Government’s budget will further invest in a managed just transition and about the benefits that that will bring to Scotland?
One of the fundamental points in the budget statement yesterday was the commitment to invest in Scotland’s journey to net zero and to achieve the objectives that Audrey Nicoll has talked about. The utilisation of ScotWind resources for long-term investment is a significant strength in the budget. We have successfully avoided the use of ScotWind resources to support day-to-day expenditure, which I know members of the Parliament wanted us to avoid. We are committed to taking forward the proposals in our green industrial strategy, which will help us to take forward investment in the hydrogen sector. That will only be supported, of course, if the Government’s budget passes and we are able to deploy that expenditure in the next financial year.
We move to open and constituency supplementaries.
Fuel Prices (Greenock and Inverclyde)
The First Minister will be aware of my long-standing campaign to lower petrol pump prices in my constituency. He will also know that, in 2022, the Competition and Markets Authority launched an investigation into road fuel prices and concluded that action was need to “improve competition” and, ultimately, to stop fuel retailers from ripping off drivers. An update from the CMA last week indicates that
“While fuel prices have fallen since July”,
drivers are still paying over the odds for fuel, and that has a knock-on effect on other living costs such as food. Will the First Minister therefore join me today in urging the new United Kingdom Labour Government to speed up progress on the CMA’s recommendations, so that weak competition can be addressed and fuel retailers held to account?
I am very much aware of the tenacious campaign that Stuart McMillan has led on the issue on behalf of his constituents. Fuel costs can make a significant contribution to the pressure that households and businesses wrestle with on an on-going basis. I welcome the UK Government’s plan to implement the CMA’s recommendations on the fuel price market, and I urge it is to speed up progress where possible. Given the CMA’s comments on current fuel prices, we urge the United Kingdom Government to use the CMA’s new fuel price monitoring function, which will commence in January next year, to scrutinise the market and take action where necessary to keep the prices that drivers pay at the lowest rate possible.
Alistair Wilson Investigation
Last week marked two decades since Alistair Wilson was fatally shot on the doorstep of his family home in Nairn, while his wife Veronica and his two young sons were upstairs. Two decades on, his killer continues to evade justice. Throughout that time, Veronica and her family have shown great strength and dignity, but it has been very clear that they are now critical of elements of Police Scotland’s investigation, as well as of the chief constable, who repeatedly refuses to meet them. I have urged Chief Constable Farrell to reconsider her position. Although I acknowledge that the First Minister cannot comment on a live police investigation, will he meet Veronica and her family to listen to what they have endured for the past 20 years, and to what they continue to go through as they fight to see the killer of their husband and father finally brought to justice?
As I have said to Mr Ross when he has raised the issue in the Parliament before, I have every sympathy with Mrs Wilson and her family for the unbearable loss that they have suffered, and the trauma that they have experienced because of the fact that the perpetrators of the attack have not been brought to justice. The framing of Mr Ross’s question recognises that it is a live police investigation and it is an operational matter for the chief constable to take forward. Subject to the caveat that Mr Ross had in his question, which is that I cannot engage in a live police investigation, I would be prepared to meet Mrs Wilson and her family to hear of their anguish. There will be limits to what I can do, but if it provides any assistance and support to the family that the First Minister is prepared to listen to their concerns, then I am prepared to meet them.
Torness Nuclear Power Station
The First Minister will be aware of EDF Energy’s decision to extend the life of Torness nuclear power station until 2030, which will secure hundreds of jobs, boost the economy of East Lothian and South Scotland, and provide crucial support to Scotland’s energy grid. Torness has been Scotland’s most productive clean energy asset, cutting 100 million tonnes of CO2, reducing the risk of blackouts, and saving consumers up to £75 annually on their energy bills. Will the First Minister warmly welcome the extension?
The Government has made it clear that we welcome stability in energy supplies. The developments that EDF has taken forward support that objective. Of course, we will have to make a transition to lower-cost energy products and prices, and that will be best secured through investment in renewable energy. I hope that GB energy will help us to speed up the approach that has been taken, particularly regarding the developments on the grid, which are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. I hope that the incoming United Kingdom Government is able to improve the performance in grid connection so that Scotland can realise its energy potential. If it does not improve that, we will not be able to realise the opportunities for low energy prices, which everyone wants in Scotland.
Affordable Housing
I welcome the announcement by the Scottish National Party Government of £768 million for affordable housing, which will deliver 8,000 new homes for social rent, mid-market rent and low-cost home ownership, some of which will be in my constituency. I understand that the money will be available only if the Parliament votes for the budget. Does the First Minister agree that, if MSPs want to tackle the housing emergency, they need to back the budget that releases the money to do that?
Mr Coffey is 100 per cent correct.
Members: Oh!
I will say it again, as it went down so well. Mr Coffey is 100 per cent correct.
Let me share an—[Interruption.] Let me share an observation with Parliament. If we want to spend the resources that the Government allocated yesterday on delivering outcomes such as 8,000 more affordable homes—I think that that constitutes an outcome in Mr Sarwar’s definition—Parliament has to be prepared to vote for the Government’s budget. The time for posturing will be over soon—[Interruption.]
Continue, First Minister.
Oh yes, the time for posturing will be over soon. The time to vote for the Government’s budget is coming, and if members want investment in housing, they have to vote for the Government’s budget.
Female Life Expectancy (Glasgow)
I declare an interest as a practising national health service general practitioner.
According to the latest data from the Office for National Statistics, female life expectancy in Glasgow remains the lowest in Britain, and seven of the 10 areas of the United Kingdom where it is lowest are in Scotland. Males do not fare much better. That all points to the Scottish National Party failing women—failing to protect safe spaces, failing to provide adequate housing for single mothers and failing to tackle women’s health inequalities. Is the First Minister concerned by those consistently woeful statistics? What is he going to do about it?
I certainly am concerned about those issues. That is why the Government is taking forward a specific women’s health plan to address many of the issues that Dr Gulhane puts to me.
However, there is another important factor, and that is the persistence of poverty in our society. I appreciate Dr Gulhane’s commitment to the national health service, but his party presided over 14 years of punishing austerity, which has increased poverty levels in our country. To be fair, when the Labour Government left office in 2010, poverty rates were falling. They have gone up over the past 14 years—why? It is because of austerity from the Conservatives. Dr Gulhane has no strength to put those points to me. The Tories have inflicted misery and poverty on people in Scotland, and this Government is trying to repair the damage.
Sutherland Spaceport
Yesterday, we heard that Sutherland spaceport has been mothballed by Orbex. The spaceport was a positive development for the Sutherland community, bringing 40 jobs and economic benefits to a part of the Highlands that has suffered from depopulation. Orbex has received £14.6 million of public investment for the spaceport. Will the First Minister intervene to ensure that the development continues? If that is not possible, will he ensure that the public investment can be recouped and used to bring jobs and an economic boost to that part of the Highlands?
I understand entirely the concern that Rhoda Grant puts to me. My understanding is that the decision has been arrived at in order to concentrate on the proposed spaceport development in Shetland.
Rhoda Grant raises two issues with me. The first is whether I will intervene to see whether there is an alternative; I give her an assurance that ministers will do so to see whether there is any other way in which the development can be taken forward.
Rhoda Grant also raises a completely reasonable question about the public investment that has been either spent or committed to the development, and how that stands. Contractual arrangements will have been put in place in the provision of grant funding. I will explore those issues and reply in writing to Rhoda Grant about what steps can be taken to address what I recognise to be a legitimate issue that she has raised with me today.
Creative Industries (Funding)
Scotland’s cultural sector is the beating heart of our country, with considerable cross-policy impact, including in health and wellbeing. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government has committed a record increase of £34 million to the culture budget, which will facilitate the provision of multiyear funding, despite a single-year fixed budget from Westminster. Does the First Minister agree that, given that Labour’s ambition was for £25 million—£9 million less than is going to be delivered—it is incumbent on all Labour MSPs to back the budget and support our creative industries?
Clare Adamson makes a very reasonable point to Parliament today. I am very proud of many commitments in the budget, and I am particularly proud that the Government is fulfilling its commitments to the artistic and creative community. As I have said in my responses to First Minister’s questions before, it is a community that is precious to me. It is vital that Scotland has a vibrant arts and culture sector, and I am delighted that the Government has been able to make such a formidable financial contribution to the future of the sector.
Of course, Clare Adamson is also absolutely correct that that money will be able to be spent only if the Government budget passes. I remind Parliament that the Government does not have enough support—[Interruption.]
Members.
The Government does not have enough support on its own to pass the budget, so we are doing our best to reach agreement with other parties. I encourage other parties, especially the Labour Party, which is making a call for increased expenditure on arts and culture, to recognise that as being one of the commitments that can be supported by the delivery of the Government’s budget.
Active and Sustainable Transport Funding
The Scottish Greens certainly welcome progressive measures in the budget, including the acceptance of Green proposals for free ferry travel for young islanders and free bus travel for asylum seekers. However, peak rail fares, which were removed by the Greens last year, have returned, and the cap on the price of bus fares that we proposed is not there. Funding to make walking and cycling safer has been cut, and it does not appear that there is any funding for the integrated ticketing system that the Government announced in April. However, there is plenty for climate-wrecking motorway expansion. Does the First Minister recognise that far more is needed to make public transport cheaper, to make cycling safer and to reduce transport emissions to protect our planet?
I recognise that there is a lot to be done to ensure that we all play our part in tackling the climate emergency, which is why I am pleased that the Government has increased the amount of climate-positive expenditure in the budget from the planned £4.7 billion to £4.9 billion.
In addition, resources have been introduced into the budget for the nature restoration fund. We have delivered on our commitment to implement free bus travel for asylum seekers and we have put in place £188 million for active and sustainable travel. We have delivered on other measures that the Scottish Green Party put to us, such as a real-terms uplift to local government spending, and the investment in housing programmes, at a total of £768 million.
Of course, I would love to do more. Mr Greer and I agree very much on the aspirations of ensuring that Scotland succeeds in our journey to net zero. However, I can allocate only the resources that the Government has at its disposal, and we have done that formidably to support action on the climate. I look forward to further dialogue to address the issues that Mr Greer has raised with me today.
Domestic Abuse (Support for Children)
Across my region, a surge in the number of children who are experiencing domestic abuse is deeply concerning. Charities and third sector organisations are having to contend with record levels of children who are seeking support. What measures can the Scottish Government put in place to ensure that those children receive the support that they need, especially heading into the festive season?
I acknowledge the importance of the issue that Mr Stewart raises with me. Domestic abuse is abhorrent. Mr Stewart represents the region of which my constituency is a part and, in Perth concert hall a week past Friday, I had the privilege of launching the 16 days of activism on gender-based violence against women and girls. It was an important event, and Mr Stewart will be familiar with it from his membership of Perth and Kinross Council.
We all have to take action. The Government has legislated to outlaw domestic abuse and, as a consequence, more cases are now being pursued through the courts. As I said in my response to Pam Gosal the other week, although there is an increase in the recording of domestic abuse, it is recognised that more women and girls are coming forward to report that horror, and those who are responsible should be brought to justice.
We all, particularly men, have to exercise leadership on this question. For that reason, I have decided that I will participate in this afternoon’s debate on violence against women and girls. I will close the debate for the Government in order to make it clear, from a leadership position, how intolerable I consider domestic abuse to be.
Two-child Benefit Cap
I welcome the Scottish National Party’s Government’s decision to scrap the hated two-child cap, a policy that was started by the Tories and continued by Labour. I understand that Keir Starmer said this morning that the scrapping of the two-child cap is not a “silver bullet”. However, I believe that it is a major step in tackling child poverty. Does the First Minister share my view that it is time for Keir Starmer to follow the principled lead that the Scottish Government has taken and scrap the cap? What will the First Minister do to persuade the Prime Minister to see sense on the issue?
The Scottish Government has announced its proposals to end the heinous two-child limit that is causing misery for children and families in Scotland. We will take that action because the United Kingdom Labour Government has, to date, failed to do so.
I am grateful for the support of a range of organisations that welcomed the steps that were announced by the finance secretary yesterday. I will certainly use every opportunity that I have to persuade the Prime Minister to take similar action to relieve the burden of this particularly pernicious part of the welfare system and to stop it inflicting poverty on children and families in the United Kingdom.
Psychiatry Services
The locum psychiatrist survey, which was published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, found that the number of whole-time equivalent general psychiatrists has not changed in a decade. That stagnation has contributed to a loss of permanent staff, jeopardised patient treatment and safety, and led to millions of pounds being excessively spent on locum psychiatrist rates. Does the First Minister accept that the problem needs sustained investment, not short-term fixes, not in-year budget raids and certainly not a £20 million cut to the mental health services budget?
There is no such thing in relation to the mental health budget. The Government is investing substantively in mental health services to improve performance, and we are already seeing significant improvements in waiting times in the child and adolescent mental health services system. I agree with Mr Sweeney about the importance of sustained investment. That is what the Government is committed to and that is what the Government will deliver.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and the gallery to do so.
12:47 Meeting suspended.Previous
General Question Time