Official Report 187KB pdf
Good afternoon, colleagues. Before we move to party leaders’ questions, I remind back-bench members who wish to ask a question to press their request-to-speak button when Alex Cole-Hamilton rises to speak. Please do not start your question with “To ask the First Minister”. “First Minister,” or some other beginning is fine. Back benchers will have one question, in order to let in as many members as possible, so there will be no supplementary questions for back benchers. We move to leaders’ questions.
Scottish National Party (Culture)
This week, Peter Murrell, the former chief executive officer of the Scottish National Party, pled guilty to embezzling more than £400,000 of supporters’ hard-earned cash. He will have to answer for his crimes, which will be a matter for the courts.
However, questions remain about the deeper culture that allowed him to commit—and think that he could get away with—his crimes. It is a culture that has been a hallmark of not just how the SNP runs its party but how it governs the country. It is a culture of secrecy and cover-up, in which the public are not told the truth, dissenters are vilified and careers are destroyed; in which protecting the party and the people at its top is more important than the country; and in which there is a sick and twisted belief that the cause is bigger than anything else. Will John Swinney apologise to all those who have been the victims of that dangerous culture?
As I said in answer to the urgent question that I responded to on Tuesday and in my public remarks on Monday, I am appalled at the conduct of Peter Murrell. As the police statement said on Monday, this was a lengthy and extremely complex case due to the scale of criminality over a 12-year period and the lengths to which Peter Murrell went to try to cover his tracks. It was a terrible example of behaviour and a breach of trust in public office, which I unreservedly condemn; I have made that abundantly clear.
Members of my party, who have lost out as a consequence of seeing their donations and contributions not being used for the purposes for which they are intended—I am one of those people, because I am a contributor to the SNP, as are all my colleagues—live with the consequences of those totally unacceptable actions. These issues have been addressed by a lengthy police investigation, and Peter Murrell is now facing the consequences of his actions.
As for the remainder of Mr Sarwar’s comments, I simply note that he has peddled all of this for the past five years, unreservedly, aided by his deputy, who is sitting beside him. However, the people of Scotland made their verdict on 7 May, and they returned 58 SNP MSPs to this Parliament and the Labour Party was reduced in its numbers. I think that Mr Sarwar should change his script, because his script is not working.
That arrogant disposition of John Swinney is what has destroyed so many people’s lives in his own political party. John Swinney has been at the heart of the SNP for 30 years. He helped to build, enable and defend its culture. I say to members on the SNP benches that many of their colleagues and supporters were victims of that culture and many of those with whom they now sit were part of it or benefited from that culture.
Yes, Peter Murrell is responsible for his crimes, but secrecy and cover-up go far beyond one individual or one case. At the heart of the case is an SNP culture in which secrecy became normal, dissent was dangerous and people learned that speaking out carried a heavy price, all while those at the top of the SNP machine operated without scrutiny.
Yesterday, we called for a parliamentary inquiry, as this is now a matter of public trust and integrity in office. John Swinney now says that he believes in honesty and transparency, so he should prove it. Will he back a parliamentary inquiry?
No, I will not back a parliamentary inquiry on that issue. The reason why I will not back a parliamentary inquiry is that we have just had a police investigation, which has gone on for five years. That police investigation identified criminality as the source of this particular issue; that is now being remedied in the courts. I do not think that there is anything that a parliamentary inquiry can add to a five-year forensic police investigation that has resulted in the successful prosecution of an individual and in his guilty plea.
What I would rather do is concentrate on the priorities of the people of Scotland, as I always do—whether those are reducing waiting times in our hospitals, providing support to first-time buyers or making sure that we expand early learning and childcare. That is what I am going to do, because I am a First Minister on Scotland’s side.
The purpose of a parliamentary inquiry would not be to look into the criminality—that is, of course, for the police to do. It would be to look at the culture, the process of decision making and lessons for the future. It would be to answer the many questions that the public have. That requires light and transparency, not the usual John Swinney and SNP playbook of shutting down or deflecting.
We have seen the dangerous outcomes of that culture: victims who reported the abuse by Patrick Grady threatened with legal and disciplinary action; SNP officials bullied and forced out by a First Minister for trying to reveal Murrell’s crimes; female MSPs bugged by SNP staff and then ignored by party leaders; and seven North Lanarkshire councillors forced out of the party for raising concerns about paedophile Jordan Linden. It is a culture that puts victims last, as though they are a threat to the cause.
John Swinney has a choice. Will he back a parliamentary inquiry or will he double down on protecting a culture that he helped to build and that enabled a man that he appointed to embezzle more than £400,000?
That was an astonishing attempt at victim blaming by Anas Sarwar. He should be ashamed of himself and of what he said. There is one person, and one person alone, who is responsible for the embezzlement of my party’s funds—and that is Peter Murrell.
When I became leader of the SNP, I promised to my party that there would be open dialogue, debate and scrutiny within our party, and that is precisely what I have delivered. That was just one of the many promises that I gave to the SNP and to the people of Scotland. I also promised that I would unite my party, and I succeeded in doing so, which is why there are 58 of us over here while there are 17 of them over there, on the Labour benches.
As my last word to Mr Sarwar on the subject, I say to him gently that people in glass houses should not throw stones. He knows that the Labour Party is up to its neck in difficulty, whether it is about live criminal cases that involve former members of this Parliament or about Peter Mandelson and his influence over the Labour Government. Anas Sarwar has not got a leg to stand on in taking me to task on those issues.
North Sea Gas Licensing
Today, we are importing 70 per cent of our gas from Norwegian gas fields in the North Sea, over the fence from our own gas fields that we are shutting down. Even the Norwegian energy minister thinks that that is daft. Will the First Minister state categorically that the Scottish Government will support the licensing of our own North Sea gas?
The Scottish Government’s position is that if new developments are to be taken forward, they have to pass a climate compatibility assessment to ensure that the extraction of those resources is compatible with our journey to net zero. In that judgment, consideration must also be given to the issues around security of energy supply.
The first part of my answer, in relation to climate compatibility assessments, is that there is a requirement on us to be compatible with the most recent Finch judgment on consenting of oil and gas licences. The second part of my answer, on security of supply, is that we must take into account the much more volatile circumstances that we now face as a consequence of what has happened in the middle east in recent weeks and months. That is the Scottish Government’s position. Obviously, the decision making on the issue is a matter for the United Kingdom Government—it must take the decision as to whether those tests can be satisfied as a consequence of any new licences that are issued.
I have to say that that was a pretty mealy-mouthed response from the First Minister, because all that it means is that we will end up being tied up in court action to work out whether those tests have been met. In the meantime, 1,000 jobs a month are being lost in the North Sea.
Can the First Minister give unequivocal support for, for example, new drilling licences for the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields? Given that licensing and planning are under the control of the Scottish Government, it needs to step forward and make that happen for the people of the north-east.
I understand the seriousness of the point that Mr Offord puts to me, but it is not me who is deferring to court action. I am dealing with the realities of living within the rule of law, which, as I have set out to Parliament, matters very much to me in how I conduct myself publicly. The Finch judgment requires climate compatibility assessments to be undertaken, so we cannot wish that requirement away. That is not a mealy-mouthed position; it is a reflection of the legal reality around us.
I say to Mr Offord that I recognise that circumstances and dynamics have changed because of the situation in the middle east. One of our worries about supply is about jet fuel. Of course, jet fuel was manufactured at Grangemouth, which was closed by the Labour Government, despite Anas Sarwar telling me in an election debate in 2024 that it would be saved by a Labour Government.
We have careful judgments to make on the issue, but the assurance that I give to Parliament today—and, crucially, to oil and gas workers in the north-east of Scotland—is that the Scottish Government will make all the interventions that it can to ensure that we secure the future of those individuals who are affected by the downturn in oil and gas.
During the election, the First Minister promised that his first debate in the chamber would be on the constitution, which would be followed by a request for a section 30 notice, and he has met that promise. During the election, the Labour Government promised that it would reject any application for such a section 30 notice, and it has done that. During the election, the First Minister promised that, if his section 30 notice application was rejected, he had a cunning plan to get a referendum.
The debate on the constitution was on Tuesday, and the First Minister’s request was rejected on Wednesday. It is now Thursday. Is it time for the First Minister to reveal his cunning plan, or has Peter Murrell stolen that as well?
The point of substance that Malcolm Offord puts to me is an important one, because it gets to the heart of our democratic politics. I am not going to just kowtow to 10 Downing Street. The people of Scotland have decided, this Parliament has an independence majority, and I will use that independence majority to deliver independence for our country.
Taxation Powers
The Scottish Greens were the only party at the election to say that we need to use our full taxation powers to raise more money, particularly from the wealth of the super-rich.
Today, the Tax Justice Scotland coalition wrote to the First Minister calling for a post-election reality check of Scotland’s public finances. In its words,
“if we want a fairer and greener country, we need to invest in it. You can’t promise a better Scotland and avoid paying for it.”
We know that public sector reform is badly needed, but trade unions in particular are rightly concerned that reform is usually a euphemism for slashing budgets and cutting jobs. Does the First Minister agree with the Scottish Greens and Tax Justice Scotland that we should explore all options for taxing wealth before cutting public sector jobs?
As Gillian Mackay will know from her experience in the previous parliamentary session, any budget proposition involves a combination of tax and spending decisions. In meeting those requirements, the Government considers the opportunities to raise tax and the consequences of raising tax, and the opportunities to undertake public expenditure and the impact that that public expenditure could have.
We will obviously need to have very open discussions. The Deputy First Minister will lead those discussions on behalf of the Government, and Ivan McKee will also be engaged in discussions on how we can secure greater impact from the way in which we undertake public expenditure.
Although I totally respect and understand the concerns of trade unions, we also need to be open to new ways of delivering public services. I have seen some fantastic work being delivered that has cost less but has delivered better outcomes for individuals. At the heart of the work that Ivan McKee is bringing forward is making sure that we improve public services while delivering financial sustainability for the public purse.
Of course, without a majority in the Parliament, the Government will need to work with others to come to common positions. I look forward to taking those discussions forward with many colleagues from across the political spectrum.
I appreciate that response from the First Minister and, in a second, I will come on to an idea about how we can deliver more from the public sector. I am sure that the new Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform will have plenty of difficult decisions to make. However, as the First Minister reflected, it is crucial that those decisions are not just about looking for cuts that can be dressed up as efficiencies but are about how we continue to build on the work that the public sector is doing to drive up productivity and wellbeing so that workers feel valued and are able to do their jobs well.
In the previous session, the Scottish Greens secured a pioneering trial of a four-day working week in the public sector, which resulted in a 25 per cent drop in mental health sick days and no loss of service delivery or productivity. Although our finances remain stretched, rolling out a four-day week would help to transform public sector work at no extra cost to the public purse. Will the First Minister commit to expanding the four-day week in the public sector?
I am very happy to consider those issues. It is obviously a bit too early in the parliamentary session for me to give a commitment that is quite as firm as the one that Gillian Mackay has invited me to make today. However, there is a deadly serious point at the heart of her question, which is that the environment in which public servants work really matters. If that environment is burdened by excessive bureaucracy or by slowness in decision making, that can have a negative effect on individuals in carrying out their responsibilities. Those considerations are at the heart of what Ivan McKee is looking to do, which is to ensure that we utilise the effectiveness of public expenditure to the maximum extent so that public servants are able to fulfil their roles and we can deliver better outcomes for members of the public in Scotland.
If it is a wee bit early for cast-iron commitments, the First Minister might not enjoy my next question.
The Scottish Greens have already shown that we can work constructively and creatively to raise more money for public services. Income tax changes that have been driven by Green MSPs over the past decade mean that our public services are now better off to the tune of £1.8 billion each year. However, we cannot fix Scotland’s public finances without fixing how we fund our local councils. For too long, the claim that we need a consensus to replace the council tax has been used as an excuse not to take action. If the First Minister wants to scrap the council tax to fund public services, the Scottish Greens will work with him—that would be a parliamentary majority for change. Will the First Minister work with us to scrap the council tax in this parliamentary session?
As I told the Parliament on Tuesday, I want this to be a bold Parliament. Therefore, there must be reform in this parliamentary session—we simply cannot go on as we are just now. There are legitimate issues regarding the council tax and its fairness, on which I have a great deal of sympathy. Later today, the Deputy First Minister is meeting local authority leaders to start the constructive dialogue that I want to see in place. The Government will be willing to engage with the Scottish Green Party on all issues, including on reform and potential abolition of the council tax. However, we need to have in place reliable means that will support public finances and the delivery of public services. That is the key consideration that will be brought to those discussions by the Scottish Government.
Publication of Information (Lord Advocate)
The Peter Murrell scandal is not just about the Scottish National Party’s toxic internal culture; it goes to the heart of Government and Scotland’s justice system. John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon did not stop Peter Murrell; they enabled him. Sturgeon warned SNP members to stop asking difficult questions and John Swinney assured everyone that the SNP’s finances were sound. Their shield of protection gave Murrell a licence to steal. People want to know why Nicola Sturgeon was not in the dock beside her husband. Will John Swinney back our call for the Lord Advocate to publish all the information that relates to the case?
Mr Findlay is an experienced parliamentarian and also an experienced journalist who has looked at many issues of criminality over his career. As the Crown Office pointed out to Mr Findlay yesterday, the Crown does not disclose the rationale for its taking decisions, other than where it pursues prosecutions against individuals. The Crown has undertaken a successful prosecution here, and I pay tribute to the Crown Office and to Police Scotland.
The Crown also made it clear to Mr Findlay yesterday that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General—the law officers—had no involvement in this case. They never have an involvement in cases involving political figures, which are all undertaken by independent counsel and experienced Crown counsel within the Crown Office.
That assurance, which was given by the Crown to Mr Findlay yesterday, is designed to explain that the highest standards have been applied to a deep and forensic criminal investigation, which resulted in the prosecution of one person and one person alone.
If Mr Findlay had a shred of decency about him he would express his respect for the judicial system in Scotland and for the justice system in Scotland and leave the professional officers of our police service and our professional prosecutors to do their jobs, which is exactly what they have done.
That was the usual desperate deflection from John Swinney. He is trying to shut down scrutiny, and we will not stand for it.
John Swinney says that the SNP is the victim, although there are new reports that taxpayers’ money was also stolen. If the SNP is the victim, did it exercise its right in law to seek a review of the Crown Office’s prosecution decision? Will John Swinney now follow the money, which bought a camper van, Montblanc pens and a home library? Is he taking legal action to force Peter Murrell to pay compensation or has John Swinney asked the Crown Office to use the proceeds of crime laws to recover luxury stolen goods from Peter Murrell and Nicola Sturgeon?
If there is anything desperate about all of this, it is the desperation of a man who has led the Conservative Party into oblivion asking me questions about this issue today. That is what Russell Findlay is doing. [Interruption.]
Let the First Minister answer, please.
As a matter of fact, in court on Monday, the advocate depute made a verbal motion for confiscation in relation to section 92 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and the decision on the matter will ultimately be for the court to make. Given that, as the Presiding Officer told us on Tuesday, the proceedings remain live until sentencing, I am unable to say any more beyond that.
The second point that I will make is in relation to the suggestion that there was public money involved in all of this. The only issue that could apply there is in relation to a policy development grant from the Electoral Commission. I want to reassure Parliament that, in order to receive funding, a party needs to apply to the Electoral Commission outlining the work that will be done in the forthcoming year, and to submit an audited report to the Electoral Commission outlining what grant funding has been spent on. It is only on receipt of the audited report that the final payment of the grant is made by the Electoral Commission. That confirms the point that I made to Parliament on Tuesday that it is SNP supporters’ money that has been embezzled, and not public money.
The last thing that I will say to Russell Findlay is this: the Scottish National Party has been affected by the loss of the resources as a result of this case, but what the Scottish National Party can rely on now is the most effective arrangements being in place to guarantee that the resources that we use are used to maximum effect. We used them to maximum effect on 7 May, when the SNP won 58 seats in the Parliament and the Conservatives were reduced to a hopeless rump of 12, sitting over there. They may grin all they like, but, for the seventh time in a row in this Parliament, we successfully got rid of the Conservatives, and the people of Scotland can breathe a sigh of relief that the Conservatives are over there redundant as a consequence of the election.
Ferry Services
During the Easter holidays, at least eight ferries were out of action at the same time. Every Scottish island faced disruption. Those communities are overdue serious compensation, and I hope that the First Minister will finally extend that to the coastal communities that are affected, too. Businesses there are now looking to the summer holidays and wondering what this situation will mean for them.
Last week, technology of the 19century came to the rescue of passengers of the 21century when the Waverley paddle steamer stepped in for a stricken Caledonian MacBrayne vessel. John Swinney must have winced with embarrassment at that reality.
Is Scotland’s ferry fleet ready for the summer?
I acknowledge that there have been acute challenges in the ferry network over the past few weeks and months.
When I went to the Western Isles during the election campaign—and, by the way, I went there by ferry and came back by ferry; I did not just fly in for a day trip—I listened to people about the issues with ferries. I also confirmed that, if the Scottish National Party Government was re-elected, we would put in place financial assistance to deal with the damage that I acknowledge was undertaken to many communities as a consequence of the disruption during the Easter holidays. I am happy to confirm to Parliament that the Scottish Government will make such a fund available and we are now considering the terms and basis of that. I will reflect on Mr Cole-Hamilton’s point about coastal communities.
As to whether the ferry network is equipped for the summer, when I looked at service strength this morning, before I came down to the chamber, I saw that ferry services on most routes are operating appropriately. That has been the case for a number of days. I look at that regularly, because I am keen to ensure that island communities are well served by the ferry network, and I will continue to do that, as will the transport secretary, who is also engaging on all of those questions.
I do think that the ferry network is going to be ready for the summer. It will have to be, because the First Minister is going to be using it to go on his summer holidays.
I am grateful for that reply, but it is no wonder that the people of the Western Isles sent the First Minister and his party packing. Lots of coastal and island communities are turning away from the SNP because of this issue. Remember that The New York Times told its readers that, while our Scottish islands are beautiful,
“Good luck getting on or off.”
Scotland’s islands are a great option for a summer getaway—they are beautiful—but only if we can get holidaymakers over to their hotels and to cafes and distilleries.
The ferry fleet is more prone than ever before to breakdown and disruption. It is not resilient. Everyone who lives in those communities knows that all too well. Has the First Minister picked up the phone to ferry operators and Governments elsewhere in the United Kingdom and Europe to find extra vessels to keep those routes operational and our island communities profitable?
Of course we have done that. We have been using the MV Alfred on the Troon to Brodick route, with which the Presiding Officer may well be familiar. We have also purchased the Loch Frisa, which services the route from Oban to Craignure on the Isle of Mull. The MV Isle of Islay is also now in service, and it services the route to Islay. The Glen Sannox is servicing the Castlebay route presently, and we have another vessel coming from the Cemre yard in the summer, another one in the autumn and another in the spring. The Glen Rosa is also to join service. Therefore, there are more vessels coming into the fleet.
The SNP Government has already put nine new vessels into the fleet and we have 11 more coming into the fleet. I assure Mr Cole-Hamilton that CalMac and Northlink Ferries are always working to ensure that we have connections in place.
There is an important message that our islands are open for business. When I was in the Western Isles during the election campaign, I heard frustration from local businesses about the ferry network, but also about some of the amplification of these issues that indicated that it was ever more difficult for people to get to the islands, which is damaging to island communities.
Mr Cole-Hamilton said that island communities were turning their backs on the SNP. While I am on my feet, I cannot resist the temptation to respond. I grieve the loss of my dear friend Dr Alasdair Allan in the Western Isles. He was an absolutely outstanding parliamentarian, and I very much regret the fact that we were unable to hold on to Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, and Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch. However, after 75 years of Liberal representation, the people of Shetland did an absolutely wonderful thing. They sent Hannah Mary Goodlad here for the SNP, and we are delighted to welcome her to the Scottish Parliament.
We now move to questions from back benchers. The leaders’ questions have taken some 30 minutes, so I think that folk will now appreciate why I have introduced a back benchers’ questions session on a Tuesday.
I ask members to ensure, please, that they have pressed their request-to-speak buttons, because a host of members are already keen to speak. Members have lodged very interesting questions that I am quite keen to take, but some of you have not pressed your buttons. Without further ado, I call Jackie Dunbar.
Energy Price Cap
This week, it was announced that the energy price cap was going to increase by 13 per cent, which will lead to an estimated bill rise of £221. What assessment has been made of the impact that that will have on poverty and child poverty in Scotland?
The news about the energy price cap is a serious blow to families around the country, because, as we all heard during the election campaign, people are already wrestling with cost of living challenges. The 13 per cent increase in the energy price cap makes that situation ever more challenging for individuals and families.
The Scottish Government will take all the action that we can take, through measures that I set out during the election, relating to, for example, the affordability of travel and the food shop. However, what we need is action from the United Kingdom Government. It promised to reduce energy bills by £300, but energy bills are going to be higher than when Labour came to office. That is just another example of the failure of the Labour Government at Westminster.
There is now a strong and compelling argument for the motion that we will debate this afternoon, which is on the importance of ensuring that the energy-generating potential of Scotland is in Scotland’s hands, so that people can benefit from the strength of Scottish energy.
Gillies Report (University of Aberdeen)
The First Minister will remember the publication of the Gillies report last year, which contained recommendations about university governance and financial management, including on issues of transparency and staff engagement.
Today, Aberdeen university court is discussing restructuring, job cuts, increasing staff workload and more, yet staff have not been properly engaged, unions have not received the information that is required about fair work and other questions, and the university senate has not been properly consulted. What is the First Minister’s view of how the Gillies recommendations are being understood and implemented by institutions, and the fact that public money is being used in ways that will have significant negative impacts on staff and students in Aberdeen and elsewhere? Will the First Minister agree to meet the campus unions as soon as possible?
The points that Maggie Chapman makes are very important, because the Gillies report found that there were significant issues. The report looked into issues at the University of Dundee, which were of an exceptional character. Nonetheless, the process that is being undertaken by the University of Aberdeen to ensure that it is able to sustain its activities must be carried out in line with the principles that the Government expects and that are contained in the Gillies report.
The University of Aberdeen operates as an arm’s-length independent institution, so it is responsible for its own governance. However, ministers would expect the University of Aberdeen—and any university—to take due account of the issues that were set out in the Gillies review and the terms of the availability of funding through the Scottish Funding Council. I encourage the University of Aberdeen to engage constructively with all interested parties to ensure that that is the case.
The Minister for Innovation, Technology and Tertiary Education, Ben Macpherson, would be very happy to meet the trade unions. We will make arrangements for that to happen.
Renewables Industry (Jobs)
Thisweek, the Confederation of British Industry revealed that 105,000 renewables jobs are contributing more than £10 billion to the Scottish economy. Reform would end that industry tomorrow, and the Tories inflicted a tax on Scotland’s energy that is costing 1,000 jobs per month. The First Minister knows that Scotland needs oil and gas supply chains and skills to deliver those renewables jobs, so what action is his Government taking to support our offshore industry and the renewables industry to drive forward Scotland’s economy?
I thank Laura Mitchell for her question and welcome her to her place in Parliament as the member for Moray. I look forward to her contribution. The issues that she raises in relation to renewable energy and oil and gas are central to the economic interests of her constituency, and I know that she will champion them effectively in this Parliament.
I welcome the CBI report. With the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport, I had the opportunity to reflect at the CBI’s annual Scottish lunch last Friday on the importance of a collaboration between Government, business, our renewable energy and oil and gas companies, our universities, our local authorities and other players in our economy.
When I opened the renewable energy engineering centre for Hitachi Energy UK yesterday in the city of Glasgow, I had the opportunity to reinforce the message on the importance of creating a sense of common purpose in our economy to ensure that we all take measures that support the oil and gas sector and renewables and ensure that we accelerate the transition to net zero.
We need to see practical measures taken to strengthen the financial viability of oil and gas activity, which comes through the removal of the energy profits levy, which is long overdue, and the acceleration of the steps to consenting around the grid, which is necessary for renewable energy developments. That will help to realise the ambitions that Laura Mitchell sets out, and I give her the assurance that the Scottish Government will argue for all those provisions.
Back benchers have been very well behaved, with short, sharp questions. I would like shorter and sharper responses, to allow more members to come in.
Family C Learning Review Report
The learning review into the case of family C in Glasgow has recently been published. The report on what was commonly known as the beastie house evidences the multitude of institutional failures that resulted in children enduring a decade of degrading, violent and sexual abuse at the hands of adults who were supposed to be caring for them. The heinous crimes that were committed are truly awful and heartbreaking. That that was able to happen in modern Scotland, where we have a multitude of children’s policies and strategies that are supposed to protect children and recognise their rights, is a disgrace.
I recognise that the First Minister has given an apology to a scrum of journalists, but that is not equivalent to giving a statement to Parliament. What does he have to say to victims and to Parliament about those serious failings?
I am grateful to Claire Baker for raising this important issue. I agree with her conclusions and her assessment of the report. What has been disclosed is absolutely terrible reading.
I pay tribute at the outset to the children, who, from my reading of the report, have demonstrated extraordinary strength and tenacity in being able to convey the suffering that they have experienced. I express an unreserved apology to each of the children involved.
It is clear from my reading of the report that there were serious institutional failures in understanding and connecting all the information that was available. I find it difficult to comprehend how that could be the case, because the information was so obvious and so compelling, but it demonstrates an issue that has occurred in a number of cases on different occasions—the failure of institutions to make connections between information that comes together to therefore necessitate action and intervention. That is just one of the key points of learning that must come out of the report.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic will meet the City of Glasgow Council to consider the issue, which was discussed at Cabinet on Tuesday. I want to make sure that the lessons that are identified in the report are a source of challenge to all child protection committees in the country, because I agree fundamentally with Claire Baker’s point that it is simply beyond comprehension that such experiences could take place in 21st century Scotland with the policy framework that we have in place. We have to honestly face up to the institutional failure that is involved, and I give her the commitment that the Government will do so.
Prison Population
After the Government releasing more than 1,400 prisoners early, cutting the automatic early release point to less than a third of the sentence, bringing in a presumption against short sentences and all but stopping under-25s from going to prison, Scotland’s prison population is, nevertheless, still at record levels. Does the First Minister accept that the knee-jerk, ham-fisted early release scheme has failed? Can he confirm that his Government will not bring forward yet another early release scheme to cover up its failure to tackle Scotland’s prison capacity crisis?
Liam Kerr raises a serious issue. The prison population is at a very high level and the level of incarceration is very high. That is partly because of the success of the criminal justice authorities in prosecuting individuals for historical crimes and because of the length of sentences that have been applied. It gives rise to significant issues with prison capacity, which is being addressed directly. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and I met to discuss the issue yesterday. It will be the source of focused work among partners to ensure that we take all the action that is necessary, so that the prison population can be stabilised and our prisons can operate safely for all concerned.
Evacuation Support (Coalsnaughton)
The First Minister may be aware that, so far, 60 families in my constituency have had to be evacuated at short notice from their homes due to underground movement in the former mining community of Coalsnaughton. The distress and uncertainty that have been caused for my constituents, including their children, cannot be overestimated.
Will the First Minister assure me that the national resilience framework and his Government will spare no effort in assisting my constituents? Will they ensure that the Mining Remediation Authority and the relevant insurance companies will fully and quickly discharge their responsibilities and provide serious support for my constituents as they experience the profound distress of being moved from their homes at short notice?
I am very concerned about the issue that Mr Brown raises. I am familiar with it and I provide him with the assurance that the Government’s resilience network is actively supporting Clackmannanshire Council on the question. The Mining Remediation Authority is actively engaged with the partnership in taking forward the support that is required.
I acknowledge the distress, inconvenience and anxiety that the matter has caused to Mr Brown’s constituents. I provide him with the assurance that the Government will do all that it can to support the residents concerned, as well as Clackmannanshire Council. If there are any specific areas on which Mr Brown requires assistance from the Government, he knows that we will respond swiftly to any request that he makes of us.
Recall of Members
When John Swinney was voted in as First Minister last week, he said:
“All too often in Parliaments, I have watched members celebrate when bold proposals are blocked, seemingly for political expediency rather than for any substantial concerns.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2026; c 33.]
The First Minister offered to work across party lines, because that is what people expect. My proposals to introduce a recall system were rejected in the previous session of the Parliament, which was a missed opportunity. The First Minister backs recall in principle. Will he agree to consider how we can best look at it again, either by me bringing my proposals back, by a committee being formed to look at the issue, or through some other option?
As Mr Simpson indicates, in principle, I am in support of a recall provision, and I think that it is necessary for it to be in place. I am open to the mechanism by which that is undertaken. I genuinely consider this to be a rather invidious issue for the Government to bring forward, because it affects the status of members of Parliament. Therefore, I would rather see provisions emerge through parliamentary discussions, as opposed to the initiative of a Government bill, for example. It may be an issue that the corporate body wishes to provide advice about.
Essentially, I give Mr Simpson the assurance that the Government would be supportive of developing such a proposition, if we could agree on the most appropriate mechanism for doing that. I say that simply to respect the fact that I do not think that the Government should be passing judgment about the role of members of Parliament, as I do not think that that would be constitutionally appropriate. If Parliament wished us to consider it, I would be happy to do so.
The Vinery Banff
A few weeks ago, the First Minister visited the Vinery in Banff with me and saw the difference that it makes through its offer of a welcome place where people can build confidence, learn new skills, improve wellbeing and sometimes find a route into work. With the loss of its United Kingdom shared prosperity funding, it now faces closure in a matter of days, which would be devastating for hundreds of local people and families. What steps can the First Minister take to engage with the centre and help to safeguard the services that it provides?
Karen Adam is absolutely right. I had a lovely visit with her to the Vinery in Banff and saw at first hand the tremendous positive impact that it has on the lives of individuals by tackling social isolation and helping individuals to overcome some of the mental wellbeing challenges that they are wrestling with.
I would be happy to explore with Ms Adam the steps that the Government could take to try to intervene. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and Housing would be able to engage on that issue, and we will explore what possibilities there are to safeguard the support that is available through the Vinery.
With apologies to those members I was unable to take today, that concludes First Minister’s question time. I suspend the meeting until 2.30.
12:46
Meeting suspended.
14:30
On resuming—
Next
Scotland’s Energy