Official Report 959KB pdf
Ministerial Expenses
A year ago almost to the day, Michael Matheson stood in the chamber to deliver wholly unbelievable excuses for billing taxpayers for his £11,000 iPad bill. It seems that the Scottish National Party has learned nothing from that scandal.
Michael Matheson misused taxpayers’ money to watch football on his iPad; Neil Gray did it to watch football in person. The SNP has substituted one shamed health and social care secretary for someone who is even less serious.
Neil Gray charged taxpayers for ministerial limos to watch his football team. What is it with SNP ministers taking taxpayers for a ride?
It has always been the case that ministers will attend sporting, cultural, societal and community events around the country. Indeed, I would expect ministers to do that, because they have to be in contact with various stakeholders around the country, so ministers will continue to engage on issues of importance with groupings around the country.
Those luxury cars are not free taxis to the football for SNP ministers. Neil Gray claims that he attended those games to discuss “essential ... government business”—[Interruption.] He tells us that they were about the “social impact” of investment—
Mr Findlay—just a second. Can I ensure that we can hear one another?
Neil Gray tells us that the “social impact” of investment in sport was on the agenda. That just so happened to be during a major cup tie for the team that he supports. In the real world, his excuses lack any credibility.
SNP ministers are having us on. Is John Swinney seriously telling us that vital Government business took place at those games?
As I said in my first answer, I expect ministers to engage with a variety of stakeholders in events and gatherings around the country, whether those are cultural, societal, social or sporting events. That has always been the case in every Administration in the United Kingdom, and I would expect my ministers to do exactly that.
John Swinney should put a stop to this nonsense and order the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to refund taxpayers. Neil Gray seems to be more interested in football freebies than in doing the job that he is paid for.
Scotland’s national health service is in crisis, and social care is broken. For years, Scottish Conservatives have said that the SNP’s national care service plans were a complete mess.
In our very first FMQs exchange, I urged John Swinney to scrap the national care service and to save taxpayers’ money. I am very glad that he seems to have listened to some common sense for a change, but what has taken him so long?
On the question of the work rate of ministers, Neil Gray has undertaken 347 engagements since he became health secretary in February 2024. Thirty-four of those were hospital and care facility visits, and 17 were surgery visits and meetings with general practitioners. There were 43 health board meetings; 24 conferences, receptions and speaking events; 152 general meetings; 15 meetings about health service pay; 62 meetings with MSPs, members of Parliament or councillors, and media engagements; and five sporting events. That is five sporting events out of 347 engagements. I think that that rather demonstrates that the health secretary is focused on the job, as one might put it.
On the issue of the national care service, I have made it clear that the Government is listening. My Government is a listening Government—we are listening to the views of members of the public, and we listen to the fact that people from disabled people’s organisations, carers and service users are urging us to implement a national care service because they are dissatisfied—as I am—with the variation in care, and the postcode lottery, around the country. That is what the national care service proposal is about, but the Government will take its time to ensure that we get the proposals right and will bring forward proposals that can command parliamentary support.
The SNP has already wasted £29 million on a national care service that has not cared for a single person. Those plans should be scrapped entirely and the investment should be put directly into front-line social care, where it is desperately needed.
SNP ministers have a reckless disregard for taxpayers’ money. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray, takes limos to the football, and John Swinney wastes cash on a national care service that everybody knows is not going to work. It should not just be delayed—it should be binned.
Why will John Swinney not put taxpayers’ money into the front line, where families will actually feel the benefit?
That is precisely what this Government has done. We have increased pay for social care workers to make working in the social care sector more attractive, so that we can deliver more social care packages for vulnerable members in the community and they can stay longer in their own homes.
When we brought forward those proposals, the Conservatives voted against them. The Conservatives cannot come here and demand that I take action to improve the standards of the social care service, which depend on the recruitment of social care employees, and to boost the size of the social care workforce, but not be prepared to vote for the proposals. That is rank hypocrisy, and it is typical of the Conservatives.
National Care Service
This morning, the social care minister formally slammed the brakes on the Scottish National Party’s botched national care service plans. As I pointed out to the First Minister a month ago, those plans are opposed by care users, unions and experts and are nothing more than an expensive power grab that would do nothing to improve the lives of care users.
So far, around £30 million has been wasted due to SNP incompetence. That could have funded 1 million hours of care at home. That is shocking when so many Scots are in urgent need of support. Instead, we have had years of chaos, delay, incompetence and waste. Will John Swinney apologise to all those who have lost out on vital support and to those who are getting their care packages withdrawn right now?
I am not sure whether I misheard Anas Sarwar, but I think that he said that the national care service is opposed by care users. That is not the case; disabled people’s organisations, carers and service users press the Government to take forward the national care service. It is really important that we reflect that. When the Cabinet was in Ayr just last week, we heard directly from members of the public who are care users, and they encouraged us—indeed, pleaded with us—to implement the national care service.
I accept that there is a lot of opposition to the national care service from a variety of institutional stakeholders, and I recognise the issues within Parliament. That is why the Government is taking time to engage substantively on the national care service and to put in place arrangements to tackle the issues that Mr Sarwar and I agree on, which are the unacceptable variation of care in different parts of the country, as well as the postcode lottery that exists in the treatment and support of vulnerable people in our society.
The reality is that care users told the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee that they feel used by the Government because the national care service plan does not deliver what they want from the Government.
Our care system is fundamentally broken. More than 9,000 Scots are waiting for an assessment or a care-at-home package right now. The number of care homes in Scotland has plummeted by almost a fifth, and the Government’s failure on delayed discharge has cost the Scottish taxpayer more than £1 billion.
As we speak, Scots’ care packages are being cut by the SNP Government. While the Government has been fighting for the failed national care service plan, families have been fighting for basic reforms to support their loved ones, such as Anne’s law—the right to visit family members in care homes—and the right to respite. Those could have been delivered by now, but, instead, the SNP deliberately tied those measures to the failed National Care Service (Scotland) Bill.
After years of chaos, waste and incompetence, will John Swinney finally ditch his discredited plan and, instead, immediately implement Anne’s law and the right to respite?
The issues that Mr Sarwar is concerned about—including the availability of care packages—are exactly the issues that I am concerned about. That is why I have spent so much time since I became First Minister trying to tackle the issue of delayed discharge and ensure that we have the resources in place to support the delivery of social care in our communities. I am also concerned about the impact of the changes to employers’ national insurance contributions in the United Kingdom Government’s budget, because they will increase the costs of the delivery of care by care providers.
I cite to Mr Sarwar the comments of Donald Macaskill, the chief executive of Scottish Care, who said:
“We are concerned that Scotland’s many care organisations will struggle to pay the extra payments and may in turn end up going out of business.”
None of us wants to see that. Therefore, we must ensure that we have in place a sustainable approach to investment in social care. The Government is doing that by improving pay rates and investing in social care, and it is a priority in the budget negotiations in which we are all involved.
I respectfully encourage and invite Mr Sarwar to work with the Scottish Government to ensure that the funding settlement from the United Kingdom Government is able to be deployed on 1 April to invest in social care, and I encourage the Labour Party to vote for the Scottish Government’s budget, which will make provision for that. Not doing so will mean that the Labour Party is turning its back on those in our country who depend on social care, which it has done once already with the employers’ national insurance contribution changes.
The First Minister knows that Government departments and the Scottish Government are working with the Treasury to look at how many of those changes can support the national health service and the social care sector, and the reality is that the new tax changes have delivered more than £750 million for health and social care this year and £1.72 billion for health and social care next year. The First Minister demanded £70 billion of additional spending but now opposes £40 billion of revenue-raising measures. It would make Liz Truss blush how economically illiterate the First Minister is.
The process to establish the national care service has been a shambles and a disgrace—three years, three health ministers, three First Ministers, and nothing to show for it. It is just more SNP incompetence and waste, which are holding Scotland back. From the housing emergency to the ferry fiasco, from the crisis in our NHS to the epidemic of violence and falling standards in our schools, Scots will be watching this Government and wondering why it cannot even get the basics right.
Can we have a question, please, Mr Sarwar?
John Swinney has wasted £1 million of taxpayers’ money and he has broken promise after promise. Will he accept that this has been a shambles? Does he accept that it shows that his Government can deliver nothing more than failure, waste and incompetence?
The Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto said that it was supportive of the creation of a national care service. If that is what support for creating a national care service looks like, I would hate to think what opposition to a national care service looks like.
Mr Sarwar raised the issue of employers’ national insurance contributions. I have explained it to him often enough, so Mr Sarwar knows that the UK Government should have increased income tax. If it had increased income tax, as we have done here—if it had taken that honest decision—it would have avoided putting businesses in the position of going out of business because of an increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. That will have an effect—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
That will have an effect on care providers in our country.
Mr Sarwar will, week after week, as I take him through this, collide with the hard reality that what his UK Labour Government has done has increased the burdens on businesses and made it difficult for them to contribute to social care. For all Mr Sarwar’s rhetoric, he has to get behind the Government’s budget, because if he does not, he will be turning his back on the vulnerable in our society.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. (S6F-03526)
The Cabinet will next meet on Tuesday.
We need to fix the care sector in our country, but the Scottish National Party has now wasted £30 million and four years on the wrong solution. I hope very much that the ministerial takeover of social care will now be allowed to wither on the vine.
Family carers are the backbone of support for thousands of Scots. Without their love and commitment, our health and social care service would simply collapse. However, just a third of them say that they have the support that they need. Thanks to Liberal Democrats, they now have the right to carers leave to better balance work and caring responsibilities. Thanks to Ed Davey, carers in England will now be allowed to earn more at work before they lose their carers allowance.
They deserve the same deal here in Scotland—the right to earn more to make life a bit easier without the fear of having that Government support taken away from them. As that crucial benefit will be fully devolved to Scotland this winter, will the First Minister lift the earnings limit and end the cliff edge that is forcing so many carers into poverty?
Mr Cole-Hamilton makes a number of reasonable and important points about the country’s dependence on family carers and the support that they provide. The Government has taken a range of steps during the devolution of social security benefits to Parliament that have enhanced the provision that is available for carers, in particular in enhancements to carers allowance. I am glad that we have done that, and we are committed to taking that forward in the forthcoming budget.
I know and appreciate that Mr Cole-Hamilton has put that proposal on support for carers into the discussions that we are having on the forthcoming budget. The Government will engage constructively on that point, and we look forward to further discussions with Mr Cole-Hamilton and his colleagues on that question.
Smart Meters
To ask the First Minister what engagement the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding reports from BBC “Panorama” that smart meters in Scotland are experiencing a disproportionate number of operational issues compared with elsewhere in the UK, due to differences in connection type used to send data to energy providers. (S6F-03534)
I am disappointed to hear that Scottish energy consumers are being disadvantaged in this way. Given that smart meter roll-out is a reserved matter, we regularly raise such issues affecting Scottish consumers with the UK Government. We will continue to urge it to take the necessary action to ensure that all households with smart meters in Scotland are provided with full network access. We are also working with our consumer advice and advocacy partners to ensure that they are equipped with the necessary knowledge and information to support consumers who are seeking help on managing or accessing smart meters.
In light of the UK Government’s announcement that it is reviewing the roll-out of smart meters, how will the Scottish Government seek to engage in the review to ensure that Scottish consumers are protected?
We regularly engage with the UK Government at both ministerial and official level on that point. The Acting Minister for Climate Action, Alasdair Allan, recently met his UK counterpart to share outcomes from our Scottish Government energy consumers round table, which brought together a range of stakeholders from across the energy industry to discuss issues affecting Scottish consumers. We aim to hold that series of round tables regularly, and we will continue to feed back to the UK Government the need for further consumer protection against the key challenges that are faced, including smart meter connectivity.
The First Minister rightly addresses the need to improve the communications network, but there is already a disparity in the roll-out of smart meters, which has seen 65 per cent installation nationally against 20 per cent installation in places such as Orkney. Would the First Minister back a regional approach to the roll-out, with delivery through locally recruited suppliers, rather than the current supplier-led model that uses delivery through installers who are working for multiple suppliers?
That sounds like an entirely reasonable proposition. As Mr McArthur will appreciate from his extensive local knowledge, and particularly given the uniqueness of the islands’ situations, many of the propositions and services that are delivered through local engagement are more effective in being deployed on a more comprehensive basis. I am very happy to ask Dr Allan to raise that perspective in his dialogue with the UK Government on that question.
Private Consultants
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that its spending on private consultants has almost doubled in the space of five years. (S6F-03538)
The Scottish Government undertakes procurement of consultants if in-house resources or specialist skills are unavailable within the organisation. The figure quoted by Rachael Hamilton from the material at the weekend is total spend on consultancy firms, which includes non-consultancy goods and services. Actual spend on consultants in 2022-23 was £8,570,806, not £42 million, and that spend is a decrease from the previous year and at its second-lowest level since 2018.
Spending on private consultants has been £160 million since 2018. If there is a way to waste taxpayers’ money, the Scottish National Party will manage it. Public services are crumbling under its watch, and John Swinney’s response has been to spend all that money on expensive private consultants, with absolutely nothing to show for it. Does the First Minister believe that that is a good use of taxpayers’ money?
A little problem in Parliament is when members do not respond to the detail that I put on the record and read out their pre-scripted question, which has been debunked by what I have just put on the record. It is a bit of a problem with the dialogue in Parliament. [Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
The level of expenditure on consultants, as I said in my original answer, fell in 2022-23 and is at its second-lowest level since 2018. The wider category of expenditure that Rachael Hamilton is talking about includes measures such as the provision of the Scottish household survey and the Scottish health survey, both of which are crucial in determining information that informs Government as well as social policy development in our country. Crucially, they are used by academics. Other examples include the development of a case management system to help us deliver compensation to victims of sexual abuse via the redress scheme. I do not think that members of Parliament would object to the Government investing in such measures, which command all-party support.
I simply assure Rachael Hamilton of two things. First, the Government—indeed, any Government under my leadership—will always be careful about public money. That is why Ivan McKee, the Minister for Public Finance, has a mandate from me to challenge public expenditure at all times. Secondly, we will act to make sure that we maximise the resources that are available to members of the public to deliver public services. That is what people will get from a Swinney Government.
Rent Controls
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reported concerns that its proposed formula for calculating rent controls in the Housing (Scotland) Bill will require above-inflation rent rises for hundreds of thousands of renters, thus not tackling unaffordable rents. (S6F-03527)
The latest data shows that advertised average rents have increased in Scotland by 7.8 per cent in the 12 months to September 2024. It is in that context that we set out our plans for a rent cap of consumer prices index plus 1 per cent up to a maximum of 6 per cent to apply where rent control areas are in force. The maximum allowable increase of 6 per cent will ensure that more significant rent increases cannot go ahead, and basing the cap on CPI ensures that we allow for a reflection of the cost to landlords of offering a property for rent. The approach strikes a balance between increasing protections for tenants with appropriate safeguards in a way that supports continued investment in rented housing in Scotland.
The Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022 provided two vital protections for tenants at a time of health and economic crisis: the moratorium on evictions and a rent freeze. Why does the Government now believe that even the most extreme high rents should always keep going up faster than other prices? Why is the Government now seeking to remove the power for councils to implement their own local rent freezes during times of spiralling prices and rents, which would help them tackle homelessness?
That is not what the Government is doing. What the Government is doing is putting in place protection for tenants through rent controls, and a mechanism to enable that to be the case.
We cannot replicate the circumstances and arrangements that were in place during the Covid emergency when we are not living through a Covid emergency; we would never be able to sustain that either in law or with legal challenge. Instead, we have to put in place a measure that not only provides protection for tenants but enables investment. As we have explained to Parliament, the reason why we have resolved to propose a change to the contents of the bill at stage 2 is to ensure that we can put certainty into the market so that we can attract further private investment in the housing stock of Scotland to enable us to tackle the housing emergency that our country faces.
I was pleased to host a briefing yesterday evening with Future Economy Scotland, debunking some myths around rent controls and highlighting that 82 per cent of Scots back this Scottish National Party policy, which has the potential to have a positive impact on the economy as well as on tenants’ finances. Will the First Minister outline how the proposed rent cap method balances vital protection for tenants with certainty and reliability for the housing sector as a whole?
I am very grateful to my colleague Emma Roddick for hosting that event with Future Economy Scotland, which has made such a contribution to the debate about rent controls in Scotland and has provided such high-quality information that has informed the debate. I suspect that some of that high-quality input has led the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, in its stage 1 report, which was published this morning, to support the principle of using rent controls to ensure that rents are affordable, making it easier for people to find a suitable home.
The Government has listened to tenants, landlords and those who have invested in rented homes, and has acted to deliver the clarity that they have been calling for. The approach that we have announced of limiting rent increase to CPI plus 1 per cent up to a maximum of 6 per cent where rent controls apply ensures protections for tenants from large rent increases and supports essential investment that maintains the quality and supply of homes for private rent. That is the type of pragmatism that I think the country is looking for.
Homes for Scotland has warned that the SNP’s proposed changes to housing legislation will increase the cost of a new home by £30,000 through changes to rent controls. Previous changes to the rent cap stalled £3.2 billion-worth of housing development. Reckless rent controls are not just driving away investment; they are harming our economy. With the SNP miles off from meeting its 110,000 affordable homes target, why is the Government failing to tackle the housing emergency, and why is the Parliament considering a housing bill that does not build a single home?
If Meghan Gallacher wants homes to be built, I suggest that she encourages her colleagues to vote for the Government’s budget, because it is the budget that gets homes built. That is how—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
That is how homes get built. There has to be public expenditure allocated to make sure that we can support the affordable housing programme. If members of Parliament are going to vote against the Government’s budget, there will be no way that house building is undertaken in this country. What this Government is doing—[Interruption.]
Members, can we ensure that, when a question has been put, we can hear the response?
I think that the problem that the Labour Party and the Conservatives have—they are both shouting at me today—is that they do not like the pragmatism that the Government is now deploying. [Interruption.] The pragmatism that the Government is deploying will see investment through public expenditure—if this crowd are prepared to vote for the Government's budget. If they are not, there will be no affordable housing programme. That is the reality that they all must face up to.
When it comes to the legislation that is before Parliament, the Labour Party has got to make up its mind. In committee, it has supported a bill that recommends rent controls. However, when the issue of rent controls came to the Parliament yesterday, the Labour Party voted against it. The Labour Party does not know whether it is coming or going.
You are going.
Excuse me, Mr Sarwar.
We move to constituency and general supplementary questions.
Support for Farming Sector
The Labour Party has shown that it has no understanding of the unique needs of Scottish agriculture and no interest in trying to understand those needs. The removal of ring-fenced funding is a severe blow to Scotland’s farming sector and comes on the back of the loss of multi-annual funding, which was foisted on it by the Tories. Labour’s decision shows that it has little to no interest in farming, food security or the prosperity of rural Scotland and its economy. Will the First Minister outline his Government’s support for rural Scotland amid the latest Westminster turmoil?
The implications for the farming sector of the post-Brexit arrangements are deeply damaging. Prior to Brexit, farmers in this country had seven years of financial certainty. That has been removed and, at present, we have only one year of financial certainty about the support that will be available.
The Scottish Government will try to provide as much certainty as possible, and we will set out provisions in the budget on 4 December. We will also take forward the agreement of the Parliament yesterday to challenge the United Kingdom Government about the changes to inheritance tax, which will be devastating for family farms in Scotland and will severely undermine their sustainability.
Yesterday, at the AgriScot event at the Ingliston showground, I made it absolutely clear that the Government will honour its commitment to return to the rural affairs portfolio the £46 million that it had to use to deal with short-term financial pressures in the past two financial years.
Bus Drivers (Abuse)
Unite the union has found that 84 per cent of bus drivers have experienced abuse in the past 12 months, with drivers frequently being beaten, spat on or threatened by teenagers. A growing number of young people feel that such shocking behaviour is acceptable. There must be stronger measures in place to protect our bus drivers. What action is the First Minister taking to protect drivers and to clamp down on the under-22s who abuse their free bus pass by committing antisocial behaviour?
I have every sympathy with the point that Sue Webber has put to me. Any shape or form of violent or aggressive behaviour in our society is completely and utterly unacceptable. When such behaviour is deployed towards bus drivers who are delivering a public service in our communities, it is wholly unacceptable, just as it was unacceptable for emergency workers to be attacked in the Niddrie area of Edinburgh, as they were around bonfire night. I am wholly supportive of the point that Sue Webber put to me.
I will explore the issue that Sue Webber raised with me about young people who might abuse the use of their under-22 bus pass. I know from speaking to young people how valued that bus pass is by the overwhelming majority of young people who use it properly, never cause any bother and are an absolute joy to be on a bus with. However, there is a minority, and I will explore the point that Sue Webber put to me to determine whether any action could be taken. Obviously, if there is any form of criminal conduct, that will be a matter for the police to address, and I am sure that Sue Webber will agree that we would expect the police to do so.
Bus Drivers (Taxation and Safety)
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests and to my membership of Unite the union.
Sue Webber mentioned Unite’s survey. I note that Unite has repeatedly called for stronger actions, and it is calling for the Scottish Government to convene a safety summit. Will the First Minister commit to that?
In relation to the First Minister’s earlier statement on raising income tax, is he really saying that bus drivers and other workers in Scotland should pay higher taxes in a way that would reduce the Scottish Government’s budget? Perhaps he wants to clarify that point.
I am happy to explain my position on tax to the Labour Party: I believe that those with the broadest shoulders should pay more through taxation. That is what this Government has legislated for. The Labour Party now seems to support a reduction in taxation in Scotland that would cut public expenditure by £1.5 billion, which would be wholly and completely reckless for our public services.
Claire Baker’s question was one of two halves, and I am completely in agreement with her on the issue of support for bus drivers, who deliver an essential service. Measures such as the free bus pass should not be in any way abused in relation to the experience of bus drivers. As I said to Sue Webber, I will explore those issues. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport will be happy to engage with Claire Baker and others on addressing the safety issues. We will follow up on that in the light of First Minister’s question time.
Falkirk Growth Deal
The First Minister will be aware that, later this afternoon, the Falkirk growth deal will be signed by the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments. The First Minister will recognise that the Falkirk Council district is facing significant economic challenges as a result of the decision to end refining in Grangemouth. Therefore, it is critical that the Scottish and UK Governments provide as much economic support as possible to Falkirk Council and the wider district so that those challenges can be met.
Will the First Minister outline how the growth deal will meet the economic challenges that the district is facing and whether the Scottish Government will work with Falkirk Council to identify some projects that could be expedited in order to make progress with them quickly in the next couple of years?
I am very pleased that the Deputy First Minister, along with partners, will sign the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal this afternoon. Through that, we have committed £50 million of support to the region to deliver fair, green economic growth now and in the years to come. I pay tribute to my colleague Michael Matheson for his efforts in articulating the interests of the people of Falkirk and Grangemouth in the composition of that deal.
Through that work, we will explore the use of new technologies at Grangemouth. Mr Matheson will be familiar with the fact that ministers have engaged, through joint working with the Grangemouth future industry board, to identify such projects and to take them forward through the project willow exercise, which is identifying further uses for the Grangemouth refinery.
I have had further dialogue with Unite the union about how the refinery’s lifespan may be expanded, and I intend to persist in trying to do that to provide more opportunities for us to manage the transition effectively.
In addition, there will be £4 million of investment in the skills transition centre at Forth Valley College to ensure that we have the facilities that are required in order to deliver the necessary training, and £12 million will go towards the greener Grangemouth programme, which will be overseen by the community and will deliver projects to improve the town.
Policing (Dumfries and Galloway)
Yesterday afternoon, Police Scotland informed community organisations across Dumfries and Galloway that, following a review of its resources, it will withdraw policing support and reduce its presence at a number of community and local events, such as the riding of the marches, galas and volunteer-run festivals. Those events, which the police have supported for years, are now in jeopardy.
Police Scotland has stated that it “continues to evolve nationally” and that its risk assessment model means that such events are no longer considered a policing priority. Does the First Minister put that down to insufficient resources nationally or repeated cuts to rural areas under a centralised model, or simply to a view that community policing no longer matters?
I will make two points in response to Mr Mundell. The first is that he asked me about a number of detailed matters on which it would be inappropriate for me to answer, because those are operational decisions for the chief constable to take.
My second point is that the Government has substantially increased resources for the police service on a constant basis to ensure that we have effective policing models in the country. I know from my engagement with the chief constable that she believes fundamentally in the importance of community policing and is delivering that.
Diabetes Technology
Today is world diabetes day. In October, I hosted a round-table diabetes technology event, at which I heard at first hand about the difference that technology can make to the quality of life of people with type 1 diabetes. However, even with the new funding, waiting lists are too long. Lothian alone is forecast to have 1,200 adults waiting for a closed-loop system by 2025. England and Wales have five-year plans to get that technology to those who need it. Where is the Scottish Government’s long-term plan?
Those technologies are being rolled out and implemented, and I know from my constituency case load the difference that those technologies make. Obviously, that is a priority for Government in relation to the investment that we take forward. I assure Mr Choudhury of the importance that the Government attaches to tackling waiting times so that people can have the support that they require at the earliest possible opportunity.
Of course, we can deploy resources after 1 April only if there is parliamentary agreement on the budget, so I invite Mr Choudhury to encourage his colleagues to support the Government on the budget that we will bring forward in December.
Career Choices
I am sure that the First Minister will, like me, welcome the hundreds of activities that are taking place across Scotland as part of this Scottish careers week. Those events are a great opportunity to showcase the work by partners to help people make positive education and career choices that will help to shape their futures. I believe that members can even try out some augmented reality tools that will be on show at a Skills Development Scotland reception taking place in Parliament today after First Minister’s questions.
Will the First Minister therefore join me in welcoming the commitment not only from the young people who have weathered the challenges of the past few years by remaining focused on their career goals but from the many careers and teaching professionals whose dedicated support is invaluable to all those looking to make the right choices for their futures?
I am happy to associate myself with Mr Kidd’s remarks about the young people who have engaged substantively in career development. I support them in their efforts and I welcome the arrangements that are in place in Parliament to allow members to engage with that issue.
The Government is working in a focused way to ensure that we maximise the level of positive destinations for young people leaving our school system. Those are at very high levels just now, and that is assisted by the advice that is available through the careers system. The Government will continue to support that work.
Housing Adaptations (Funding)
Wheelchair-bound Brian Gibson has been trapped in hospital in Stranraer for three months and is one of many unfortunate victims of delayed discharge across Scotland.
Brian cannot go home and nowhere can be found for him to live. His landlord, Wheatley housing association, has said that it does not have the money to carry out the required adaptations to his home. Wheatley applied for £3 million from a fund that is normally confirmed in June, but got word only in October that, after months of delay, it will receive only £669,000 from the Government after receiving £945,000 the previous year.
Social landlords and housing associations have suffered a 25 per cent cut in the aid and adaptation budget this year. Will the First Minister investigate Mr Gibson’s case and review the unacceptable and damaging cuts to that hugely important fund, which are leaving people stuck in hospital or struggling in their own homes, before the situation becomes even more intolerable for people such as Brian?
If Mr Carson drops me the details of his constituent’s situation, I will be happy to look into that and see what we can do to assist him. Mr Carson raises a serious and significant issue, because one way of tackling delayed discharge is by doing exactly what he invites me to do, which is to provide more support for property adaptations so that people can sustainably return to their homes.
I am aware that there are inadequacies in the adaptations budget because the Government has had to take a lot of difficult decisions to deal with the pressures of inflation and public sector pay this year. I assure Mr Carson that the issue of housing adaptations is a significant priority and is the subject of discussion between the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and me as we finalise the Government’s budget. That is another reason why Mr Carson should think about supporting the Government’s budget when the time comes.
Work Capability Assessment
During more than a decade of Tory austerity, the United Kingdom Government imposed cruel and punitive welfare reforms and there are further plans to demonise disabled people and those with long-term illnesses through changes to the work capability assessment.
What dialogue has the Scottish Government had with Labour about dropping those cruel Tory welfare plans, which appear still to be on the cards?
The Scottish Government does not support the changes that are being made to the work capability assessment. We will take forward dialogue and engagement with the UK Government to advance the concerns that disabled people’s organisations have put to us and that Rona Mackay has powerfully articulated in Parliament today and we will act to ensure that we provide the necessary support for those who face such challenges.
NHS Grampian (Ambulance Waiting Times)
I have repeatedly raised NHS Grampian’s ambulance-stacking crisis in the chamber, and I have been assured by the SNP Government that action is being taken to address it. However, this week, the chief executive of the Scottish Ambulance Service warned that there has been “little meaningful progress” towards reducing long waits for ambulances outside Aberdeen royal infirmary’s accident and emergency department. I say to the First Minister that enough is enough. Lives are at stake, especially as winter approaches. What urgent action is the Scottish Government going to take with NHS Grampian to fix this mess?
Let me assure Tess White that the Government is very focused on addressing one of the issues that contributes to the problem that she raises with me, which is the extent of delayed discharges in our hospital system. That essentially creates congestion in hospitals. It means that patients cannot be moved from A and E into other, more suitable hospital accommodation, and there is then congestion at A and E, which results in some of the long waits for ambulances that Tess White has raised with me. The Government is absolutely focused on reducing delayed discharge as a significant contribution to addressing that issue.
That concludes First Minister’s question time.
12:46 Meeting suspended.Members’ business will be published as soon as the text is available.
14:00 On resuming—Previous
General Question Time