Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Thursday, February 3, 2022

Official Report 1136KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Covid-19 (Protective Measures in Schools)

The Covid pandemic began more than two years ago. The Scottish Government has had all that time to make our schools fit for use. Why, then, are we in the position, after so much time, that one of the Government’s ideas to protect kids and teachers is to chop the bottom off of classroom doors?

First, our schools are fit for use, thanks to the dedication of teachers and other school staff. Thanks to the sacrifices of young people and their parents, we have managed to keep our schools open during some of the most challenging phases of the pandemic. That is a credit to everybody in our education system.

The Scottish Government continues to take a range of measures to ensure that children and staff working in schools are as safe as it is possible for them to be. One of those measures is, of course, one that Douglas Ross, against all logic and most expert evidence, opposes. That is asking staff and pupils in our secondary schools to wear face coverings. It is a basic mitigation.

On the issue of ventilation—

Chopping the bottom off of doors.

Douglas Ross is shouting, “Chopping the bottom off of doors.” [Interruption.] In trying to improve ventilation in a room, a number of things need to be done. Partly, it can be about air filtration to purify the air; partly, it is about ventilation and mechanical ventilation systems. [Interruption.] However, it is also partly—

First Minister, I am sorry. We are just beginning this session and I am very keen that all members can hear the questions and responses. Thank you.

The key point is that it is partly about taking measures to ensure that the natural flow of air in a room is maximised. If doors or windows are not enabling that natural flow of air in the way that is wanted, it strikes me as basic common sense to take measures to rectify that. Therefore, we have given additional money to local authorities to allow them to take whatever steps are needed—air filtration systems, mechanical ventilation or basic rectification of the structure of classrooms—to improve the natural flow of air. That strikes me as basic common sense. If Douglas Ross wants to have serious discussions about these matters, perhaps he could start by making sure that it is a grown-up discussion.

I want to have a serious discussion about the matter. This is a grown-up matter and issue. It was telling that, in a very long answer of several minutes, the First Minister could not bring herself to accept that it is about chopping the bottom off of doors. However she tries to dress it up and say that it is basic common sense, it has been met with derision. It is a serious issue.

There are more consequences, including safety issues. Concerns have been raised about the risk from fire from the plan. This morning, a retired firefighter wrote to us. He said:

“The doors in a school are essential for holding back heat and smoke, should a fire start.”

The First Minister wants a grown-up and serious conversation about the matter, so does she agree with that quote from the retired firefighter and will she stand up and tell us what consultation her Government had with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service about the plans?

This is an absurd line of questioning. First of all, to aid Douglas Ross’s understanding of the situation, I point out that we are not requiring local authorities to chop the bottom off every door in every classroom across the country. I am struggling to believe that I am having to take Douglas Ross through the matter in such a basic manner.

The first point—[Interruption.]—is this one. If a door is hung in such a way that it is inhibiting the natural flow of air, one of the options that a local authority should have is to rectify that—[Interruption.]—and we are giving them some money to do that.

First Minister, can you pause for a moment? I am finding it difficult to hear the First Minister from here. I would be grateful if members could have a bit of respect when people are asking questions and responding to them.

I am finding it quite difficult to believe the infantile approach of the Scottish Conservatives to such serious issues.

My second point is that health and safety applies to all the decisions that a local authority makes when deciding which measures to take. The Scottish Government is giving local authorities the financial wherewithal to do what they consider necessary to improve air flow and ventilation in schools. Most of the spaces in our education estate will not need any of those measures. Where buying air filtration systems, such as high-efficiency particulate air filters, is appropriate, local authorities will have the ability to do that; where there is a need to deploy mechanical ventilation, they will do that; and, yes, where there is a need to make some basic structural changes to aid the flow of air, they will do that, too. That is basic common sense, which is perhaps why—I do not know—it is evading Douglas Ross.

I do not know why it is evading Nicola Sturgeon to just accept that it is chopping the bottoms off of doors. It may be “basic structural changes” in the language of Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish National Party, but it is basically chopping the bottoms off of doors.

It is interesting that the First Minister called my questions an infantile approach given that in her answer she could not bring herself to respond to the retired firefighter who is raising concerns and to confirm to Parliament what discussions and consultations she had with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service about the changes that her Government is asking councils across Scotland to make.

The First Minister also said that a range of measures are in place. Some of those are much more appropriate, but they are being delivered far too slowly. She mentioned the HEPA filters, so let us look at those. Bringing in air filters for classrooms is a far more sensible approach, which has been welcomed by every party in the chamber. I again ask the First Minister to answer a basic question. Can she tell us how many of those essential filters her Government has distributed across Scotland and how many are up and running in our classrooms right now?

First, I say to Douglas Ross that I addressed the point about fire safety: all those issues have to be taken into account when local authorities are making decisions on health and safety grounds for schools.

Secondly, is Douglas Ross really saying to me that if, in the judgment of the people who make those health and safety decisions for local authorities about our school estate, the way in which a door is hanging is inhibiting the air flow, he thinks that no rectification should be made to that? That is why I think his approach is utterly infantile.

Finally, on the point about HEPA filters or air cleaning and filtration units, which are temporary solutions—they are not recommended as long-term or permanent solutions for improving ventilation—we are not distributing those to local authorities. We have set up a £5 million ventilation fund so that local authorities can take the remedial measures that they think appropriate for any spaces in the education setting that they think require those.

On the estimate for the number of spaces, the funding that we have made available would enable local authorities to install, if they think it appropriate, air cleaning and filtration units, small mechanical ventilation units or extractor fan units, or to make some basic structural changes to windows or doors if that is thought appropriate. We have provided £5 million in funding for the spaces that need such rectification, and the estimates suggest that what is required is £4.3 million, so we have built in some contingency. We have provided funding for local authorities, but we are not requiring them to chop anything off of doors; we are enabling local authorities, guided by health and safety considerations, to take the actions that they consider to be necessary.

The only thing that is being chopped off in this session of First Minister questions—it is entirely self-inflicted—is Douglas Ross’s own legs at the knees.

They are still here, First Minister.

This is First Minister’s questions and, just once, it would be nice to get a First Minister’s answer. There was still nothing in her reply about the consultation that her Government has had with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. For the third time, First Minister, what discussion has the Government had with the SFRS about the proposals?

The funding has gone to local authorities, but the Scottish Government surely does not just give millions of pounds to local authorities without expecting to know how many air filters are being distributed. I would like an answer to that. The First Minister must know how many there are and how many are in place right now.

I thought that, throughout the pandemic, there was consensus across the Parliament and Scotland that young people’s education should be the priority. However, schools seem to have fallen down the priority list for the First Minister’s Government. Kids still have to wear face masks in the classroom when the requirement has been lifted elsewhere. This week, the Educational Institute of Scotland union described the extra funding for ventilation as “long overdue”. On Sunday, a spokeswoman for the Scottish teachers for positive change and wellbeing group said:

“We’ve had summer 2020, we’ve had summer 2021, we’ve had two winters and two periods of long lockdown where all these things could have been put in place”.

They are right, aren’t they? Will the Government pick up the pace and guarantee that all the serious ventilation measures—not chopping the bottom off of doors—will be in place by the time that schools go back after the February break?

It is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that they have taken appropriate actions on ventilation in schools. We are providing them with the money to do that.

On the question about consultation with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, we are providing local authorities with the money and it is their responsibility to assess the spaces in schools. Local authorities are responsible for that, and we are often challenged in the chamber to respect the powers of local authorities. They have the ability and responsibility to do that, and the expectation is on local authorities to have appropriate consultations with the SFRS, if necessary, before making any changes. That is how these things work and it is how they will be done, rightly and properly.

Douglas Ross wants to pick and choose the mitigations that he thinks are appropriate. Today, he is talking about ventilation. He is absolutely entitled to ask the questions—if I was in his shoes, I might try to ask better questions, but that is just a matter of opinion. However, when the majority of expert opinion says that, in order to help us to keep schools safely open—as we have managed to do for most of the pandemic—it is appropriate to ask staff and secondary school pupils to wear face coverings, he opposes that for political opportunistic reasons.

Let us continue, as this Government is doing, to take the balanced approach to keeping our schools safely open. That is the responsible approach that this Government has been taking, and in that approach, according to all evidence, we are backed by the majority of people in Scotland. We will leave the political opportunism and, frankly, infantile approaches to Douglas Ross and the Conservatives.

---

Energy Price Increase

Today, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets announced an inflation-busting energy price increase that will cause pain and distress to hundreds of thousands of people across our country. Across Scotland, people will be wondering where they will, just months after bills rose by £139, find the extra £693 to keep the heating and lights on.

At the same time, Shell has announced profits of more than $19 billion, which equates to more than £27,000 profit every minute. That is why Labour proposed a windfall tax on the profits of energy companies to help to pay for measures that would save most households £200 and the most vulnerable households £600. It is reasonable for those who are profiting from the crisis to help to cover the costs of the families who are struggling most. Why did Scottish National Party MPs fail to vote for those measures in the House of Commons on Tuesday?

I will come to the specific issue of a levy on oil and gas in a second. First, I recognise the point that today’s Ofgem decision on the energy price cap means that the increase in energy costs will be just under £700. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was still on his feet when I came into the chamber, so I have not heard all the detail of what he said, but he has just announced what sounded like welcome steps to help to mitigate the increase. However, in my view, those steps do not go far enough. They seem to offer about £350 of help against energy bill increases of around £700.

I also do not yet know what the position on consequentials will be, but I give the commitment, assuming that there are the consequentials that I expect, that every single penny will go towards helping people in Scotland to deal with the cost of living crisis.

There is one issue that we will have to deal with in Scotland, because part of the chancellor’s announcement today was about council tax rebates. Of course, average council tax bills in Scotland are already significantly lower that they are in England. In band C council tax, people pay on average £525 less in Scotland than they would pay in England.

Another difference is that, because of decisions that were made by the SNP Government, approximately 400,000 people in Scotland do not pay any council tax because we have, unlike the situation in England, a council tax reduction scheme than can deliver up to 100 per cent relief. We will have to consider how to help people who also have rising energy bills; we are determined that that help will be delivered.

On the oil and gas levy, the SNP believes in fair and progressive taxation. Those who have the broadest shoulders should pay the most, which certainly includes companies, including oil and gas companies, that have rising profits. During the pandemic other companies fell into that category; Amazon’s profits are rising and supermarkets have had rising profits. We need to make sure that we take a fair approach.

The Scottish Government does not have the power to do that; it is a decision for the UK Government. My only caveat is that we need to ensure that the burden of rightly providing households the length and breadth of the UK with as much help as possible does not fall only on people, jobs and investment in the north-east of Scotland, at a time when we are trying to make the transition from oil and gas to renewable energy in order to meet our net zero targets.

For decades now, Westminster Governments have seen the north-east of Scotland as a cash cow, so let us make sure that, however the UK Government chooses to fund it, the help that I agree with Anas Sarwar must be provided is provided fairly, so that all the companies that have the broadest shoulders get the chance to contribute to it.

A one-off windfall tax on one company in one year that has made $19 billion profit, which equates to £27,000 a minute, will not mean that the company will disappear. It is not going anywhere. It is also difficult to suggest that because a windfall tax would benefit people in Doncaster, we should not be acting to help people in Dundee. That just does not sound credible.

We know that more than 200,000 pensioners already live in fuel poverty. That number will only increase because of the crisis. Back in September, we warned that Scotland was facing a cost of living crisis, and we outlined proposals for an increase to the winter fuel payment. The winter fuel payment is devolved to the Scottish Government, but rather than act, it handed it back to the Tory-run Department for Work and Pensions. In contrast, the Labour-run Welsh Government did act, by setting up funding to provide £100 to help families who are struggling with energy bills. It is now doubling that payment to £200. Will the First Minister now back our proposals and increase the winter fuel payment?

I will come on to what the Scottish Government can do, is doing, and will do, in a moment.

On the question about a levy, Anas Sarwar has asked me about something that I have no power to do, but I have no ideological objection to companies whose profits are rising—whether because of the global increase in gas prices or the effects of the pandemic—being asked to contribute. That includes oil and gas companies. I am simply saying that, if the UK Government is going to do that, it should do it fairly so that all companies that can make a contribution do so, and so that we do not just have another Westminster Government seeking to use only the north-east of Scotland and its people, jobs and investment for benefit. That, rightly, should be shared across the UK. If that is what the UK Government decides to do, I am certainly open to having companies that can do so making that contribution.

On what the Scottish Government can do, let me talk about what we are already doing. As I said earlier, council tax bills in Scotland are already significantly lower: band C council tax is, on average, £525 lower than it is in England, and is £376 lower on average than it is in Wales. We have a council tax reduction scheme that gives 100 per cent relief to approximately 400,000 people in Scotland. That is not available in most parts of England.

On payments during the pandemic, towards the end of last year approximately 500,000 households got a £130 support payment because of the pandemic. More recently, of course—which is more relevant to the issue we are talking about now—we have established the £41 million winter support fund, which is helping people to heat their homes—

Briefly, First Minister.

The fund is helping with rising food costs and will allow support to be given to those who most need it. We will continue to do everything that we can do, including passing on any and all consequentials that come from the chancellor’s announcements today.

The First Minister is missing the point. Things are getting worse right now and pressure is being put on people’s bills right now. Labour’s proposal predated the cost of living crisis. The First Minister says that we should look at such a tax across the board. On Tuesday, when the proposal was considered, Scottish National Party members of Parliament failed to vote for a tax on companies that are making profits of, for example, $19 billion in one year.

The Scottish Government would rather play politics with the cost of living crisis than take action using the powers that it has. It is a Government that is lacking ambition and which is failing to use the Scottish Parliament. It is a Government that stands with energy companies that make £27,000 a minute, not with people who are struggling to pay their bills. It has refused to use the powers of the Parliament to top up winter fuel payments, it has refused to back Labour’s proposal for a windfall tax on energy companies, and it has refused to stop rises in rail fares and water charges. The SNP is siding with the Tories and big energy companies, while Labour is on the side of hard-pressed Scots.

People are struggling right now. When will the First Minister stop commenting on the cost of living crisis and start doing something about it?

I know that his script was written before I gave my answers, but Anas Sarwar could still have listened to my answers. I am not opposed to oil and gas companies making a contribution when their profits are rising. I am saying simply that whatever approach is taken should be fair and equitable. That is the point that I am making. I also make the basic point that I do not have power over that. If Anas Sarwar wants to join me in demanding that the powers in question come to the Scottish Parliament, we might make some progress.

On what the Scottish Government can do, I am telling Anas Sarwar things that I am sure he knows; I certainly hope that he knows them. We have acted ahead of other Governments to deal with the cost of living crisis and, in particular, the energy cost crisis. As I mentioned, we have recently established the winter support fund. Of that £41 million, £10 million will be available to help people who are struggling to pay fuel bills. That will include provision of top-up vouchers and better support for people in remote and rural areas. Third sector partners will receive £6 million so that they can give direct support to low-income families, and £25 million of flexible funding will be available to local authorities to help them to support people who are in financial insecurity.

We have already acted ahead of other Governments. If consequentials come to us as a result of the chancellor’s announcements today, we will take further action. We will continue to look across our budgets to make sure that we are maximising the support that we give.

Scottish Water will announce its decision on increases shortly. Affordability for customers will be at the heart of that. Average water charges are lower in Scotland than they are in other parts of the UK. Similarly, rail charges are lower in Scotland than they are in other parts of the UK.

We will continue to take the decisions that are necessary to support hard-pressed people. We do far more of that than any other Government across these islands.

I will now take supplementary questions.

---

Heat and Smoke Alarms (Financial Support)

I would like to raise the issue of financial help for people who qualify, through Care and Repair Scotland, for help in installing heat and smoke alarms. In part of Midlothian, in my constituency, there is no Care and Repair service. The council says that it has nothing to do with it and has directed me, on behalf of constituents, to approach Care and Repair Scotland. Not surprisingly, Care and Repair Scotland’s phone line is constantly engaged and emails go unanswered. What can my constituents do?

We have already provided additional funding. We are also in discussion with Care and Repair about what further support can be provided. I take Christine Grahame’s point about people—including people in her constituency—who do not have access to that service. I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government takes that into account and provides an update to Christine Grahame as soon as possible.

---

North-east Scotland (Oil and Gas Industry)

More than six weeks ago, an open letter that was signed by more than 50 north-east councillors and business leaders, which decried the potentially devastating impact of recent statements on oil and gas and north-east jobs, was sent to both of Scotland’s Governments. Within four days, a detailed response that backed the industry was received from a United Kingdom Government minister of state. The Scottish Government has not responded. When will the Scottish Government respond, or is the lack of a response further evidence of how far the north-east has fallen from its concern?

I think that everybody in the north-east would have preferred it if, rather than writing a letter, the UK Government had reversed its decision on carbon capture and storage and made the investment in Aberdeen and the north-east that people there want, which would support jobs and aid our transition to net zero. Perhaps a bit less letter writing from the UK Government and a bit more action and investment would go a long way.

---

Mental Health Support

Today is time to talk day, which is the nation’s biggest mental health conversation. It is supported in Scotland by See Me and the Co-op and is promoted by trade unions such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Will the First Minister join me in congratulating all the groups organising time to talk events today? Does she agree that having families, friends and communities coming together to talk about mental health is vital to supporting people? Further to that, what action is her Government taking in response to the growing mental health crisis in Scotland, which sees more than one in five adults waiting in excess of 18 weeks for support?

First, I take the opportunity to thank everyone involved with the time to talk campaign and encourage people across the country to engage with it: to talk to others if they are struggling a bit with their own mental health and to look out for people in their lives who may be struggling and to offer help to them. It is a really important campaign and initiative.

The Government is investing heavily in mental health services and we must continue to do that. Rising demand was obviously putting pressure on services before the pandemic, and that is even more the case now. We are increasing investment. We are also seeking to reform how services are delivered, not least for children and adolescents. We will continue that work.

Increasingly, we have to look at different and more innovative ways of providing mental health support. Yesterday, I had the privilege of visiting Scottish Opera in Glasgow, to welcome the opening up of the culture and entertainment sector. I heard a lot about the work that it is doing with people who have been struggling—for example people with long Covid—and how they are using the power of song, music and culture to aid people. There are lots of organisations and people out there, as well as the Government investment in national health service services, that we can harness to ensure that we, as a society, emerge from the pandemic recognising the trauma and mental health impact that it has had and acting in an overall way to deal with that. The Government takes that responsibility extremely seriously.

I will move to question 3 and will come back to supplementary questions if time allows.

---

Deposit Return Scheme

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to recent reported criticism of its plans for its deposit return scheme. (S6F-00776)

Our deposit return scheme, which is the first in the United Kingdom, will increase recycling, cut litter by a third and help to meet Scotland’s climate targets. Among the most environmentally ambitious and accessible schemes anywhere in Europe, it will include online deliveries and tens of thousands of return points for plastic, metal and glass containers.

It is disappointing that, due to the impact of Covid and Brexit on businesses and of the United Kingdom Government’s decision to charge VAT on deposits, delivery this year it is not possible. I have full confidence in the steps that industry is taking to deliver DRS, including work that is being done through Circularity Scotland. I look forward to seeing significant progress in the course of this year, including signed contracts to deliver infrastructure and logistics work beginning on counting centres.

Repeated delays, the use of a private company to avoid scrutiny and accountability, and a staggering lack of detail about how the scheme will work in practice have left the public baffled and businesses worried.

A recent Welsh Government pilot of a digital scheme allowing home owners to participate in a DRS by using kerbside collection and avoiding the need for bottles to be transported to reverse vending machines has yielded some interesting results, yet the Scottish Government scheme has no facility for that. Meanwhile, the Scottish Government minister for the circular economy has spent more time announcing delays than she has addressing public concerns.

From the outset, the Scottish Government has seemed more interested in headlines and crowing about beating the rest of the United Kingdom to a DRS than in setting out the details of how its system will work.

Will the First Minister now accept that a practical and effective UK-wide system that takes a little longer to arrive would be a better option than the rushed and ill-thought-out mess that she and her Green Party partners are presiding over?

I am not sure that waiting for this shambles of a UK Government to get its act together on anything would be a wise decision for the Scottish Government to take right now.

I am interested in Brian Whittle’s criticism of what he described as “repeated delays”. The reason that I am interested is because that strikes me as utter hypocrisy. Here is what his colleague, Annie Wells, a Scottish Conservative MSP said in response to a previous announcement:

“Scottish Conservatives support the delay of implementation to July 2022 in light of the Covid-19 outbreak, but we do not think that that goes far enough.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2020; c 93.]

She argued for the scheme to be delayed even further. It strikes me as a bit of a change of position, and yet another example of the utter opportunism and lack of any consistency or any principle at the heart of the Scottish Conservative party.

We are taking forward a scheme that will be the most environmentally ambitious and the most accessible scheme anywhere in Europe. We are working on the detail of delivery of that right now. Over the course of this year, we are going to see significant progress. We are going to see the contract signed and the infrastructure start to take shape. We will then have the first scheme in the UK and, I suspect, even if they are out of their current shambles, the UK Government might still only be thinking about it.

---

Independence Referendum

To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s plans to hold an independence referendum. (S6F-00773)

We intend to, firstly. The people of Scotland, of course, elected this Government last May. Their democratic decision was to elect a Parliament with the biggest-ever majority of MSPs in favour of an independence referendum. In line with the clear mandate that was given by people in that election, preparatory work is under way so that a referendum can be held, as I have said, as the Covid crisis passes, and Covid permitting, within the first half of this parliamentary term. The people of Scotland will then have the choice to take our future into our own hands instead of being at the mercy of a disreputable, discredited United Kingdom Government.

I thank the First Minister for that reply. She will be aware that, since the referendum in 2014, a number of promises that were made by the no campaign, including Mr Sarwar’s party, have been broken, including those on Scotland remaining in the European Union and on protecting lower costs of food and energy.

This week, Sue Gray’s report said that the parties that the Prime Minister and his colleagues put on were “difficult to justify” and that there were

“failures of leadership and judgment”

from within number 10 and the Cabinet Office. That is before the Metropolitan Police judges whether there was any criminality involved.

Does the First Minister agree that, as the SNP and Scottish Green Party manifestos offered, it is time to deliver on what the people voted for, have a referendum, win that referendum and then deliver our independence from a wretched and, certainly seemingly, corrupt Westminster?

It is correct to say—I think that I can say this without fear of contradiction—that virtually every promise that was made by the no campaign in 2014 has since been broken. The crowning one of all of those, of course, was the fact that, according to them, the only way to protect Scotland’s membership of the European Union was to vote no to independence, and here we are, ripped out of the EU against our will. [Interruption.]

Colleagues, can we please have a bit of quiet so that we can hear the First Minister?

There is a key point here, Presiding Officer, because independence is about aspiration; it is about empowerment; it is about taking our destiny into our own hands so that we can build a better future. I think that it is because they fear the power of that positive argument that the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats want to deny Scotland the choice.

Of course, what is the alternative right now? To be governed—[Interruption.]

The First Minister is responding to the question. No one else in the chamber is responding to the question at this moment, and I am sure that we would all like to hear the answer. Thank you.

Any political party in this chamber that was confident in its arguments around independence would not be desperate to deny the people of Scotland the right to make that choice. The alternative to independence is to continue to be governed by parties at Westminster that we do not vote for, and, right now, that is by a disreputable, discredited Government and a Prime Minister with, frankly, no integrity, no shame and no moral compass; a Prime Minister who even Douglas Ross does not think is fit for office. Scotland can do better than that, and with independence we will do better than that.

Is it really now the SNP position that pensions in an independent Scotland would be paid by taxpayers in England?

I think that the member should pay more attention to the UK Government’s position on this. He might find that it gives him a bit of a shock. Let me set out the position—[Interruption.]

The Tories are really, really nervous about this argument. You can feel the discomfort coming from them because they know that, when the people of Scotland get the chance to escape Westminster Governments and take our future into our own hands, they are going to say yes to independence.

When Scotland votes for independence, as was the case in 2014, the distribution of existing UK liabilities and assets, including those related to pensions, will be subject to negotiation, and Scotland will fully pay its way in that. However, the key point for those who are in receipt of pensions is what the UK Government minister for pensions at the time, Steve Webb, confirmed: that people with accumulated rights would continue to receive the current levels of state pension in an independent Scotland. People will notice no difference—or perhaps the difference that they might notice is that an independent Scotland might be able to improve the level of pensions, rather than having, as the UK has, one of the lowest pension levels in the whole of the developed world.

---

Ferry Services (Public Ownership)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will give a commitment to keep ferry services in public ownership. (S6F-00752)

I will be very clear in that commitment: we have no plans whatsoever to privatise public service ferries and, contrary to concerns that have been expressed in recent press reports, we have no plans whatsoever to split up the CalMac Ferries network. Those ferry services are delivered through public contracts, in line with relevant procurement requirements and guidance. That ensures control over service levels, timetables and fares. The contracts are operated by CalMac and Serco NorthLink Ferries.

The report that gave rise to those concerns has yet to be received by ministers. Once we have it, we will study it with interest but, by definition, it represents the views of the authors and not those of ministers.

I am pleased that the First Minister seems to have ruled out privatisation. Will she commit to publishing the report once she has it? Will she rule out any part of the current CalMac contract being awarded as a private contract as well as the full privatisation of CalMac? Does she accept that the current ferries crisis is the result of a failure to invest in new fleet since 2007? Over the past five years, more than 1,000 ferry sailings have been delayed due to mechanical issues. Will she commit to a long-term ferry plan for investing in new fleet, as part of an industrial strategy to build in Scotland?

Over the years that we have been in government, we have invested more than £2 billion in the Clyde and Hebrides ferry service, the northern isles ferry service and ferry infrastructure. We have also announced an investment of £580 million in ports and vessels to improve ferry services over the next five years, as part of the wider infrastructure investment plan.

However, to come back to the thrust of the question, I did not seem to rule out privatisation—I ruled it out. I will say it again: we have no plans whatsoever for that—we will not privatise our public service ferries and, equally, we have no plans to split up the CalMac network. That is the Scottish Government’s position, and we will continue to invest in our ferry network to give people on our islands the service that they have every right to expect.

As the First Minister has just said, the Scottish Government has committed £580 million to fund new ferries and port investments over the next five years. The soon-to-be-deployed MV Loch Frisa is the most recent example of the Scottish Government’s strong commitment to our islands Given the fragile nature of many island communities and their dependence on ferries, does the First Minister share my view that Labour’s scaremongering on the future of ferry services is extremely unhelpful at a time when the Scottish Government is taking positive steps to combat the trend of depopulation in many Scottish islands?

I absolutely agree with Jenni Minto that it is unhelpful for anybody to erroneously speculate about the future of our ferry services. That does a disservice not only to island communities but to the crews and staff at CalMac, who have strived to deliver lifeline services throughout the pandemic in challenging circumstances. I take the opportunity to thank them for all their efforts.

As I said in my previous answer, we fully recognise the need to invest properly to support the lifeline ferry network, and that is underlined by the commitment, to which I have already referred, of £580 million as part of the infrastructure investment plan. As has just been noted, that includes the purchase of the MV Loch Frisa. It will also support two new vessels for Islay, infrastructure on the Skye triangle and many other important projects.

---

Air Pollution

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is working with local authorities to reduce air pollution. (S6F-00755)

Our new air quality strategy, which was published last year, sets out a series of actions to reduce air pollution over the next five years. We work closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with local authorities on the delivery of those actions and provide £2 million per year in direct support.

We are also introducing low-emission zones in Scotland’s four largest cities, supported by £3.8 million of direct funding. An additional £9.9 million is available in this financial year for businesses, public transport and those in the cities who are affected and are most in need. In addition, we have a £500 million funding commitment to active travel over the next five years and we are committed to reducing motor vehicle kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030.

The First Minister will be aware of the recent Friends of the Earth Scotland report showing how far we have to go to protect public health from air pollution. East Dunbartonshire Council in my region actually intends to remove the air quality management area covering Drymen Road in Bearsden, which includes Bearsden primary school. That is on the basis of disputable conclusions about air quality improving in recent years—that is, during periods of lockdown.

Scottish air pollution limits are based on guidance published by the World Health Organization in 2005, but updated WHO guidance published last year explained why limits have to be far, far lower to protect people from harm. Even now, Bearsden’s air quality management area is recording air pollution at three times the WHO’s new recommended limit.

Will the Scottish Government delay consenting to the removal of any air quality management areas while it considers whether to adapt air pollution limits to better reflect the WHO’s expert advice?

Before I come on to the particular, important, local issue, let me deal again with the general point. The number of monitoring sites exceeding air quality objectives in Scotland is reducing. Targets are being met across the vast majority of Scotland, although there are some pollution hotspots in some of our cities and town centres, and we work closely with local authorities and other partners to address them as quickly as possible. Of course, the commitment to low-emission zones in the four largest cities is an important part of that.

The Scottish Government will await East Dunbartonshire Council’s formal application to revoke the Bearsden air quality management area, should that be forthcoming, before making any final decision. I can assure Ross Greer that any decision that falls to us to take will be very carefully considered, and all the relevant data and advice will be taken into account. Of course, should revocation take place—I emphasise the word “should”; that is hypothetical—we would expect the council to continue air quality monitoring in the area and to continue implementing the measures set out in the Bearsden air quality action plan.

---

Gambling (Women)

A recent report identified that thousands of women in Scotland could be at risk of gambling harm. That has been exacerbated during the pandemic. Gambling can have a serious detrimental effect on families, and on individuals psychologically and physically. What can the Scottish Government do to support those women and end the stigma attached to gambling, which can prevent them from seeking the urgent support that they require?

This is an important issue. In the past, there have been complications around the devolved/reserved split of responsibilities on gambling. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government will consider any action that we can reasonably take, and we will consider the report very carefully.

Gambling can be a very damaging addiction and I note the findings about women in particular being affected by it. We will consider the report carefully and consider what further actions we can take, and once we have had the opportunity to do that, I will ask the relevant minister to update the member accordingly.

---

Transvaginal Mesh

Despite the pain and suffering that we know has been felt by many who have had surgical transvaginal mesh implants, on 25 January, the Scottish Government signed a deal with mesh providers to provide more mesh surgery for the next 24 months, at a cost of £3.5 million. Given that we know the extent of post-operative problems with mesh, is the First Minister aware of whether any alternatives, such as natural tissue repair, are offered? Given the experiences of mesh campaigners, will she commit to an independent review of all mesh use in Scotland, so that we can better understand the scale of what seems to be an increasing problem?

This is a really important issue and one that the Government has been working hard on, in a range of different ways, with, of course, the contribution of MSPs from parties across this chamber, to try to deal with mesh’s impact on women. If Carol Mochan will allow me, I will study the detail of her question and come back to her in writing, in case I do not deal with all the aspects of it in this answer.

Of course, all surgical transvaginal mesh procedures have been suspended at the moment. The position introduced by Jeane Freeman stands. Recently, this Parliament has legislated to help deal with some of the impact, and we will continue to take all possible steps. Just before the pandemic, I, along with Jeane Freeman and the then chief medical officer, Catherine Calderwood, met two groups of women, for lengthy periods, to hear directly from them. This Government is determined to take the action necessary to alleviate that impact and learn lessons as we go forward.

---

Long Covid (Support)

Today, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that 100,000 Scots are living with long Covid. However, an answer to a parliamentary question that I received last week said—astonishingly—that fewer than 1 per cent of those people have been referred to Scotland’s long Covid support service, which is the principal Government-funded service for long Covid sufferers. I know that Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, which delivers that service, is desperate to help more sufferers, but the Government has yet to instruct the care pathways that will see people referred to it. Will the First Minister intervene and sort that out?

There is no need to intervene, because that work is being taken forward. People with long Covid will be receiving support at different levels and in different parts of the national health service—for example, many people will be receiving support from their general practitioner. It is right that support is provided on a holistic basis.

On additional action, the £10 million long Covid support fund is targeted specifically at areas where additional resource is needed and where it can have the biggest impact for people who need additional care and support. The NHS national services division is currently establishing a strategic network to help to identify those areas and to support the delivery of the framework that we outlined in the approach paper that we published recently. We have also launched a long Covid information platform on NHS Inform to help people to manage their symptoms and to help to ensure that people know about the support that is available to them.

We will need to continue to develop that approach for a long time, given the nature of long Covid, and to look at different ways—obviously, first and foremost, within the national health service, but also outwith it—that people with long Covid can be properly supported.