Seòmar agus comataidhean

How do you think we can best achieve the public buy-in and support that we need?

To explore that a bit further, we are talking about behaviour change for individuals and organisations, but, ultimately, we need a big radical system change for that to have any meaningful impact. You mentioned a few times today your engagement with business and industry. What more should and could private companies do to communicate their plans for infrastructure investment?

Everyone wants a just transition—I do not think that anyone is against that—and to protect and create good jobs. I am trying to understand where a project such as Rosebank, which is massive in scale, would fit in with a just transition.

I will ask again about the Scottish Government’s position. I fully understand that the decision sits with ministers in London, but is the Scottish Government neutral on Rosebank? Do you have a view one way or the other, or is the Scottish Government happy to sit and let others consider compatibility checkpoints and make the decision? I wonder whether, in private discussions, you say that you are not in favour of Rosebank, and I think that people would like to know whether that is the case.

The committee loves to shine a light on good practice and innovation.

You talked earlier about the need for transparency in decision making. People need to have the tools to combat misinformation and to identify greenwashing when they see it. Thinking again about the Government’s communication strategy, what more could be done to make sure that, when people are given information, it is factual, credible and evidence-based, so that they can trust what they hear?

That is very helpful. Just to get into a bit more detail about what the Government can do and about your clear leadership role, is there room for improvement in the Government’s communication strategy and detailed plans around it? Are there any public information campaigns coming out? Is there anything else that you can point to as an example? We all accept that there is a need for cross-party working and for always being responsible, but what communication tools is the Government using?

I think that you are still on the fence, but I will hand back to the convener.

Thank you, convener—I was dropping hints earlier. Cabinet secretary, I am keen to explore your understanding of the public mood around a lot of this. What assessment has been made of how ready the general public are for all the changes that are needed to decarbonise the economy, including around renewable energy, heat and transport?

It is lovely to be back and to have the opportunity to be with the committee again, and it is good that we have Ann and Gerry Stark in the public gallery today. The loss of their son, Richard, is what brought us all here and what has brought all the evidence and discussion into the Parliament and the public arena.

Ann is a prolific e-mail writer and sender. I do not want to make committee members feel that they are not special, but she has been writing to every MSP and has been getting a very warm response. More and more people are coming forward to say that the issues that we are looking at are very important.

I will not repeat everything that I said in my summary at the session in June. It was quite an intense session with the Lord Advocate and Mr Shanks and, at points, it was frustrating to try and find out who will take responsibility for the issue. Fergus Ewing and Alexander Stewart, in particular, teased out a lot of that. In the end, the Lord Advocate acknowledged that, if we all want a humane and progressive system, we need to be robust and thorough in investigating deaths where there is suspicion, but that it needs to be proportionate.

In prompting the inquiry, the petitioner has highlighted that in Scotland we are not keeping pace with modern practice elsewhere, and not only in England—we have heard about the experience in Lancashire—but in Japan and Australia, and there are other examples. We want to keep pace with that. The evidence that we heard from colleagues in Lancashire gave me some comfort that those innovations have been cost neutral to public authorities. It is important for us, as parliamentarians, to understand the cost implications.

We all want families to be treated with respect, dignity and compassion, but unfortunately that has not always been the case. We have heard about some of the workforce challenges. No one wants to minimise those, but the proposals that have come to the committee would help with workforce pressures and future workforce planning.

I am a Central Scotland MSP, and the family behind me are from Lanarkshire. Rightly, they are wondering why families in Lancashire can benefit from the service but no one has been looking at it in Scotland, until now.

It is welcome that the committee has had an update from the Crown Office on the service redesign during the summer but, to go back to the title of the petition and the ask of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Government has, in my view, been sitting on the sidelines while everyone else has been trying to figure out what to do. It is important that the Government is aware that the Parliament is taking the issue seriously and that ministers are fully engaged. Looking back at the notes from the previous session, I think that the Lord Advocate pretty much said that, if she gets a steer on what to do next, she will do it to the best of her ability, but that it is not really up to her. We need leadership on the issue.

The petition that Mrs Stark lodged is a huge credit to her, but it has been at huge personal cost to her. She spends every waking hour on this, and I can tell you that she does not get a lot of sleep. It is important that we do the right thing by her and other families.

I am interested to hear what Government and other partners will do next because, until now, no one has really picked up the ball on this; it has been left to families, which is unfair. I appreciate all the time and effort that the committee has put in. We started with a blank sheet of paper, and no one really knew what was going on but, now, thanks to the committee, we have a ton of evidence, not just from the United Kingdom but on what is happening internationally, which is really important. I say a big thank you to all the committee members.

To ask the Scottish Government how much it has allocated from its 2023-24 budget to community justice services for the purpose of supporting women with a history of offending and substance abuse. (S6O-02468)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member of Unite the union.

Turning Point Scotland’s 218 service in Glasgow is a lifeline service for women, but, today, Unite the union has called for an urgent review of an £850,000 budget cut by the Government and Glasgow City Council that could force the centre to close and make 30 workers redundant. Will the cabinet secretary agree to review the community justice services budget and this funding crisis with a view to saving the service, saving lives and saving jobs, and to keep the Parliament updated?