Official Report 1066KB pdf
Public Finances (Transparency)
The Auditor General’s latest report on the Scottish National Party Government’s spending and public services is absolutely scathing. He lays bare the risks that are facing critically important front-line services because of this Government’s lack of transparency. He says that the Scottish Government
“has not been sufficiently transparent with the Scottish Parliament or the public about the current fiscal situation.”
Why is John Swinney’s Government so addicted to secrecy and so disrespectful towards the paying public?
There are two points that I would make in response to Mr Findlay’s question. The first is on the question of fiscal sustainability. The Government has balanced the budget for every one of the 17 years that it has been in power and, as a consequence, we have lived within our means on every occasion that we have had a budget to balance.
The second point that I would make is on the question of transparency around the financial challenges that are facing the Parliament. I do not think that anyone listening to anything that ministers have said over the past 14 years could have in any way escaped the reality we have set out that the fiscal constraint of the austerity of the Conservatives has put unbearable burdens on our public finances and that this Government has delivered against that formidably difficult climate.
That is just the usual SNP whataboutery. This is not the first independent investigation into SNP finances, and I am quite sure that it will not be the last.
The Auditor General says :
“The Scottish Government does not know what savings will result from reform, or what reform efforts will cost”.
I will put that into layman's terms: this chaotic Government does not have a clue. It does not know how much its plans will cost or even how much money it might save. Here is a chance for John Swinney to be more transparent. Does he have any idea—any idea at all—how much his proposed reforms will save taxpayers?
As I said in my first answer, the Government has lived within the resources that are available to us. We have balanced the budget. Is that not evidence enough for Mr Findlay that this Government is able to manage the public finances whenever we have the opportunity to do so?
On 4 December, the Government will set out a budget to Parliament, which will be the accumulation of the choices that we have made about how we invest in our public services and what we ask people to pay to support those public services. That is the honest conversation that this Government has with the people of Scotland. That is what we have done in the past, and that is what we will do again on 4 December.
John Swinney does not seem to have a clue. I commend the Auditor General’s report to him, because he clearly has not read it.
The Auditor General says that the Government has broken a commitment to deliver savings. If John Swinney would like to listen, I will quote extensively from the Auditor General. He says that there is no
“clear vision”
for improving public services; that
“the impact on outcomes is not currently considered or monitored”;
and that the Government
“is not providing effective leadership.”
Under the SNP, there is no leadership, no transparency and no answers; just broken promises, pathetic excuses and ministers making it up as they go along. That is what a John Swinney Government really looks like, does it not?
Russell Findlay might be in a slightly stronger position to argue his case—[Interruption.]
Excuse me, First Minister. I ask members to refrain from interrupting those who have been called to speak.
Mr Findlay might be in a slightly stronger position to provide analytical support to the Parliament if he had not been the person who argued that I should follow the example of Liz Truss. If I had followed the example of Liz Truss, we would have acute problems in the balancing of our budget this year, because Liz Truss and her loyal Scottish ally Russell Findlay would have taken us to the economic and fiscal disaster that she inflicted on the United Kingdom. All I can say is, thank goodness I never inflicted that on Scotland.
Dearie me. It is not my party that is under investigation for financial fraud and is sacking half its staff this week, for goodness’ sakes. John Swinney will leave public services even worse off and waste taxpayers’ money on a grand scale.
The Auditor General states it plainly:
“The Scottish Government cannot afford its current spending choices”.
Auditor General reports are like groundhog day. The same problems are laid bare year after year, but the SNP never, ever learns from its mistakes. Instead, we get broken SNP promises and broken public services. SNP ministers are casually wasting public money with absolutely no regard for hard-working taxpayers. Does the latest report not prove once and for all that John Swinney and the SNP cannot be trusted with our public finances?
Those issues will be considered as part of parliamentary consideration of the budget, which will come after 4 December, when the finance secretary sets out our proposals to the Parliament.
During the week, I got a letter from Mr Findlay setting out the financial propositions of the Conservative Party. On the one side, Mr Findlay argued for a tax cut that would cost, in his estimation—not mine—£1 billion, or £1,000 million. On the other side, Mr Findlay gave me a paragraph about the savings that will be delivered to achieve his £1,000 million tax cut. Those savings amounted to a grand total of £53.74 million. There is a £950 million gaping hole in Mr Findlay’s arguments to me this week. Do not dare come here and lecture me about public finances with the ineptitude that you demonstrated in your letter to me this week.
Let us ensure that we always speak through the chair.
Early Prisoner Release
Today we will debate emergency legislation on early prisoner release. If the SNP Government gets its way, hundreds of prisoners could be released from Scotland’s prisons before finishing less than half of their sentences. In England and Wales, our Labour Government is being forced to clear up the mess that was left by 14 years of the Tories. In Scotland, whose mess are John Swinney and the SNP clearing up?
The Government is wrestling with a situation that is affecting many jurisdictions around the world, including the rest of the United Kingdom. In the aftermath of Covid, we have seen a sharp increase in the prison population as a consequence of the work to address the delays in the court and tribunal system.
The Government has introduced legislation to address those issues and to ensure that we have in place a set of mechanisms that will ensure that our prisons are safe for those who are working in them and safe in the public interest. Those are the proposals that Parliament will consider.
I asked whose mess the SNP was cleaning up—the answer is that it was clearing up its own mess from the past 17 years. The fact is that, in Scotland, the justice system has been independent for ever and the SNP has been in charge of it for 17 years. The emergency legislation is a desperate attempt to tackle the symptoms of a crisis that was created by the SNP.
On John Swinney’s watch, we have Scotland’s prisons at breaking point, our prison estate crumbling, soaring levels of remand, deep cuts to legal aid, a staffing crisis in our courts and huge court backlogs. Warning after warning has been ignored from the chief inspector of prisons, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Community Justice Scotland, Victim Support Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service. Why does John Swinney think that, after 17 years of failure, the answer is to give more power through emergency legislation to the incompetent SNP Government that has failed to manage and reform our criminal justice system?
On the question of investment and reform in our criminal justice system, I will give Mr Sarwar some facts. We have increased investment in justice through a 10 per cent increase in the prison services resource budget for this year alone. In relation to community justice, which is another issue that Mr Sarwar raised, we expanded the investment in community justice this year by £14 million, to a total of £148 million, in order to further strengthen the alternatives to custody, which is exactly the direction of travel that Mr Sarwar is trying to suggest that we should pursue. In addition, we have increased the use of electronically monitored bail, which is one of the key issues in relation to remand. As a consequence of the reforms that we enacted in the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024, we have been able to free up accommodation in HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont to accommodate more prisoners.
The Government is taking the action on reform that is required to address a situation that is affecting all jurisdictions, which is the post-Covid increase in the number of prisoners. Parliament has had discussions about the steps being taken, including approaches to the advice on the pursuit of remand, which the Lord Advocate set out to the Parliament. That is just one of a number of interventions that are being made to address the significant issue that Mr Sarwar raises with me.
The First Minister has his head in the sand. Just this morning, the Auditor General said that
“the Scottish Government is not providing effective leadership on reform”
and that it is
“reacting to events rather than making fundamental changes”.
He also warned that the Government is keeping the public in the dark about the scale of the crisis in our public services. Despite that, just two weeks ago, John Swinney said that there was no need for a change in direction.
After 17 years of SNP Government, every institution is weaker. Our national health service is in crisis, with one in six Scots on a waiting list. Our education system is in crisis, with standards falling. Our housing system is in crisis, with 10,000 children living in temporary accommodation. Our justice system is in crisis, with victims being failed. The need for reform and a new direction has never been clearer. Why is it that John Swinney and the SNP offer only more excuses, a focus on inputs, more incompetence, more waste, and managed decline?
As ever, Mr Sarwar skates past some of the evidence on all those issues. Let us take housing, for example. Mr Sarwar knows full well that the Government’s record is that we have built more affordable houses per head of population than in any other part of the United Kingdom in recent years, in the face of the unbridled austerity of the Conservatives. We have seen increases in activity in the national health service in operations and in the number of day cases that are being undertaken to erode the waiting lists that have accumulated as a consequence of Covid.
Of course, there are challenges with public finances. On almost every occasion since I took office in May, I have rehearsed to the Parliament in my answers to First Minister’s questions the challenges in respect of the public finances. Mr Sarwar has taken issue with the challenges that I have outlined in that respect.
However, let us look at the budget issues with which we are wrestling now. Yesterday in Parliament, we debated employers’ national insurance contributions where we find that, while the Labour Government is offering increases in funding that amount to 1 per cent in our budget—£400 million—once inflation is taken into account, we are, on the other hand, facing an increase in employers’ national insurance contributions of £600 million.
What we have, therefore, is a Labour Government in London giving with the one hand and taking away with the other. That is austerity by the back door, and that is what Labour is delivering to Scotland.
Public Health Levy
In Scotland, there are more than 10,000 deaths a year as a direct result of alcohol, tobacco and obesity. Minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland reduces the harms from cheap booze, but at present it is supermarkets and large retailers that profit from the increased price of alcohol, while our national health service is struggling. That is why the Scottish Greens, when we were in Government, secured a commitment to reintroduce a levy on retailers who profit from the sale of alcohol and tobacco, which would help to fund NHS services.
Can the First Minister confirm whether his Government still supports a public health levy, and whether it will be included in the draft budget when that is published in two weeks’ time?
Those issues are very important, and Lorna Slater raises an important question about the impact of tobacco and alcohol misuse on the health of the population. The Government has taken significant action in relation to minimum unit pricing, and we will continue to focus on measures to tackle this significant issue.
As to the question of a public health supplement, that will be considered as part of the budget process. Of course, I am not at liberty to comment on those issues until the budget comes to Parliament in December.
This week, an alliance of 24 Scottish health organisations have backed the Scottish Greens’ calls for a public health levy in this year’s budget, and polling shows that a majority of the public support it, too. The Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that a levy could raise as much as £57 million a year—money that could pay for smoking cessation programmes, breastfeeding support in communities or increased screening programmes for cancer.
Why, therefore, does the First Minister equivocate on the matter? He has had a whole year in which to design and consult on a new public health levy, so why is it not ready to be introduced now? How will the First Minister respond to organisations calling for its urgent roll-out?
I point out to Lorna Slater that the Government already has in place higher business taxes on larger retailers. That is a source of great controversy, but we have it in place already, which takes into account some of the issues that Lorna Slater raises with me.
Lorna Slater also has to accept that I cannot disclose today the contents of a Government budget that has not yet been finalised. It will be finalised a week on Wednesday. It will be set out to Parliament and there will then be an opportunity for Parliament to debate those issues.
Petroineos Grangemouth Refinery
To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government last met with Ineos or Petroineos to discuss the refinery at Grangemouth. (S6F-03558)
The Scottish Government continues to engage regularly with key stakeholders, following the announcement by Petroineos that it intends to cease refining at Grangemouth. The Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy last met the business on 5 November, and Government officials met staff in the business last week.
Yesterday, Unite the union gave evidence to the Economy and Fair Work Committee. In Unite’s view, Grangemouth is a “profitable” site, and “a distorted picture” has been given from the accounts available. It believes that there can be no justification for a closure now, and that money spent to support a bio-refinery will be wasted if the underlying skill base is lost.
The UK Government, with its inaction, has much to answer for, but will the First Minister commit to working on a pause in the closure, and not accept the loss of that national strategic asset without a clearer path to a just transition?
I recently met Derek Thomson of Unite to discuss the very issues that Michelle Thomson puts to me. She will be aware that the Scottish Government believes that the announcement of the closure of the refinery is a premature decision, and that it accelerates a change that does not need to take place at this stage, but which could be managed over a number of further years to enable us to put more alternatives in place.
Michelle Thomson asked me whether I would support a pause in plans to close the refinery, and I do support that. I have put that point to the Prime Minister and expressed the Scottish Government’s willingness to work with the United Kingdom Government to find a way to work with the company to avoid the premature closure of the refinery. That will be the Scottish Government’s position as we continue to work with the UK Government and the company to try to avoid economic disruption and damage to the Grangemouth area and especially to the livelihoods of the workers who are involved.
The refinery is scheduled to close in quarter 2, skilled workers are already leaving the area—the very people who are needed for the transition—and project willow will not report until later next year. If we cannot have the full willow report sooner, can we see an interim report much, much sooner? Which projects in the growth deal can be expedited to tackle the immediate threat to nearly 3,000 jobs?
I do not think that I could commit to earlier publication of the project willow report. In essence, that is why, in my answer to Michelle Thomson, I argued for more time to reach a situation where other credible opportunities can be pursued. Such opportunities take time to develop. From the Government’s perspective, the important point is that the closure of the refinery needs to be delayed. That is the Scottish Government’s position.
With regard to other potential proposals, I have set out to Parliament the importance that I see in the investment in the Acorn carbon capture and storage project, which would provide significant opportunities to the Grangemouth site. I was very disappointed that we did not get any progress on the issue in the United Kingdom budget in late October. I made that point again to the Prime Minister, because I believe that the Acorn project would provide us with significant opportunity to take forward and address Mr Kerr’s significant point.
It is beginning to look as though the First Minister has accepted defeat with regard to Scotland’s ever becoming an independent country, because, under his watch, Scotland will become the only top-25 oil-producing nation that has no refining capacity. How has it come to this—that a nationalist Government looks away, helpless, as key national infrastructure is lost for ever?
I do not think that Ash Regan has listened to a word that I have said in response to Michelle Thomson or Stephen Kerr, because I said that I am actively pursuing an option to maintain the refining capacity at Grangemouth. If that needs to be stated again, I will state it again to Parliament so that it is clearly understood.
Economic damage will be done if there is no intervention to prolong the life of the refinery at Grangemouth. If we do that, we will have the opportunity to secure carbon capture and storage and to take forward the other projects through the project willow exercise. That will provide a secure future for the Grangemouth site. Let there be no doubt about it: the Scottish Government is actively pursuing these opportunities to protect the workers at Grangemouth.
Road Accident Fatalities
To ask the First Minister, in light of reported figures that over 2,000 people were killed or seriously injured on Scotland’s roads last year, what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether 2024 could see the highest number of road accidents and fatalities on record. (S6F-03550)
I express my sympathies to everyone who has been affected by the loss of a loved one and to anyone who has been injured on our roads. The published finalised road casualty statistics for 2023 showed that the number of people killed on Scotland’s roads fell to 155. That is the fourth-lowest annual figure and the second-lowest figure recorded in a non-pandemic year.
However, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport has previously highlighted the significant road challenges that we face in 2024. Road safety remains a top priority for the Scottish Government, which is why we are investing £36 million this financial year in a broad range of initiatives that are aimed at improving driver behaviour and reducing road casualties.
I agree that one death on our roads is one death too many. Too many families have lost loved ones on Scotland’s roads. It is incumbent on us all to see that trajectory go down and not up this year or in future years. However, the reality of Scotland’s roads is that there is a £2.5 billion backlog of repairs. That does not include what is necessary to upgrade or improve some of the accident hotspots, such as the A9, A96 and A77.
Bearing in mind that 65 per cent of road deaths occur on rural roads, action is needed, and it is needed fast. Is the First Minister’s Government still fully committed to fully dualling every single road that it promised the public that it would dual in its manifestos? How many more lives will be needlessly lost while we wait for that to happen?
The Government remains committed to its investment programme. We will take the action to support road safety measures that I set out in my earlier answer. The transport secretary is actively involved in dealing with many of those questions, and she hosted a road safety summit in February this year to review all current road safety measures. That will remain a very focused part of the agenda that the transport secretary and the Government take forward.
On Tuesday this week, yet another person lost his life in an incident on the A9, and three more people had to be taken to hospital. The Road Safety Foundation has produced evidence that people are three times more likely to lose their lives in an incident on a single-carriageway road than on a dual-carriageway road, and are a staggering 10 times more likely to lose their lives on a single-track road as opposed to a motorway. That means that families in the Highlands in the north of Scotland are 10 times more likely than those in the central belt to lose somebody to a road death. Therefore, will the First Minister make proposals for the swifter dualling of the A9 so that fewer people die? Will he obtemper the promise that was made to the cross-party delegation of MSPs that I led and that met him in June, a full five months ago, when he said that he would give serious consideration to the matter?
I recognise the seriousness and significance of the issue. The incident to which Mr Ewing refers took place in my parliamentary constituency, just to the south of Ballinluig. The Government has already invested in dualling a number of stretches of the A9. When I was travelling on the A9 on Monday, I saw the beginnings of the work that is under way on the next stretch of the road to be dualled, which is the Moy to Tomatin stretch.
As I indicated to Parliament in June, the Government will keep the programme under review to identify whether there is any way that we can move at a faster rate. Officials are in the process of considering the implications of resequencing or accelerating completion of the A9 dualling programme. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has asked that a report on the findings of that work be published when it is complete.
I take the opportunity to extend my sympathies to the family of the individual who lost their life on the A9 on Tuesday, and to all those who were affected by the incident.
This week is United Kingdom road safety week, which is organised by Brake. The Scottish Government road safety framework included a commitment to hold a Scottish road safety week each year. The first took place in March 2022, but there has not been another one. Has that commitment been dropped?
The Scottish Government also committed to raising a national conversation on road safety in 2022. When can we expect to see any progress on that, given that Transport Scotland says that it receives no resources to deliver either of those initiatives?
The Government works closely with Brake to provide support to victims of road crashes. Officials last met the organisation earlier this month, on 1 November. In addition, the Government hosted a road safety summit in February 2024 to review all current road safety measures and to help to identify new strategies to support action towards our 2030 casualty reduction targets.
We will work constructively with different organisations that represent victims of road traffic incidents to ensure that they are well supported in addressing the points that Claire Baker puts to me.
Fornethy House Survivors (Redress Scheme)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reported calls to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow survivors of abuse at Fornethy house to seek redress. (S6F-03553)
I am profoundly sorry to hear what the survivors of abuse at Fornethy house endured and the impact that abuse has had on their lives. I again praise the courage of the survivors in sharing their experiences.
Scotland’s redress scheme was designed primarily for vulnerable children who were in long-term care, often isolated, with limited or no contact with their families. Children who were resident on a short-term basis were not in that position. The eligibility criteria for the redress scheme were extensively debated during the passage of the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021, and the eligibility criteria were included in the purpose of the scheme.
That does not diminish the heartbreaking abuse that the Fornethy survivors faced. The Deputy First Minister met the survivors to explain the decision to them directly and will continue to engage with them.
First Minister, words are not enough. In January 2023, the First Minister told the Education, Children and Young People Committee that it was
“possible for Fornethy survivors to be successful in applying under the scheme.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 12 January 2023; c 14.]
Now, his Government is saying that they will not be successful because it was so-called “short-term care” under arrangements that involved parents.
Is it not the reality that the length of time of any abuse is irrelevant? Abuse is abuse. Those wee girls were sent to Fornethy as a result of clear direction from the state. They were cut off from their parents and subjected to unimaginable physical, mental and, in some cases, sexual abuse by staff who were employed by the state. However, the state has utterly failed to take responsibility.
First Minister, will your Government now take responsibility? Will it do the right thing and widen access to the redress scheme for those brave survivors?
I recognise the significance and seriousness of the issue. As the person who took the bill through Parliament, I did all that I could during the parliamentary passage of the bill to ensure that the scheme that we brought forward was as extensive and comprehensive as it could be.
I made the comments to which Mr Smyth referred during an evidence session with the Education, Children and Young People Committee when public authorities were still researching the bases on which and circumstances in which children were placed in Fornethy house. Those factors would have a bearing on eligibility for the redress scheme that Parliament approved.
The independent research that was undertaken as part of the commitments that were made to the Fornethy survivors reported that, according to such records as exist, children were primarily placed in Fornethy house for short-term care with the agreement of their parents. That is fundamentally different from the circumstances that the Parliament legislated for in the scheme.
Fornethy house will be a case study in the next phase of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, and there will be an opportunity for further exploration of the issues and the circumstances involved in those cases.
We move to general and constituency supplementary questions.
Winter Fuel Payment
With energy prices set to rise again in January, households across Scotland will be facing significant pressures when it comes to heating their homes this winter. During the election campaign, Labour promised to cut fuel bills by £300. Instead, bills have gone up, and although the Scottish Government is delivering the low-income winter heating payment and other initiatives to support those who are most in need, the United Kingdom Labour Government is callously cutting the winter fuel payment to pensioners. Will the First Minister join me in calling on the UK Government to make good on its manifesto commitment to tackle rising fuel bills and reverse its winter fuel cut?
I think that members of the public will be stunned that a Labour Government that promised to reduce fuel bills by an average of £300 has seen those bills increase in October, with the likelihood of further increases coming in January. To compound that difficult situation, the withdrawal of the winter heating payment means that more than 400,000 people on low incomes who have been eligible for that entitlement will lose it.
It is a very serious situation that pensioners in particular in our society are facing. I make the plea today, because it is absolutely central to what we need to do, that we get the UK Government to reverse the unwarranted cut in winter fuel payments, which is damaging the livelihoods and circumstances of pensioners in Scotland.
Domestic Abuse
This week, shocking figures on domestic abuse were released, which indicated that the number of cases reported to Police Scotland had risen by 3 per cent and equalled almost 64,000 cases—that is one incident every 10 minutes. Behind every number is a terrible real life story. Next week marks the beginning of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. However, those latest horrific statistics show that we are moving backwards, not forwards. When will the Scottish Government stand with survivors and take concrete action to eliminate domestic abuse by supporting my proposed domestic abuse (prevention) (Scotland) bill, which will protect victims of domestic abuse and has been backed by organisations and survivors?
The Government is engaging with Pam Gosal on her bill. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs had a productive meeting with her on 25 September, and we will consider full details when we have further detail on the component parts of the bill.
On Pam Gosal’s comments about the Government’s approach to domestic abuse, I remind Parliament that the Government introduced—and Parliament supported—the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which was implemented in the subsequent year. That act strengthened the legal protection for victims of domestic abuse and significantly increased the constraints on any perpetrators of domestic abuse.
The figures to which Pam Gosal referred are unacceptable, but they indicate that more individuals are coming forward to report offences and to ensure that the perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to account. Fundamentally, men’s behaviour must change, and the Government will put in place the legislative framework to enable that to be the case. Domestic violence must come to an end, and that will happen only when the behaviour of men changes.
Civil Legal Aid
This week, The Herald has been running an excellent series to highlight the crisis in legal aid. It is not only in criminal legal aid that lawyers are abandoning their profession, but in civil legal aid. Four out of five lawyers who work in civil legal aid in Glasgow will no longer take on protective order cases for victims of domestic abuse. In 1999, lawyers accepted the principle of one fee of £500 for work on a single case; 25 years later, that fee is only £572, and more work is required, which has resulted in many young lawyers entering the legal profession with better options, including the Crown Office.
Does the First Minister accept that this is a crisis and that it would be reprehensible if domestic abuse victims could not access a lawyer? Does he agree that the way forward is for Scotland to invest in the whole legal aid system—in fact, the whole justice system—by an annual uprating of fees and by invigorating the trainee scheme to encourage young lawyers to choose that branch of the legal profession to demonstrate that there is a future for legal aid in Scotland?
It is essential that young lawyers who are emerging into the legal profession enter a variety of elements of that profession. The points that Pauline McNeill has made in that respect are absolutely valid.
Evidence from the Scottish Legal Aid Board shows that cases that involve allegations of domestic abuse are coming through the judicial system. That is welcome, because it is important for those who are reporting potential crimes to see those crimes pursued as part of the judicial system.
The Government will engage actively on questions in relation to the future of legal aid. We recognise that reform is needed in the legal aid system, which is why our document “The Vision for Justice in Scotland” contains an action plan to reform it. We will take forward the actions that are set out in that document.
Ukraine Invasion
It is now more than 1,000 days since Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine—1,000 days of courageous resistance and sacrifice by the Ukrainian people. How has the Scottish Government supported Ukrainians, and what assurance can the First Minister give that Scotland will continue to stand in solidarity with Ukraine for as long as it takes?
I thank Colin Beattie for raising the issue and reminding the Parliament that it is now more than 1,000 days since the illegal invasion of Ukraine. There is absolutely no justification for the invasion, and the Russian aggression must be repelled.
Scotland has stood in solidarity with Ukraine. We have provided sanctuary to more than 28,000 people who were sponsored by the Scottish Government or an individual in Scotland to come to this country. More than 21,000 of those arrivals are part of the Scottish Government’s support scheme. We have invested heavily in providing the support that is available to Ukrainian refugees to come here, and I make it clear that those Ukrainian refugees are welcome in Scotland and play an important part in our country.
I reiterate the unacceptability of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, the determination to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian population and the need to repel the Russian aggression. That is a necessity in our modern world today.
Universities (Redundancies)
Due to factors including a sustained decline in public funding, Robert Gordon University might have to make up to 135 redundancies. The University of Dundee, with a £30 million deficit, has said that redundancies are inevitable. The University of Edinburgh warns of job cuts in response to unsustainable funding. Anton Muscatelli, the outgoing principal of the University of Glasgow, has asked why our Government should not
“properly fund higher education for our own students?”
Will the First Minister answer him by agreeing to an open-minded, cross-party, multistakeholder collaboration on university resourcing, or does the First Minister prefer ideological purity and redundancies?
I prefer to invest in the university system, which the Government does, with £1 billion of public expenditure and a commitment to work collaboratively with the university sector to ensure that Scotland’s research excellence can be deployed as part of the overall economic approach in Scotland. Innovation and creativity lie at the heart of taking forward the fantastic elements of research that come from our university community.
What is not helping our universities just now is the fact that they face a significant increase in employer national insurance contributions. That is the point that has been made by the principal of the University of Edinburgh: the shock to the university’s finances of the United Kingdom Government’s unilateral action in increasing employer NI contributions. It is another argument for why that particular policy approach by the UK Government needs to be reversed.
CAVU (Redundancies)
The First Minister might have seen reports that airport travel company CAVU, which has taken over a passenger lounge at Edinburgh airport, intends to make 16 people redundant by exploiting a loophole in the law rather than undertaking the usual Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—TUPE—transfers that one might expect. Does the First Minister agree not only that that is morally reprehensible but that, at a time of tight labour markets, such fire and rehire practice is entirely counterproductive for anyone seeking to be a responsible employer?
I have already written to the chief executive of CAVU to ask him to reconsider putting people out of work just weeks before Christmas. Will the First Minister do likewise?
Obviously, in any circumstances of that nature, the Government’s commitment is to the fair work principles, which should be applied in all circumstances by all employers in Scotland. I encourage the employer who is involved in the case that Mr Johnson puts to me to do exactly that.
Post Office Branch Closures
Last week, the Post Office announced the closure of all 115 Crown post office branches that are owned directly by the United Kingdom Labour Government, with the loss of up to 1,000 jobs. One of the 10 Scottish branches that are slated for closure is in Saltcoats, which is in my constituency.
Post offices provide a range of vital services—vital particularly to older people who are less comfortable with technology. The loss of services and jobs will be felt keenly. Will the First Minister outline what representations the Scottish Government is making to UK ministers to save these important community resources?
I understand the point that Mr Gibson puts to me. The provision of access to post office services in communities is crucial in ensuring that there is an effective network available. We will certainly make sure that the representations that Mr Gibson has made to me today are taken up with the United Kingdom Government, so that all constituents, especially those to whom Mr Gibson referred, have access to a viable and effective network of postal services in Scotland that meets their needs.
Unpaid Carers
The First Minister will be aware of the recently published “Valuing Carers” report, which highlights that, according to data collated from the 2022 census, the value of unpaid carers to Scotland is £15.9 billion, which is not far short of the total national health service budget for 2022. Will the First Minister join me in recognising the contribution of unpaid carers? What more can the Scottish Government do to ensure that they are properly supported?
I am happy to associate myself with Mr Whittle’s comments. Last Friday morning, as part of the lead-up to carers week, I met a group of carers’ representatives in my constituency. I listened with care to the issues that they raised with me.
The Government has put in place, for example, measures to support short-term breaks for carers and measures to enhance carers allowance. We will reflect on such issues as we consider the contents of the Government’s budget.
I agree whole-heartedly with Mr Whittle that the contribution that is made by carers is absolutely fundamental to the delivery of care support in households and communities around the country. We simply could not provide the level of care that is provided by unpaid carers to support their loved ones and our society in these days.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Point of Order