Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the First Minister for that answer, but, shamefully, the review has now been delayed until after the elections in May, which is unacceptable to my constituents in Hawick who deserve to know the future of their local station.

The SFRS warned that 500 firefighter posts could be cut over the next three years. That is stark, because it follows warnings that, in addition to the number of firefighters falling by nearly 1,200 over the past 12 years in Scotland, that review could lead to the removal of 166 firefighter posts.

If, God forbid, something catastrophic should occur in the areas where those cuts are happening, will the First Minister shoulder responsibility for the hollowing out of the fire service?

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide an update on the service delivery review of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. (S6F-04675)

I thank the First Minister for that answer, but, shamefully, the review has now been delayed until after the elections in May, which is unacceptable to my constituents in Hawick who deserve to know the future of their local station.

The SFRS warned that 500 firefighter posts could be cut over the next three years. That is stark, because it follows warnings that, in addition to the number of firefighters falling by nearly 1,200 over the past 12 years in Scotland, that review could lead to the removal of 166 firefighter posts.

If, God forbid, something catastrophic should occur in the areas where those cuts are happening, will the First Minister shoulder responsibility for the hollowing out of the fire service?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Presiding Officer, I did not give you prior notice of my intent to speak. In relation to the business programme, I ask for parliamentary time to be scheduled for a Government statement on the continued delay in the release of material connected with the Salmond and Sturgeon inquiry.

Parliament has repeatedly sought clarity from ministers on when that information will be published, yet requests for both a statement and a firm timetable have been refused. Meanwhile, the Scottish Information Commissioner has taken enforcement action after deadlines were missed, and the matter now sits in the courts.

This is not some small procedural issue—it is about transparency and accountability to the Parliament and to the public. Let me be clear that no one is suggesting that the identities of alleged victims and complainers should be put at risk. Court orders protecting individuals must be respected and safeguards against so-called jigsaw identification are essential. However, ministers have said that work to resolve the issue is being carried out at pace. If that is the case, it is simply stating the obvious to say that the Government must know how far through the process it is—or does it mean at a snail’s pace?

There are only a finite number of documents involved. If we are to take what the Government says at face value, work will already have been completed on many of them. It is therefore incumbent on ministers to tell Parliament when publication of the Salmond and Sturgeon files will happen.

There is absolutely no acceptable reason why a firm date cannot now be provided immediately. Continued delay risks giving the impression that process is being used as an excuse rather than its being a necessity, in particular as we approach an election. Taxpayers, whose money has been wasted on this cynical action, deserve full transparency. We are seeing continued concerns about Scottish National Party secrecy and cover-up, and the public are rightly asking how much more public money will be spent before the matter is finally concluded.

The SNP is no stranger to frivolous litigious endeavours. We have already seen enormous legal bills accumulate: £363,000 spent on defending the botched Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill case; £250,000 spent on unsuccessfully testing independence powers at the Supreme Court; £766,000 spent on resisting cases brought by brave campaigners For Women Scotland; £630,773 spent on defending the misconduct investigation into Alex Salmond; and, so far, another £73,024—and counting—spent on attempting to keep the Salmond and Sturgeon files under wraps.

The public interest is clear. Ministers must now provide Parliament with the date for publication, confirm that protections will remain in place and explain how further delay and expense will be avoided. It is for those reasons that I call, again, for parliamentary time to be provided for ministers to make that statement, giving Parliament the clarity that it deserves and the transparency that the public need and deserve.

Given that the River Tweed is an iconic salmon river that provides around £24 million to the economy and 500 jobs, what action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that sewage treatment works and overflows along the Tweed are not damaging water quality or undermining salmon recovery?

Presiding Officer, I did not give you prior notice of my intent to speak. In relation to the business programme, I ask for parliamentary time to be scheduled for a Government statement on the continued delay in the release of material connected with the Salmond and Sturgeon inquiry.

Parliament has repeatedly sought clarity from ministers on when that information will be published, yet requests for both a statement and a firm timetable have been refused. Meanwhile, the Scottish Information Commissioner has taken enforcement action after deadlines were missed, and the matter now sits in the courts.

This is not some small procedural issue—it is about transparency and accountability to the Parliament and to the public. Let me be clear that no one is suggesting that the identities of alleged victims and complainers should be put at risk. Court orders protecting individuals must be respected and safeguards against so-called jigsaw identification are essential. However, ministers have said that work to resolve the issue is being carried out at pace. If that is the case, it is simply stating the obvious to say that the Government must know how far through the process it is—or does it mean at a snail’s pace?

There are only a finite number of documents involved. If we are to take what the Government says at face value, work will already have been completed on many of them. It is therefore incumbent on ministers to tell Parliament when publication of the Salmond and Sturgeon files will happen.

There is absolutely no acceptable reason why a firm date cannot now be provided immediately. Continued delay risks giving the impression that process is being used as an excuse rather than its being a necessity, in particular as we approach an election. Taxpayers, whose money has been wasted on this cynical action, deserve full transparency. We are seeing continued concerns about Scottish National Party secrecy and cover-up, and the public are rightly asking how much more public money will be spent before the matter is finally concluded.

The SNP is no stranger to frivolous litigious endeavours. We have already seen enormous legal bills accumulate: £363,000 spent on defending the botched Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill case; £250,000 spent on unsuccessfully testing independence powers at the Supreme Court; £766,000 spent on resisting cases brought by brave campaigners For Women Scotland; £630,773 spent on defending the misconduct investigation into Alex Salmond; and, so far, another £73,024—and counting—spent on attempting to keep the Salmond and Sturgeon files under wraps.

The public interest is clear. Ministers must now provide Parliament with the date for publication, confirm that protections will remain in place and explain how further delay and expense will be avoided. It is for those reasons that I call, again, for parliamentary time to be provided for ministers to make that statement, giving Parliament the clarity that it deserves and the transparency that the public need and deserve.

Given that the River Tweed is an iconic salmon river that provides around £24 million to the economy and 500 jobs, what action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that sewage treatment works and overflows along the Tweed are not damaging water quality or undermining salmon recovery?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Essentially, the minister is telling my Borders constituents that, if they have a stroke and need a thrombectomy, they must hope that it happens during the working week. Currently, due to a lack of funding and services, patients in the south-east of Scotland can access that treatment only at the Edinburgh royal infirmary and only from Monday to Friday between 9 o’clock and 3 o’clock. The uplift in the stroke funding is only £1 million, so there is still a deficit, and stroke happens not only on weekdays but on weekends.

Previously, Jenni Minto acknowledged that thrombectomy not only transforms patient outcomes but can save the national health service money, due to reduced hospital stays and lower social care costs. I say to the minister that it is time that she committed to meeting me and the Stroke Association to set out a clear and urgent timetable for expanding thrombectomy services for people in the Borders, because they feel that it is currently an inequitable service.