Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, November 9, 2023

Official Report 1124KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Covid-19 Inquiry

Last night, the Deputy First Minister was forced to admit to this Parliament that the United Kingdom Covid inquiry sent a request to the Scottish Government for messages related to the pandemic in February of this year, yet last week, the Deputy First Minister claimed that the request was made just over a month ago. Those two statements are clearly contradictory, so how can they both be true?

The Deputy First Minister was clear in her statement last week—members can check the Official Report—when she mentioned that there were initial requests from the inquiry. In my response to Anas Sarwar, I was talking about a very particular issue around specific WhatsApp groups.

Let me be absolutely clear—[Interruption.]

Let us hear the First Minister.

I fully accept that the Scottish Government clearly interpreted the request from the inquiry in a way that was too narrow. For any shortcomings on our behalf— [Interruption.]

Let us hear the First Minister, please.

For any shortcomings on our behalf that have caused any distress to the families of those who have been bereaved by Covid, I apologise unreservedly, as I did last week. I reiterate and re-emphasise that apology this week.

On the back of the request from the inquiry, we have ensured that the Government has released 14,000 messages to it. When it comes to my witness statement, it includes reams of WhatsApp messages, which are unredacted. That is, of course, in very stark contrast to the actions of a Prime Minister who not only dragged the inquiry through court but has refused to hand over his own WhatsApp messages.

This is the third week that I have raised the issue at First Minister’s question time. [Interruption.] If Scottish National Party members do not like that, they will not have liked the First Minister’s attempt at an excuse—the First Minister peddled the same false claims as the Deputy First Minister.

Let us be very clear what he said to the Parliament last week. Humza Yousaf said:

“The messages were asked for in September, just a matter of weeks ago” —[Official Report, 2 November; c 17.]

That is what he said. It is there in black and white in the Official Report. However, back in February, the UK Covid inquiry asked for

“internal and external emails, text messages or WhatsApp messages held by the Scottish Government”.

The evidence is clear. Will he admit that, in last week’s question time, he did not tell the truth?

I absolutely refute that. I clearly told the chamber—members can check the Official Report—that I was talking about specific WhatsApp groups.

What I fully accept from the inquiry is that we have interpreted its requests too narrowly. [Interruption.] Subsequently, having done so—[Interruption.].

Let us hear the First Minister.

We then supplied 14,000 messages to the inquiry. In my witness statement, I handed over to the inquiry the WhatsApp messages that I have, unredacted. That is in very stark contrast to a UK Government that took the inquiry to court and lost that court battle, and a Prime Minister who refuses to hand over his WhatsApp messages.

I say to Douglas Ross once again that we do not fear scrutiny, but I suspect that his party absolutely does.

That was a very brave answer from the First Minister, when his predecessor and others in Government have been deleting messages and running away from scrutiny.

Let us look very carefully at what was said last week, because the First Minister seems to be struggling with it. The Deputy First Minister told Parliament that

“it has been just over a month”—[Official Report, 31 October 2023; c 66.]

since messages were requested. The First Minister claimed, in the chamber, that

“The messages were asked for in September, just a matter of weeks ago.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2023; c 17.]

That is what was said, and it is in the Parliament’s Official Report. The two most senior people in the Scottish Government stated that the UK Covid inquiry only requested the messages in September. It was not a slip of the tongue, and it was not an honest mistake; it was deliberate.

Now the UK Covid inquiry, which is tasked with getting answers for grieving families, has had to demand that the SNP comes to this Parliament to tell the truth about the timeline of when the requests were made. Why did Humza Yousaf and the SNP make those false claims?

I urge Douglas Ross to once again read the statement from the Deputy First Minister, which says—

I have.

Well, if Douglas Ross has read it, he will have seen, in black and white, that the Deputy First Minister referenced the initial requests. It was entirely understandable and appropriate for the inquiry to ask us to then provide the absolutely full context for the requests, which we did—without any hesitation or arguing back with the inquiry—to ensure that we were transparent and accountable.

I understand why Douglas Ross wants to obsess about process. We have, of course, handed over the 14,000 messages—[Interruption.]

Members! Let us hear the First Minister.

—and I have handed over reams of WhatsApp messages from myself.

I absolutely acknowledge the distress that has been caused to families who have been bereaved by Covid. I apologise unreservedly to them. Although the process is important, the substance of those messages is important, too. I can say with total confidence, even though I have not seen some of the messages from individual witnesses, that not a single Scottish Government minister said,

“let the bodies pile high”—[Interruption.]

That, of course, was said by none other than Boris Johnson—a man under whom Douglas Ross served in Government, whom he defended to the hilt—[Interruption.]

Members! First Minister—briefly, please.

He is a man whom Douglas Ross claimed was honest. Douglas Ross should be ashamed of himself for his defence of Boris Johnson.

Humza Yousaf should be ashamed of himself not just for that answer but for treating this Parliament, and the families of grieving victims, with contempt.

Let us be very clear. The UK Covid inquiry repeatedly asked the SNP Government for WhatsApp messages. Last year, it asked whether the messages existed. It asked for the messages themselves in February this year, and again in March, in July and in August, but the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister claim that none of that ever happened. They have been caught red handed in a cover-up. They knowingly told the chamber statements that were false. Is it not beyond doubt that Humza Yousaf and Shona Robison misled the Parliament?

That is not the case. Once again, I refer Douglas Ross to the Official Report, in which, in black and white, the Deputy First Minister, talked about “initial requests”. I fully accept that, as a Government, we interpreted those requests too narrowly. [Interruption.]

Members!

To take corrective action, we have ensured that we have submitted 14,000 messages. I have ensured that I have handed over the messages that I have, in unredacted form.

However, let us not take away from the substance in favour of the process issues with which Douglas Ross is so obsessed. This week, Simon Case described working in Boris Johnson’s Government as being “like taming wild animals”. That, of course, was a Government of which Douglas Ross was a member. I cannot even read out the messages that Dominic Cummings handed to the inquiry. However, we heard from that inquiry—[Interruption.]

Douglas Ross will not want to hear this, so I can understand why Conservative members are trying to shout it down, but this is an exceptionally important point.

In the inquiry, in the past couple of weeks, we have heard that there was a deliberate attempt by the UK Government to exclude devolved Governments from decision making. During the early days of the pandemic, Douglas Ross was a minister in the Scotland Office. Did he purposely try to exclude devolved Administrations and, indeed, this Government from decision making?

First Minister—

At a time when people right across the UK needed serious leadership during a serious time, they had “wild animals”—according to Simon Case—running the UK Government.

---

Covid-19 Inquiry (Legal Advice)

Bereaved families and their lawyers are watching these exchanges. I do not think that we should use Boris Johnson as our measure of success in Scotland.

It could not be clearer: the First Minister has lost control of his Government and he appears to have misled Parliament on more than one occasion. Let us focus on the substance, because this matters. The Covid pandemic was our country’s most difficult period in living memory. That is why learning the lessons and getting the answers are so important. We were promised full transparency and co-operation by this Government, but it has failed. WhatsApp messages are not the only evidence that the Government is withholding from the inquiry. The legal advice that the Government has provided has not been complete and, in some cases, it has been almost entirely redacted. The inquiry’s lawyer has said that that means that the inquiry is constrained from fully carrying out its function. Why is the First Minister’s Government hiding the legal advice and not co-operating with the inquiry?

As Anas Sarwar knows, I cannot comment on legal advice. However, where there is the ability to hand over unredacted legal advice, I expect the Scottish Government to do so. We will do that with whatever information we can provide. After First Minister’s question time, I am more than happy to have the appropriate conversations with the law officers, but we have to ensure that legal privilege is maintained, where it is our legal responsibility to do so.

Anas Sarwar said that we are not complying. I whole-heartedly disagree with that. We have handed over 14,000 WhatsApp messages. I have handed over my WhatsApp messages in unredacted form—I have not decided what is relevant; I have handed over all my messages to the inquiry for it to decide what is relevant.

Anas Sarwar is absolutely right: the families who have been bereaved by Covid want answers. The 19,000 documents that we have handed over and the 14,000 WhatsApp messages that we have handed over, including the WhatsApp messages that I have handed over, show that this Government intends absolutely and unequivocally to fully co-operate with both the Scottish and United Kingdom public inquiries.

The First Minister said that he is co-operating, but I am not sure that he understands the question that I asked him or knows the situation, because he clearly still has not read the transcript from the UK Covid inquiry.

I have it right here.

Well, he should read it.

The counsel to the inquiry has made it clear that the inquiry has asked twice—on 3 August and 14 August—for unredacted legal advice and has not received it. That does not seem to be a fight that the Covid inquiry is having with the UK Tory Government in relation to major decisions during the pandemic that, presumably, involved legal advice, such as those around lockdowns, discharge to care homes and “Do not resuscitate” notices. That is why the issue is important. Hiding that crucial evidence is an affront to every victim of Covid, their families and everyone who lived under lockdowns and closures.

In relation to the First Minister’s first answer, the Government has previously handed over legal advice in full to judicial inquiries, including the trams inquiry, the infected blood inquiry and the Scottish child abuse inquiry. The secrecy and evasion must stop. Will he hand over the legal advice in full to the Covid inquiry?

Anas Sarwar’s question gets to the nub of the issue, which is that the Government has co-operated fully with inquiries in the past. Where we are able to release legal advice, we will absolutely do that, but Anas Sarwar has to accept, first, that a process has to be gone through and, secondly, that each bit of legal advice has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. He is absolutely right that we have provided legal advice to previous inquiries. Where we can do so in this inquiry, I absolutely expect every document, including those containing legal advice, to be handed over to the UK Covid inquiry and the Scottish Covid inquiry.

I go back to the central point. Quite rightly, the families who have been bereaved by Covid want to know whether we will co-operate. Nineteen thousand documents, and 14,000 messages—mainly WhatsApp messages—have been handed over.

My WhatsApp messages, as well as the messages of other ministers who, I know, have been public about the messages that they have handed over, have been submitted to the inquiry. We take absolutely seriously our responsibility to provide not just documents but, where possible, the legal advice. However, there are legal issues around legal privilege that have to be considered.

It is clear from that answer that the First Minister is sinking, not swimming, and is completely and utterly out of his depth.

It is not me who is saying that the legal advice has been redacted and not handed over—it was the Covid inquiry that, on 3 August and 14 August, asked for the information that has still not been provided by this Government. WhatsApp messages have been deleted, legal advice has been redacted and there is a different story every day.

Even now, questions remain that the First Minister refuses to answer. He will not tell us how many people have failed to comply with the “Do not destroy” notices, even though the inquiry says that there is no confidentiality issue.

There is more. It has been reported that Scottish National Party ministers and special advisers use SNP and private email accounts to communicate. What is not clear is whether those emails have been handed over, in full, to the Covid inquiry.

Can the First Minister tell us, in the spirit of full transparency, whether any emails from SNP accounts have been handed to the Covid inquiry? If so, how many, and if not, why not?

I remind the First Minister again that this is about families who lost loved ones during Covid. Before he answers, I remind him that we need accurate answers the first time.

I am not arguing with Anas Sarwar on the point that information has been redacted. I am saying to him that the reason why it has been redacted is—I can confirm—that there are issues around legal privilege, and therefore a discussion would have to take place with our law officers in relation to what could be unredacted.

Where we can send information unredacted, it is my full expectation, as the individual who leads the Government, that that information is provided in full, in unredacted form.

I will give Anas Sarwar an example of the way in which I lead by example in that regard. The WhatsApp messages that I have handed over have been handed over unredacted. The information that I have provided has been provided in unredacted form.

As for any other form of communication, including any other email address or informal or formal communication, it is my full expectation that that is handed over.

Of course, I do not have sight of individual ministers’ or witnesses’ statements. From a corporate position, I can confirm that any relevant information that we hold will be handed over.

Let me say once again, for the families who have been bereaved by Covid, that the Government will fully comply with both the UK inquiry and the Scottish public inquiry.

---

Renters (Support)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is supporting renters who are struggling with the cost of living. (S6F-02520)

I am acutely aware of the pressure that renters are facing. I am pleased that the Parliament voted to extend for a final six months, to March, the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022, which continues to provide protection and reassurance to renters by capping private sector rents. That is alongside our agreement with social landlords to keep rent increases this year well below inflation.

Scotland is leading the way in support for tenants. This year, we are making £83.7 million available to local authorities to spend on discretionary housing payments—more per person than is provided in any other United Kingdom nation. That is why I repeat my call to the UK Government to scrap its on-going freeze on local housing allowance rates, which hits hardest those tenants on the lowest incomes.

I, like the First Minister, strongly support our emergency legislation to cap rents and reduce evictions, which was led by Patrick Harvie last year.

I welcome last week’s Court of Session decision to reject a challenge to that legislation. It was said that the challenge fell

“far short of what is required in order ... to demonstrate that the Act disproportionately interferes with the”

property

“rights of landlords.”

With that court decision in mind, does the First Minister agree that it is time for landlord bodies to accept the overwhelming need for action to control high rents and improve tenants’ rights, and that they should work constructively with the Government on the housing bill when it is introduced in this parliamentary year?

I do, and I welcome the court’s decision last week. I want to work constructively with all stakeholders to deliver a system of rent control that works for Scotland. I am pleased that a number of landlord representative bodies are working with us through the private rented sector stakeholder group, and that a range of organisations representing the views of tenants, investors and developers are represented on that group. I am keen that that approach continues as we move towards the bill’s introduction. The Deputy First Minister, Màiri McAllan and I had a good session with our investor panel last week, and it was made clear by that panel that those who want to invest in property and affordable housing will do so in places that have rent controls. We have seen that in Europe.

We are keen to engage with everybody on the issue. No other Government in the UK is as ambitious as this Government is in this area, given our emergency legislation, which comes on top of our 2016 legislation to end no-fault evictions—a move that I know the UK Government is now also considering.

Ms Adamson, I just want to check: is your supplementary question on this topic?

No.

Thank you. We will move on to question 4.

---

Poverty Alleviation

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to alleviate poverty in Scotland, in light of reports that the United Kingdom is in violation of international law in relation to poverty levels. (S6F-02511)

The Scottish Government is allocating almost £3 billion to support policies that tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible during the on-going cost of living crisis this year. That includes delivering our game-changing Scottish child payment and tripling our fuel and security fund to £30 million.

While the Westminster Government signs up to prolonged austerity, this Government will continue to use every single available lever to lift people out of poverty. We know the devastating impact that UK Government measures are having in driving more people into poverty, so it is no surprise, frankly, to hear that the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has stated that the UK Government is in violation of international law over poverty levels. It is, however, shocking. We agree with the UN that universal credit is “grossly insufficient”. That is why we continue to call on the UK Government to introduce an essentials guarantee, thereby ensuring that social security adequately covers the cost of vital essentials.

Yesterday, the Trussell Trust released astonishing figures showing that 1.5 million emergency food parcels were distributed across the UK between April and September—the most parcels that the network has ever provided over the summer months. That is a 16 per cent increase UK-wide, but it has been mitigated to 9 per cent in Scotland. That is further evidence of the utter misery that is being caused by what the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty called the Tories’ “grossly insufficient” welfare system. Does the First Minister agree with me that the UK Government must introduce a universal credit essentials guarantee immediately, and that the only way to protect people in Scotland from Westminster’s cruel policies is for this Parliament to have the full powers of an independent country?

Members: Oh!

Collette Stevenson speaks powerfully about evidence from the Trussell Trust, but all we hear is groans and moans from the Conservative benches, as happens when the Trussell Trust or poverty are mentioned. That tells its own story, does it not?

I agree with Collette Stevenson that the UK Government must urgently fix the fundamental flaws with universal credit that are driving destitution and driving up food-bank use. The Trussell Trust report is “astonishing”, as Collette Stevenson said. It makes it clear that the UK Government’s social security system is one of the driving factors that is pushing people towards hunger. That is why this Government supports calls for an essentials guarantee to be applied to universal credit and other reserved benefits, to ensure that social security benefits adequately cover the cost of vital essentials.

Would it not be far better if we were able to extricate ourselves from a Westminster system that is causing such immense harm to our people? It would be far better if we stopped having to take money from health, education and transport to mitigate Westminster harm and instead had the full powers of an independent country—not just to reduce poverty but to eradicate it.

---

NHS Lothian (Deafness Testing)

To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government is offering to NHS Lothian to contact the parents and guardians of the over 23,000 children who reportedly may have received substandard testing to identify deafness, including support to identify any other young children who have not received the required standard of auditory brainstem response testing. (S6F-02510)

First, I recognise the anxiety and anger that the children and families who have been affected by the situation quite reasonably feel. When the issue emerged, Miles Briggs and I met, because I was then the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. I understand the anger not just of the families and children who are involved but of those who advocate for them.

The Scottish Government is working in partnership with NHS Lothian to ensure continued progress on the actions that are in the British Academy of Audiology’s report. The BAA advised that not all of the 23,000 children who were seen between 2009 and 2018 required to be reviewed. Those who required that were offered a retest by NHS Lothian; that was based on the timeline that was associated with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s investigation and on the sample size of the BAA review. I understand that families are being contacted directly and offered a meeting with the NHS Lothian senior management team to discuss and agree an appropriate care plan, with a focus on ensuring that the right support is in place.

The series of failures in NHS Lothian that has denied children with hearing loss the chance to be identified early and receive hearing therapy and speech and language therapy has been catastrophic for children and families here in Edinburgh. NHS Lothian has never confirmed how many parents or guardians have been contacted or how many of the 23,000 children have been reassessed.

It is unacceptable that families in Edinburgh are having to fight for their children to access health services and the educational support that they need. Will the Scottish Government agree today to all parents and guardians involved being contacted and to children being reassessed urgently, if that is needed? Given the many outstanding concerns that have been raised in inquiries to date, what consideration have ministers given to the need for a public inquiry into the audiology scandal in NHS Lothian and into cases that are being reported in other health boards?

Miles Briggs asked a number of questions, which I will ensure the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care provides full details on. If we can provide information on the number of families who have been contacted, I will ensure that it is provided to Miles Briggs.

My understanding is that the BAA review ended up stratifying into seven categories the children who were affected. Children who had significant concerns reported were brought in for additional retesting, or additional clinical oversight was given to their case. I will ensure that Miles Briggs is given more information on the stratification and categorisation of all 23,000 children, but I assure him that those who were most seriously impacted—who were at highest risk—were given additional clinical care.

Miles Briggs made an important point about lessons being learned. We have ensured that the lessons from this unacceptable catalogue of failures have been cascaded to health boards across the country. We continue to make sure that our health boards are vigilant about learning lessons from this sorry episode. I will ensure that, if we can provide it, the information about the number of children who have been seen is provided to Miles Briggs.

The issue is that, despite detailed answers, there are parents who continue to feel that they have been missed and struggle to get help. We know that 23,000 children have potentially been affected, but fewer than 2,000 have had a detailed review.

What work is being done to ensure that the sampling techniques that have been used are comprehensive? Do we know the number of children who have yet to be identified on the basis of that sampling? Do we have to look at the period that is covered? Nobody at all from before 2017 has been looked at.

I will ensure that we give Daniel Johnson full answers in relation to the 23,000 children. My understanding is that the decision was not taken by NHS Lothian, but by the British Academy of Audiology, which designed and conducted the audit.

As I have said, the children were grouped into various categories and those who were at highest risk were given further clinical oversight. If there are parents and families who feel that their child has not had the appropriate level of attention or care, and that they are experiencing significant impacts—or, frankly, any impact—because of that sorry episode, I ask that Daniel Johnson brings them to the attention of the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care and I am sure that he will take it up with NHS Lothian. I am sure that Daniel Johnson has the relevant contact details, but I am more than happy to pass on to him the details for the appropriate individuals in NHS Lothian. I know that they are approaching the matter with the utmost seriousness.

---

Scottish Water (Bonus Payments)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that Scottish Water has issued bonus payments to executives in excess of public sector pay rules. (S6F-02515)

The criteria for paying bonuses to Scottish Water’s executive members are agreed by ministers ahead of each regulatory period. They are in line with public sector pay rules, which state that we need to attract and retain highly experienced personnel to run vital public services. The current remuneration package for the chief executive officer and senior management team is significantly smaller than that which is paid by comparable utilities, both for salaries and bonus incentives.

I call Stephen Kerr. [Interruption.] I apologise. I think that we can afford Pauline McNeill a supplementary question.

I nearly had a heart attack there. [Laughter.]

This week, it was reported that three Scottish Water executives had received nearly £1.1 million in bonuses in 2021, on top of a six-figure salary and despite the fact that there were 14,000 sewage spillages last year alone. That begs the question as to why those executives qualified for performance bonuses. The same executives are withholding a pay rise from their workers unless their staff accept a new pay structure, under which the poorest would be losing as much as £5,000.

I have to ask the First Minister: what has gone wrong? Why is a public sector body paying public sector executives who seem to be a law unto themselves vast amounts of money in an instance where there have been existing failures and customers have been asked to pay even more for infrastructure? Can the First Minister justify that in a public sector body?

Pauline McNeill’s characterisation of Scottish Water is deeply unfair. First and foremost, I understand that pay negotiations are on-going and were on-going until the early hours of the morning. I am pleased that discussions are on-going and I hope that strike action can be averted, even at the last minute and the last hour, because the Government has a strong track record when it comes to ensuring that workers are paid fairly.

On remuneration, I mentioned that Scottish Water has to be competitive. We should compare the CEO’s salary, which is, of course, a high salary of £245,000, to the situation in Welsh Water, where the CEO’s base salary is £341,000, or United Utilities, where the CEO’s base salary is £971,000. Those figures are sourced from salary comparison tables for 2022-23. The reason why I mention that is because we have to make sure that Scottish Water is able to attract the best talent from across the country and, indeed, the world. The bonus element of any remuneration package is paid only in the event of outperformance of demand targets that are—this is crucial—verified by independent regulators.

The First Minister will be aware of the damning report on drinking water by the Drinking Water Quality Regulator for Scotland. Sue Petch, the regulator, called out a backlog of maintenance and neglect of the maintenance of assets, and said that that posed a real “danger to human health.” The regulator has issued an enforcement order. The First Minister is accountable for Scottish Water. What will he to do to ensure that that enforcement notice is carried out and that the backlog is properly dealt with?

We will ensure that Scottish Water invests significant amounts of money over the coming period. It will invest £4.5 billion from 2021 up to the 2027 period. That investment programme is supported by Government borrowing of up to £1.03 billion, and £880 million was invested in 2022-23 to upgrade essential treatment works and water supply and sewer networks.

On Scotland’s water quality, we know from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that 87 per cent of Scotland’s entire water environment is assessed as having either a high or good classification for water quality.

On the enforcement notice, which Stephen Kerr is right to raise, it is my full expectation that Scottish Water will comply with it.

There is much demand to ask supplementary questions. If members can keep their questions and responses concise, we will get more members in.

Sewage was dumped 14,000 times last year, faecal bacteria in Lower Largo was 50 times the legal limit, and there was dry sewage dumping in St Andrews. How on earth can the First Minister justify such whopping bonuses when those Scottish Water bosses are responsible for such failure?

I have just mentioned the fact that 87 per cent of Scotland’s entire water environment is assessed by SEPA as having high or good classification. I have also made the point, which Willie Rennie clearly did not listen to, that, when it comes to the awarding of bonuses, they are, of course, for where performance targets have been met and exceeded, and they are independently verified by regulators. It is important that publicly owned companies such as Scottish Water are able to compete. The CEO’s base salary is far lower than those of many other comparative water and utility companies throughout the United Kingdom.

We move to general and constituency supplementaries.

---

Journalism (Resourcing)

The news of 450 jobs being cut at Reach plc is deeply concerning, and it speaks to the wider issue of resourcing in journalism. Does the First Minister agree that, with senior executives withdrawing bonuses in the millions of pounds while hard-working journalists are thrown on the scrapheap, the real loser in that is our democracy?

Yes, I whole-heartedly agree with that. Reports of any job losses are, of course, concerning, especially for the workers involved and their families. More than that, in this particular case, we know that a free, vibrant and independent press is the very bedrock of a functioning democracy. We want to do all that we can to support the sustainability and diversity of journalism in Scotland, so I urge media organisations to invest in the quality journalism that is so important in an open society and not to make the cuts that have been reported, which Rona Mackay is right to raise.

---

New Routes Home Campaign

A protest is happening outside Parliament today for the new routes home campaign, to recognise those who are locked up in hospital. I welcome the families of those patients who are in the gallery, including Tracey and Natalie, who are constituents of mine and are the mother and the sister of Kyle, who has been locked up for 14 years. Hundreds of autistic people and people with learning disabilities are stuck inappropriately in out-of-area placements, hospitals and secure units. Dozens of them have been there for over a decade—a millennium of lost years in captivity. As we approach the March 2024 deadline in “Coming Home Implementation: A report from the working group on complex care and delayed discharge”, what has the Scottish Government done to get those patients home?

I credit Alexander Burnett, who has raised that issue on many occasions on behalf of his constituents. We as a Government are absolutely committed to delivering the “Coming Home Implementation” recommendations to reduce inappropriate hospital stays and out-of-area placements experienced by people with learning disabilities and complex care needs.

I can ensure that we provide Alexander Burnett with a fuller answer on what we have done, but I will give some examples. We have launched the new dynamic support register, which is one of the key recommendations to improve the local case management of people with learning disabilities and complex care needs. That is a very important step towards achieving the “Coming Home Implementation” vision that will help local areas to plan for people with learning disabilities and complex care needs to live in their home communities. We have also developed a practitioner peer support network and a national support panel to support local areas to share best practice, and we have provided £20 million under our community living change fund to integration authorities to design community-based solutions that avoid or limit future hospital use and out-of-area placements.

We all want—I know that Alexander Burnett will agree with this—to ensure that people are supported to be in a home that is absolutely right for them, and is as close to their family as possible and in their community.

---

National Health Service (Drugs for Cystic Fibrosis)

The First Minister may be aware that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Scottish Medicines Consortium have determined that cystic fibrosis drugs that are literally life saving will no longer be available on the national health service, because they consider the drugs to be clinically effective but not cost effective. It is important to say, though, that those already receiving Orkambi, Symkevi and Kaftrio will continue to do so, but new patients will not.

The First Minister knows that cystic fibrosis is a life-limiting condition. Will he meet CF families and work with the United Kingdom Government to negotiate a more acceptable cost from the drug manufacturer, Vertex, to literally save lives?

I thank Jackie Baillie for raising a very important point. We will continue our engagement with drug companies and the UK Government. The Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care regularly meets families that have been impacted and affected.

It is important to reiterate Jackie Baillie’s point that existing patients who are on a treatment for cystic fibrosis will continue to have access to the existing treatments after NICE has issued its final recommendations, irrespective of the outcome. However, I know that discussions are on-going, and I know that the SMC is collaborating with NICE on a joint multiple-technology appraisal of several cystic fibrosis medicines, including Kaftrio. The SMC will publish final recommendations, aligned with NICE guidance, for health boards in Scotland to consider. We will certainly seek to take up the suggestion from Jackie Baillie on conversations and engagement with the drug companies.

---

British Sign Language National Plan

I was delighted to see the new and updated British Sign Language action plan released this past week. I thank the First Minister for his help and support with my continued work in the area. How will the plan support British Sign Language use in Scotland?

I think that all members in the chamber will recognise the incredible work that Karen Adam has done on British Sign Language. I pay tribute to her efforts in that regard.

We are absolutely committed to making Scotland the best place in the world for British Sign Language users to visit and to live, work and learn in. The “British Sign Language National Plan 2023-29” contains 45 actions to help us to meet that ambition. We recognise that, to deliver our aims, we need to ensure that the BSL community is at the very heart of the decision-making process. That is why we are establishing an implementation advisory group to support the plan, hold us to account and inform our thinking in the delivery of each action.

The group will be made up of organisations that represent BSL users, the deaf and the deafblind community. It is important to note that the plan is not static and will continue to evolve to ensure that our actions tackle the barriers that BSL users face in their everyday lives.

---

Bullying in Schools (Fife)

Alarming figures from Fife have shown that violence and bullying in our schools is at unprecedented levels. The local authority staff reported almost 3,500 physical attacks and threats in just the past year, and 6,480 pupils reported being bullied during the same period. The response of Fife Council’s anti-bullying policy is that punishing bullying is counterproductive, so nothing will happen.

Does the First Minister agree with that policy? What does he have to say to the thousands of young people in Fife who are victims of bullying?

For an issue of this magnitude, it is really important that we characterise the situation absolutely correctly and accurately. Roz McCall is right to raise the very worrying issues and concerns that we have about violence and bullying in schools.

The education secretary has had two summits on school behaviour, and another one is due very shortly. She met parents, teaching unions, children’s organisations and representatives right across the education sector on 25 October, when attendees shared their experiences of relationships and behaviour approaches, and discussed potential solutions to ensure safe and consistent environments in schools. That followed the first meeting, which took place in September. The discussions at the events have been constructive. There have been some very good suggestions, which the education secretary will seek to take up.

On the more specific issues that Roz McCall might have, I ask her to continue to engage with the education secretary.

---

Community Link Workers (Glasgow)

Community link worker posts are set to be reduced from 64 to 42 in Glasgow from next year. This week, one Glasgow general practitioner told the BBC that those cuts could result in lives being lost. I understand that the Government has put a funding offer to the health and social care partnership in Glasgow, but that that was rejected.

Can the First Minister please provide an update on discussions with the health and social care partnership and advise what options remain to save those critical and cost-effective roles in some of our most deprived communities?

I join Paul Sweeney in recognising the importance of community link workers. All of us who have community link workers in our constituencies have seen the invaluable service that they provide. Every single GP practice that I have spoken to sees them as valuable and critical members of their staff.

Paul Sweeney was right to recognise that the Scottish Government has offered additional funding, but that does not seem to be enough, according to the Glasgow city health and social care partnership, to continue the full provision of community link workers. We are continuing to engage with the partnership, and I expect to be able to update Paul Sweeney and others in Parliament who have an interest in the issue at some point next week.

---

Fireworks-related Disorder

The First Minister will be aware of the serious fireworks-related disorder in Niddrie a few days ago. Constituents have written to me and told me about how terrified they were during that time. Will the First Minister join me in condemning the violence, particularly the attacks on our emergency services? I stress that incidents such as those should not be used to talk down the communities that I represent.

Does the First Minister agree that a ban on fireworks is possible only with the full powers of independence? Does he agree that the Government should implement the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022 as a matter of urgency? Will he consider additional resources for hotspot areas, such as my constituency of Edinburgh Eastern?

First and foremost, we condemn in the strongest possible manner the violence and the reckless actions that we saw in not just the member’s constituency but other parts of the country. I also pay tribute to our emergency workers, in particular our fire officers and police officers who were on the front line, and I say just how despicable it is that they were under attack in that way.

In relation to a wholesale ban, it is my understanding that that is not within our competency, but we will seek to do more. Whatever we can do with legislation, we will seek to do. That is why we have brought forward legislation and regulations over the years, most recently with regard to the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022.

We will continue to work with our local authorities to see what more we can do in relation to additional resource—that is a fair request.

Finally, it should not require Government legislation or regulation for someone to know that they should not fire fireworks at police officers or fire officers. My hope is that those who are responsible and found to be guilty of such behaviour—the police investigation is on-going—will feel the full force of the law.

That concludes First Minister’s questions.