Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, February 9, 2023

Official Report 1064KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Gender Self-Identification (Rapists)

The Scottish National Party Government ordered an urgent review of how double rapist Isla Bryson, formerly Adam Graham, was allowed into a women’s prison. The review was due to be delivered to prison chiefs on Friday, but we have had heard nothing further about it. The case of this double rapist has been a huge scandal, but the public are in the dark about exactly what happened and who was involved. Will the First Minister publish the urgent review, in full, today?

Before I turn to answering Douglas Ross’s question, I take this opportunity to express my sympathy with the people of Turkey and Syria following the devastating earthquake earlier this week. The suffering and loss of life will be felt for generations. We are committed to doing all that we can to help. Members of our emergency services have already been deployed to help with the search and rescue operation on the ground. Yesterday, we confirmed a £500,000 contribution to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal. I know that all parties will help to promote that appeal following First Minister’s question time. Anybody who wishes to donate, and who is able to, can do so at www.dec.org.uk.

I turn to the question. On the review that Douglas Ross referred to, the Scottish Prison Service provided a final report to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 8 February. Its chief executive met the justice secretary yesterday, in the course of a regular meeting schedule, to discuss it. The cabinet secretary has already confirmed that he will update the Criminal Justice Committee this week. Both the cabinet secretary and the chief executive of the SPS are due to attend a meeting of that committee later in February, at which, of course, members of the Parliament will be able to ask questions, so there will be full transparency about the findings of the review, as is right and proper.

I associate myself with the First Minister’s preliminary remarks. She is correct to say that, after this question time, all party leaders and members of the Parliament will join in solidarity to support the DEC Scotland appeal. I welcome the provision of funding by the Scottish Government, and I believe that the United Kingdom Government is providing significant matched funding on all donations received to support the people in Turkey and Syria who have been affected so terribly.

We are again in the situation where I asked the First Minister a very direct question but I did not get an answer. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice had the report yesterday. The First Minister spoke about there being further discussions with the Criminal Justice Committee, but she failed to commit to publishing the report in full. Will she now do so? Will she confirm that her Government will publish the report in full? It is on the justice secretary’s desk, and I assume that the First Minister will have seen it. The public deserve to see it, because there are still so many unanswered questions.

At the last count, the First Minister had refused 12 times to say whether Isla Bryson is a man or a woman. That is important, because it affects how public bodies treat such criminals when they are released from jail. The First Minister says that she does not have enough information to decide whether this double rapist is a man. He is a rapist. He has a penis. What further information can the First Minister possibly need? When this monster comes out of jail, will the First Minister—[Interruption.] I am sorry; if SNP members are grumbling about my calling a double rapist a monster, they should look at themselves. When he comes out of jail, will the First Minister and her Government consider him a man or a woman?

First, I really think that Douglas Ross is clutching at straws in his follow-up question. I made it very clear that the findings of the report will be published. The cabinet secretary confirmed—I believe that he did so in the chamber—that he will update the Criminal Justice Committee this week.

Today, Parliament rises for a week. Both the cabinet secretary and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Teresa Medhurst, will attend a meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee on 22 February, following the Parliament’s recess week. Members of that committee will be able to ask questions about the review then. I am therefore not sure how anybody can suggest that there will not be full transparency around the review, but I am grateful for the opportunity to set that out again for Mr Ross.

On the subsequent parts of his question, the individual whom we are talking about identifies as a woman. However, it is really important, I think, to very calmly set out that any rights that are associated with that are not a result of any legislation that has been passed by this Parliament; indeed, they would not be a result of that legislation even if it were in force. They are a result of the Equality Act that was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament in 2004, which is, and has always been, effectively based on self-identification. However, that act does not give any individual an automatic right to be treated in a certain way in the prison estate. This case actually demonstrates that, because the individual is in a male prison.

What is relevant here, and is the reason why I have focused on it, is the crime and the nature of the risk that is posed. In this case, the individual is a double rapist. In terms of decisions about how they are dealt with in the prison estate, that is the relevant factor.

Finally, in any group, a small minority of individuals will commit crimes. In no other circumstances do we accept the stigmatisation and denial of rights to the whole group, and we should not do that here.

To go back to the first point about the report, the First Minister claims that I am clutching at straws. It seems that she is clutching on to the report, because she is not willing to issue it in full today. The report findings, we are told, will be published at some point, but why not today? Why not publish the findings and the full report that her Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans has had for over 24 hours?

For the 13th time, Nicola Sturgeon has been unable to say whether Isla Bryson is a man or a woman. She says that it does not matter, because what matters is how they are dealt with in the prison estate. My question was very specifically about how they are dealt with when they leave prison. The First Minister has tied herself up in knots over this issue, unable to answer that basic question because she cannot admit the truth: her Government is going to consider this double rapist a woman. Nicola Sturgeon has brought in a policy that states that everybody who claims to be a woman must be considered a woman, even if they are a dishonest sex offender with a history of violence. Therefore, Isla Bryson will be considered a woman by this Government. That is why the First Minister is refusing to answer questions about this double rapist.

Let me ask her about another offender who is serving time now—not a rapist, but a dangerous criminal with a history of brutal violence. Tiffany Scott, who was formerly known as Andrew Burns, claims to be a woman. Does the First Minister believe that that criminal is a woman?

I think that Douglas Ross is demonstrating a lack of understanding of the law. [Interruption.] Any rights that any individual who identifies as a woman have do not flow from any decisions of this Government or this Parliament. They flow from the protected characteristics provisions in the Equality Act 2004, which is UK-wide legislation and which is and has always been based on self-identification. Of course, the law that was passed by this Parliament is not yet in force. A gender recognition certificate simply enables somebody to change their birth certificate; it does not give trans people any additional rights. That is important.

How individuals are treated within the Prison Service, as I have said, is based on the nature of the crime and the nature of the risk posed. Both of the cases that Douglas Ross has cited today demonstrate that point in terms of the prisons that those individuals are in.

In terms of how prisoners are treated when they leave prison, there are well-established procedures for sex offenders, including those under the multi-agency public protection arrangements—MAPPA. Again, they are based on an assessment of the nature of risk.

These are important issues; they are sensitive issues, not least for the trans community. As I said last week and have said before, the overwhelming majority of them only want to get on with living their lives and never commit any offences of any nature.

I do not think that Douglas Ross does any service to anybody in the way that he approaches the matter. I am struck by something that his predecessor as Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, has said:

“Trying to do gotcha questions about who is a woman, who is a man, I’m not sure that helps, particularly for people in the trans community who are looking at the way this is reported”.

Perhaps Douglas Ross could take some guidance from his predecessor on the matter. That might serve the whole debate better than he is doing right now.

This is not a “gotcha” question; it is a very basic—[Interruption.] I am sorry that there is dissent from the Scottish National Party. It is a very basic question. It is not just me. Journalists are asking it repeatedly of the First Minister, and I would not stand here asking the questions if, at any point in the 13 previous attempts, I had ever got a straight answer from Nicola Sturgeon. Maybe we should focus not on the question but on the deficiency of the answer. She said that I have raised two different cases, and they are very different cases; the similarity is the First Minister’s point-blank refusal to give an answer. I think that she has to look at that.

The First Minister accused me of a basic misunderstanding of legislation. I would have to say that she is guilty of either a basic or a deliberate misunderstanding of her own policy, because it is quite clear that Tiffany Scott—that dangerous criminal—is treated as a woman in a man’s jail.

We have spoken to a former prison officer, who told us this:

“All officers dealing with this individual were ordered to refer to Tiffany Scott as ‘she’ and threatened with disciplinary measures if we didn’t.”

They said that Scott

“has used gender recognition as a tool to create as much chaos as possible within the prison system.”

They continued:

“This is a classic example of devious, dangerous individuals who are exploiting this ridiculous situation.”

Those are the words of a retired prison officer who has dealt with that person.

We also know that female prison officers have been ordered to carry out intimate strip searches of Tiffany Scott. Reports quote officers who say that

“nothing else about Scott has changed physically”,

and the officers say that their rights have gone “out the window”. Does the First Minister agree that that is completely unacceptable, and will she intervene today to stop women prison officers being forced to strip search the likes of Tiffany Scott?

Let me take those issues in turn. First, let me reiterate that the law that this Parliament passed before Christmas, backed by two thirds of MSPs across the chamber, including members of Douglas Ross’s party, is not yet in force. It would not have the impact that Douglas Ross says it would, even if it was in force, but it is not in force, so, by definition, it cannot have that impact.

The policies of this Government on the issues are guided by the Equality Act—I think I said the Equality Act 2004 earlier, but of course it is the Equality Act 2010—and governed by that act, which is a United Kingdom-wide piece of legislation. The rights and protections that trans people have flow from that legislation, and it is important to set that out.

Those in the prison estate are dealt with depending on the nature of the crime and the nature of the risk posed. Again, it is important, for reasons of public assurance, to underline that as well. That is demonstrated by the two cases that have been cited in the media in recent days and here, again, today.

When it comes to searches in the prison estate, the Scottish Prison Service has been dealing with transgender prisoners—although they are very small in number—for many years now. It has been doing that safely and effectively and it is experienced in managing those situations. However, it is also the case that the SPS has the ability to use technology to search individuals without the need for officers to conduct any physical search.

The SPS has a trauma-informed approach to the management of those in custody, and an approach that supports staff as well as the inmates who are in their care.

The SPS is experienced in these matters and I trust its handling of them. It is important that we continue to ensure that they are handled appropriately, which is what the Government, in association with the Scottish Prison Service, will continue to do.

---

Local Government (Budgets)

We are all devastated by the scenes of the horrific earthquake in Turkey and Syria, with a death toll that now sits at—[Interruption.]

12:15 Meeting suspended.  

12:17 On resuming—  

I question disruption at any time, but to disrupt when we are talking about the lives that were lost in Turkey and Syria is frankly disgusting. [Applause.]

The death toll has now reached more than 16,000 people and, as Douglas Ross and Nicola Sturgeon have done, I send my condolences to all those who have lost a loved one in Turkey and Syria. I think of all those families who live in Scotland and have a connection with Turkey and Syria. I welcome the announcements that the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government have made with regard to money and resources to support the relief effort.

I appeal to people across the country. I know that times are really difficult with family budgets, but anything that you can give to support the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal will make a huge difference to families who are suffering in Turkey and Syria. [Applause.]

The Scottish National Party Government is leaving councils the length and breadth of Scotland in a dire position. Despite what Nicola Sturgeon claims, independent analysis shows that the budgets over which councils have control have been cut by £304 million in real terms, which has devastating consequences for vital services. Will the First Minister finally admit that she is cutting local government budgets?

The Government is increasing local government budgets. The resources that are available to local government—if Parliament passes next year’s budget—will increase by £570 million.

Of course, inflation is sky high right now—that is not a result of this Government’s policies—and that is affecting the Government’s budget. It is absolutely the case that local government is struggling with those financial constraints, as are all parts of the public sector and, as Anas Sarwar has just said, households. That is why it is important that we continue to support local government as much as we can.

Obviously, the budgetary process is still under way and will conclude following the February recess of Parliament. We will continue to discuss with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities ways in which we can help local authorities mitigate the difficult situation in which they find themselves.

Of course, last week, I invited Anas Sarwar to point to other parts of the draft budget from which he thought we could take resources if he wants us to give more money to local government. He might have sent those to my office—I do not know—in which case I will look at them, but I suspect that he has not come up with any reasonable, realistic or credible proposals in order for us to do that.

The First Minister knows that we published a document showing £3 billion of waste under this Scottish National Party Government—that would be a good place to start.

The First Minister wants to deny reality. The Fraser of Allander Institute, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Scottish Parliament information centre and Scotland’s councils, including SNP-led councils, are all saying that there is a real-terms cut to local government budgets. That is a truth that the First Minister is not willing to accept.

There is no way for councils to balance their books without further destroying local services. All of Scotland’s 32 councils are united in opposition to the Government’s cuts. A presentation to council leaders last week said that cuts have

“already fallen disproportionately on other council services—libraries, culture and leisure, sports facilities, youth work, waste, roads, parks.”

Those are cuts that have already happened in previous years.

The presentation concludes by saying that the Government’s plans are

“increasingly unrealistic, not sustainable, risk non-delivery of other statutory duties”

and that they put

“the financial viability of local government at risk.”

Councillors of every political party, including the First Minister’s, are angry and warning her of the dire consequences, but Nicola Sturgeon is not listening. As usual, she is right and everyone else is wrong. Why can the First Minister not see the damage that her decisions are doing to our communities?

I think that Anas Sarwar demonstrated the lack of any credible proposals from Labour in the first part of that question.

Anas Sarwar mentioned the IFS, and it is important to underline that IFS analysis confirms that council funding has increased since 2013-14. It has gone up by £2.2 billion, which is 22.9 per cent higher in cash terms. However, it is the case that inflation is high. Anas Sarwar is shouting at me from a sedentary position, “What about real terms?”—yes, inflation is high right now, which is affecting all parts of the public sector, and that is down to the decisions and economic mismanagement of the Conservatives in Westminster.

We come back to the central point. All of us can accept that these are really difficult times for local councils. We will continue to work with and support them as much as we can. However, the draft budget that is before the Parliament right now has allocated all the resources that are at our disposal, including revenue from asking people who earn the most to pay a bit more in tax.

I understand why members make the argument that we should give more money to local government, but any who do so have the duty and responsibility to point to the lines in the draft budget where they think that that money should come from. Should it be from the national health service, the police budget or social security? These are legitimate debates. However, if members want to be credible in such debates, they cannot argue only one side; they have to do both bits. That is what governing is all about.

We can have an honest debate only if we get an honest answer from the First Minister. This is a real-terms cut to local government budgets, and the First Minister is out of touch with reality.

Let us look at what is on the table and the options that councils are being forced to consider. Aberdeen is considering outsourcing all social work and children’s services. Falkirk is considering selling off more than 100 council buildings, including swimming pools and theatres. Glasgow is considering slashing care placements for children, which officials warn will compromise children’s safety and increase the risk of abuse and neglect.

Enough is enough. Members need to get off their backs and speak out against this First Minister, because, across the country, we are facing a future in which children’s music lessons are cut, libraries are closed and bins are collected only once a month. The blame for all that lies with Nicola Sturgeon and her Government. Wherever we look, we see that the Government is losing its grip.

People used to say that the First Minister was competent; now, they are saying that she is out of control—and that is just people in her own political party. After 15 years of SNP Government, local government is in crisis, teachers are on strike and the NHS is on its knees. Will she finally admit that this is an SNP budget for cuts, closures and strikes?

No matter how much Anas Sarwar raises his voice and shouts, it does not cover up the fact that he has not brought forward a single proposal, in relation to a budget that is fully allocated, for putting a single extra penny into local government budgets. He shouts because there is absolutely zero substance in anything that he says. “All sound and fury and no substance” is a good summary of Anas Sarwar.

Let me address some of Anas Sarwar’s points. He has asked about the real-terms position. The £570 million increase that I have spoken about is a real-terms increase of £160.6 million or 1.3 per cent.

Secondly, Anas Sarwar raised the issue of the proposals that councils are looking at. At this time every year, councils look at a range of proposals. This morning, I have seen proposals from Glasgow City Council. The point is made that those are options and that no decisions have been taken. I remember claims being made at this time of year a few years ago that 15,000 jobs would be cut across local government. Since then, the number of jobs in local government has increased by 19,000.

Yes, these are difficult times for local government, but if you want to propose that more money be allocated to local government within a draft budget that is fully allocated, to have any credibility, you also have to say where that resource should come from. In the absence of Anas Sarwar being clear about that, I can only assume that he wants us to take money from national health service or police budgets and give it to local government—or perhaps he wants us to take it from social security, such as from the Scottish child payment.

If Anas Sarwar wants to be taken seriously, he must bring some substance to what is a very difficult debate and a very difficult situation for local councils across the country.

---

Alcohol Advertising (Hospitality and Tourism)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the potential impact on the hospitality and tourism sectors of a ban on advertising alcohol products. (S6F-01795)

First, the consultation on alcohol advertising and promotion is on-going—it is open until 9 March—so I make it clear that no decisions have been taken on scope or on the type of restrictions that might be taken forward in future. The point of the consultation is to get a range of views on the most appropriate next steps in reducing alcohol-related harm, which I hope we can all recognise is one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face.

Considering restriction on the promotion of alcohol is not unique to Scotland. For example, five years ago, Ireland passed legislation to bring in a number of restrictions, which were focused on reducing the exposure of children to alcohol promotion. I think that reducing the exposure of children to that is key.

Ministers have met a range of stakeholders, including representatives of the alcohol and advertising industries, during the consultation period to hear directly from them. Of course, we will take seriously and consider properly all representations that are made.

The First Minister will know that the whisky tourism sector is worth some £84 million annually to the Scottish economy and that it supports jobs in rural and remote communities where there are few other opportunities. As the sector’s leaders have made clear, the sector is concerned about the threat of a ban on all alcohol advertising.

I agree with the First Minister that we need to look at sensible measures to tackle alcohol abuse, but does she agree that it would be absurd if whisky distilleries, which are so important to our economy, had to cover up all their signage, close their shops and stop promoting tours, and the likes of the Johnnie Walker experience in Edinburgh, which is a tremendous tourism draw, had to rebrand itself and board up its windows? That is what people are concerned about.

Yes—to be clear, I do agree with Murdo Fraser on that. I will perhaps come back to that in a moment.

The whisky tourism sector is extremely important to Scotland’s reputation, as well as to its economy. The Johnnie Walker experience centre here in Edinburgh is a prime example of that. In relation to the suggestion that we have heard in recent weeks that painted signs on distilleries or visitor centres would be the target, I make it very clear that those are not in our current thinking. In my initial answer, I mentioned the exposure of children to alcohol advertising. There is a world of difference between a billboard outside or in the vicinity of a school and, for example, a Johnnie Walker baseball cap.

We must look at the issue pragmatically and seriously. I am glad that Murdo Fraser recognised that we have a public health issue—a problem—with alcohol misuse. As countries such as Ireland have done, we need to look at how we sensibly restrict promotion and advertising to try to deal with the problem. We need to do that properly and pragmatically. I hope that my answer reassures those who are in the whisky tourism sector about some of the supposed things that we have heard about in recent days and weeks.

As the consultation on restricting alcohol advertising is still live and no final proposals have been lodged, does the First Minister agree that any potential harm is still hypothetical at this stage, whereas the real harms that the hospitality and tourism sectors are experiencing because of Brexit are being felt right now? The Tories should be pressing their Westminster leaders to address that.

Natalie Don is so right to talk—[Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like it, but there is a difference between hypothetical harm—I understand the concerns that the whisky tourism sector, for example, has expressed and I hope that what I have said today will allay those concerns—and the very real harm that is being done today, right now, by Brexit. The loss of free movement is harming our hospitality and tourism sectors, for example, as well as the wider economy.

In relation to the issue, we will continue to listen to the hospitality sector, the tourism sector and the whisky tourism sector in particular. We will take on board the reasonable points that they make—if only the United Kingdom Government would adopt a similar posture on the concern that those industries have expressed about the real impact of Brexit and the real harm that it is doing to them right now.

Will the First Minister join me in congratulating East Lothian publican Patrick Cairney, who has recently stepped in to prevent two local pubs—the Prestoungrange Gothenburg in Prestonpans and the Tower Inn in Tranent—from closing permanently? Does she recognise that hundreds of pubs around Scotland are likely to close their doors for good this winter?

To prevent last orders from being called across Scotland’s hospitality sector, will the First Minister remove pubs, restaurants and cafes from the chaotic deposit return scheme, replicate the UK Government’s 75 per cent rates relief for hospitality businesses and halt the alcohol advertising and sponsorship review, which will inevitably put further pressure on Scotland’s hard-pressed publicans?

I echo the congratulations that Craig Hoy extended. Like many businesses, pubs are struggling right now with high inflation and high energy costs. We will come shortly to a question about DRS, so I will save my substantive comments on it for that question.

Such businesses benefit from the Scottish Government’s approach to business rates. We have the most competitive business rates regime, including reliefs for businesses from business rates, of any country in the UK. We will continue to do everything that we can to support businesses in these very difficult times. Much of that is down to economic mismanagement by the Conservative Government at Westminster.

---

Deposit Return Scheme (Impact on Drinks Producers)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that 600 drinks producers are concerned about the impact on their businesses, and the survival of them, in relation to the deposit return scheme. (S6F-01796)

We will continue to listen to and, where possible, address concerns that have been raised. In direct response to industry feedback, the Scottish Government has worked with Circularity Scotland—the scheme administrator—to reduce costs to producers, including a reduction in producer fees of up to 40 per cent and a two-thirds reduction in day 1 payments for producers that use United Kingdom-wide barcodes. We continue to work with industry to ensure pragmatic approaches to implementation and we will do so right up to the point of implementation.

Many of the 600 businesses that I referred to are in a state of fear and even despair. Some will close, some will fail and others will no longer sell their produce in their own country of Scotland. Unless it is halted now, the scheme—most businesses believe it to be fatally flawed—will damage Scotland’s reputation as a place to do business. Will the First Minister therefore instruct a pause of this disaster of a scheme before it becomes a catastrophe, and will she order a thorough and independent review of how better to achieve its aims and exclude glass from the scope, as the top six nations in the world on glass recycling have done?

We will continue to listen to and engage with businesses. It is important to say that the steps that we have already taken, which I have set out, demonstrate that. In fact, Scotland Food & Drink recognised that approach when it said in recent weeks:

“These changes mean that some of our key requests have been accommodated, which is positive and means our collective effort has materially improved the implications ... for many businesses.”

Forty-four countries and territories operate deposit return schemes, and only four of them do not include glass. It is, of course, the case that there are strong environmental reasons for including glass. However, on all these issues, we will continue to listen. One of the issues that I am particularly concerned to consider further is whether there is yet more that we can do to reduce any impact on small producers, because some of the concerns that have been raised there are not unreasonable.

We will continue to take a responsible approach, listen to the concerns of business, and respond responsibly in the face of those.

Drinks producers have until the end of this month to sign up for the deposit return scheme. Those who do so will be financially liable for any delays and will have to fork out up to £1.5 million per month. To make matters worse, they are being asked to sign up with key information still missing. If they do not sign up, they cannot sell their products. One leading Scottish brewer described that as “extortion tactics”. Does the First Minister agree that the deadline for such registration should be extended until the full operational, commercial and financial implications of the scheme are provided?

I am struck by the fact that, when we announced an extension to the go-live date for the scheme back in December 2021, I think, to give industry additional time to prepare, that was criticised at the time by the Conservatives among others in the chamber.

The regulations require producers to register ahead of the launch. Registration is now open. However, we continue to work—this is important—with Circularity Scotland and businesses as they finalise their operational delivery plans. The scheme is industry led, and the industry needs to work with the scheme administrator on a joined-up approach to delivering it.

We have already made changes, which I have set out. We will continue to engage with businesses on any further changes that can sensibly be made to take account of some of the issues that they raise.

---

Energy Costs (Prepayment Meters)

To ask the First Minister, in light of reports of people being forced on to prepayment meters, what steps the Scottish Government is taking to support vulnerable people in Scotland with rising energy costs. (S6F-01802)

First of all, the Scottish Government opposes the forced installation of prepayment meters, because that is only more likely to increase debt or leave people unable to heat their homes.

We continue to call on the United Kingdom Government to provide the necessary additional support for those who are struggling with energy bills, and we are doing everything that we can with the powers that are available to us. That includes doubling the fuel insecurity fund to £20 million and providing an additional £1.2 million to help advice services to meet the increasing demand that they are dealing with.

I chaired two energy summits last year. As a result of those, we continue to work with partners to see what more we can do by working together to support and protect Scottish consumers in these times.

The oil and gas giants BP and Shell are reporting record profits on the sale of energy while millions of people are struggling to heat their homes. However, the extortion does not stop there. I have received reports from the Dundee Pensioners Forum that its elderly members are receiving alarming letters demanding payment from their energy suppliers. Those are payments to accounts that are not only not in arrears but in significant credit. When those vulnerable people are unable to pay what they do not even owe, they are threatened with forced installation of prepayment meters.

Although I appreciate that much of energy policy is reserved, the First Minister meets energy providers regularly and has their ear, so will she condemn any use of such bullying and strong-arm tactics, and will she commit to ending the granting of warrants by courts in Scotland for the forced installation of prepayment meters?

I have not seen the letters that Mercedes Villalba referred to, but I, of course, condemn any behaviour that seeks to bully consumers or individuals in any way.

Two issues, both of which are important, were raised in the course of that question: first, the taxation of oil and gas companies and, secondly, regulation. Both are reserved to the UK Government. I wish that that was not the case and that we had those powers here in the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps the member will, in the future, support our calls for such powers.

As First Minister, I cannot instruct the courts; every member understands that. However, within the powers that are available to us—on energy, as the member recognises, those powers are very limited—the Parliament and the Government will and should look at what more we can do to help.

However, on this as on so many other issues, if we did not always have to look to the UK Government—if we held those powers here in the Scottish Parliament—we would be able to do much more than we can do right now.

In addition, we know, from the Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s report on energy price rises, that customers who move into properties that have expensive prepayment meters have to pay for the privilege of having them removed. Will the First Minister confirm whether, as was recommended in last summer’s committee report, her Government has raised with the UK Government the issue of a legal right, in appropriate circumstances, to have a prepayment meter removed free of charge?

Fiona Hyslop has raised another important issue, and I absolutely agree that consumers should be entitled to have a prepayment meter removed from their home at no cost to them. Last autumn, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport wrote to the UK Government on a number of issues, including protections and flexibility for consumers on prepayment meters. Given the recent developments surrounding such meters, I confirm that that is one of a number of issues that we will be raising urgently with both the UK Government and the regulator.

---

Just Transition

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether oil and gas companies are investing enough of their profits to support a just transition in Scotland. (S6F-01815)

I certainly think that more could be done. The energy profit levy investment allowance does not do enough to future proof energy supplies and promote green energy. Energy companies should reinvest their profits—which, right now, are very significant—in industries of the future.

The “Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan”, which was published last month, sets out a clear vision to capitalise on the enormous opportunities that a net zero energy system offers the industry, our economy and our climate. It highlights the importance of accelerating the transition to renewable energy sources. We have clearly and repeatedly set out the actions that the United Kingdom Government should and must now take to ensure a fair and just transition for our energy sector in what will be a decisive decade for action.

Despite the utterly obscene profits of oil and gas companies, investment in transition is not being made at anything like the pace that is needed to keep 1.5°C alive. Over the past week, I have met Shell and ExxonMobil, which operate the Mossmorran complex in Fife—the third-largest climate polluter in Scotland. Does the First Minister agree that we cannot meet Scotland’s climate targets without slashing Mossmorran’s emissions, and will she call on the operators and the UK Government to commit to investment in a just transition plan for the Mossmorran complex?

First, I reiterate the Scottish Government’s commitment to a just transition that meets our climate targets, supports good green jobs for our highly skilled workforce and allows industry to retain international competitiveness. Mark Ruskell is right to say that the decarbonisation of industry plays a vital role in achieving all of that.

Operators, including those at Mossmorran, have much to gain from being at the forefront of a just transition, and I urge them to make sure that that is exactly where they are. Currently, we are developing a just transition plan for Scotland’s largest industrial site, Grangemouth. On completion of that, we will evaluate and consider what learnings can be replicated across other sites, such as Mossmorran.

The “Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan” makes it clear that the UK Government, too, must take action across a number of areas, and we continue to urge it to commit to a concrete timeline and processes to ensure that that is the case.

We move to general and constituency supplementary questions.

---

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill

The First Minister has been sent a letter by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Common Weal, setting out their serious concerns about the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill and asking for the bill to be paused. They are joined by GMB Scotland, Unison Scotland, Unite the union, the Scottish Pensioners Forum, Who Cares? Scotland, Parkinson’s UK, respected professor of public policy James Mitchell, the Scottish National Party Trade Union Group and more besides.

That follows significant criticism of the bill by no less than four committees of this Parliament, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, a host of care providers and those receiving care. There is nothing to prevent the SNP from delivering improvements to social care now, such as fair pay and ending non-residential care charges, but the sector is concerned that it is not listening to their concerns and is intent on bulldozing the bill through.

Will the First Minister pause the bill and take the time required to get it right?

We will, of course, take the time required to get it right. There was, in the letter that Jackie Baillie referred to, a line that she did not read out, so I will. It states:

“We want to emphasise that we share the Scottish Government’s desire to create a National Care Service.”

Several committees of this Parliament are scrutinising the bill at stage 1. When we have all the reports and feedback, we will take time to consider all the issues that have been raised. At that stage, we will set out the timescale for the rest of the legislative process.

In the interim, we are taking steps to improve social care. Let us remember what a national care service is about. It is about ending the postcode lottery in care provision and better rewarding those who work in the sector. In the year ahead, we are taking action to boost social care workers’ pay and getting the initial organisational arrangements in place. We will continue to proceed in that responsible way and, as we do so, we will listen to the views of all the organisations that are signatories to the letter and, I am sure, many others besides.

---

Abortion Services

The First Minister, along with the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport, convened a further summit on abortion services earlier this week, which was hugely useful in exploring further themes for my member’s bill. I am very grateful for the Scottish Government’s support.

Will the First Minister update the chamber on next steps and what she sees as the most important steps that we can take to protect and further abortion rights in Scotland?

I was very pleased to convene, with Maree Todd, the second abortion summit on Tuesday. I thank members from across the parties who attended it.

We had a very constructive discussion on the outcomes of the recent United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment on Northern Ireland’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill and on the further issues that we must consider for Scottish legislation. The discussion underlined the continuing need for national legislation on that matter—I reiterate the Government’s commitment to that—and provided useful insights. The Government continues to work with Gillian Mackay to develop a bill that is robust and effective. I know that we want to see that bill introduced to the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible.

In addition, we were all clear that the commitments to progressing abortion care and ensuring that women have access to high-quality abortion care in Scotland, which are outlined in the women’s health plan, are a priority and will be taken forward.

---

Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry

The BBC documentary “Beneath the Magic Circle Affair” cast light on a very dark and distressing subject. Senior members of Scotland’s legal establishment sexually abused children for decades. Susie Henderson’s childhood was destroyed at the hands of her untouchable QC father and his vile associates, and yet the Government’s child abuse inquiry will not hear evidence about that. Other survivors, including young footballers, have called for the inquiry to broaden its scope. I ask Nicola Sturgeon whether that will happen.

First, I say that the content of the BBC documentary was extremely distressing and disturbing. I think that all of us want to ensure that those matters are properly investigated in the appropriate way. Obviously, any criminal investigations are for the Crown, and it would be deeply inappropriate for me or anybody else to comment on that.

On the Scottish child abuse inquiry, I absolutely hear the points that the member is making, but as he is aware, under the Inquiries Act 2005, the remit and conduct of a public inquiry is entirely for the inquiry, and the chair of the inquiry, and ministers cannot intervene in that. However, it is really important that all of the matters raised are properly scrutinised, probed and investigated in whatever way is necessary. I think that that is something that all of us want to ensure is the case.

---

Energy Prices

A new report from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research warns that households in my constituency and across the United Kingdom could face a £4,000 financial hit from the cost of living crisis this year. What can the Scottish Government do to urge the United Kingdom Government to reverse its plans to allow energy bills to rise again this spring, which will only heap more misery on those who are already suffering?

Paul McLennan is right to raise the impact on households in his constituency and across Scotland. We have consistently called on the UK Government to provide additional support for vulnerable households with their energy costs. Prior to the introduction of the energy price guarantee last October, we called for the energy price cap to be frozen, and now we need the UK Government to urgently consider cancelling its proposed rise along with the reduction in support for domestic consumers.

We continue to take the action that we can to support households, including, as I said earlier, the doubling of the fuel insecurity fund. However, the key levers lie with the UK Government, and we must press it to use those levers in the interests of households and businesses across the country.

---

A9 Dualling

The First Minister has betrayed communities in the north of Scotland with her broken promise to dual the A9. It is clear that the work required to fulfil that promise has never been done, and her Government seeks to blame events that should never have impacted the timetable.

Will she now give us a date for completion of the dualling of the A9, or is she really telling us that the Greens are running her Government?

Let me be very clear: the Scottish Government is firmly committed to completing the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness. [Interruption.]

Thank you.

That is a £3 billion investment. Already, more than £430 million has been invested in it, and road users are benefiting from some stretches that are already dualled.

On the issue that was covered in Parliament yesterday, we have carefully reviewed the submitted tender for that stretch and concluded, after a very difficult and complex procurement procedure, that the award of that contract at this time would not represent best value for the taxpayer. The price of that tender was significantly higher than expected, even allowing for the impacts of inflation and a volatile economy. If we had gone ahead with that, I am sure that, down the line, Opposition members would have criticised us for doing so because it was not best value for the taxpayer.

As the transport secretary set out yesterday, steps will now be taken by Transport Scotland on the necessary preparatory steps for the urgent retendering, with the aim of achieving a contract award before the end of this year, and a new timetable will be set out as quickly as possible.

It is also important to point out that the design work is progressing on the rest of the programme, with ministerial decisions to complete the statutory process confirmed for seven of the remaining eight schemes.

That concludes First Minister’s question time. The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Emma Roddick. There will be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.

12:53 Meeting suspended.  

12:54 On resuming—