Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, February 29, 2024

Official Report 1120KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Emma Caldwell Case (Independent Public Inquiry)

Yesterday, after nearly 20 years, the murderer of Emma Caldwell was finally brought to justice. As well as her murder, Iain Packer was convicted of 33 offences against 22 women, which he committed over three decades. He should have been behind bars years ago.

This morning, speaking via her lawyer, Aamer Anwar, Emma’s mother, Margaret Caldwell, told us:

“They knew it was Iain Packer as far back as 2006, but they gave him ... freedom to carry on attacking and raping vulnerable women like my Emma.”

Margaret had a message for the First Minister:

“If Mr Yousaf genuinely cares about victims and my Emma then he has no other option but to organise an independent public inquiry.”

She continued:

“with respect—what are you waiting for?”

Will Humza Yousaf take the opportunity today to immediately announce the establishment of a judge-led inquiry?

I thank Douglas Ross for raising an exceptionally important issue. First and foremost, I once again give my condolences and those of the Government to Emma’s family, friends and loved ones at what will continue to be an extraordinarily difficult time. I pay tribute to Margaret Caldwell, Emma’s mother, and her family, who tirelessly fought for justice for not only Emma but the many other women who suffered at the hands of Iain Packer. I also recognise the important role that journalists from the Sunday Mail and BBC Scotland have played in the case, as well as the tenacity of the reporters in trying to seek out justice.

Yesterday’s verdict will not, I suspect, have brought elation or happiness to Emma’s family, or to Margaret in particular, but I hope that it gives them a tiny crumb of comfort that justice, to some extent, has been done. However, Douglas Ross is right that justice came far too late. There is no doubt that there are serious failings in the case. I have responded in writing to Margaret Caldwell’s legal representative to say that I am willing to meet Margaret Caldwell, alongside the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs.

With regard to a public inquiry, I want to hear from Margaret Caldwell and examine the case. It is not just about getting more detail—it is important to say that there is still an on-going legal process. Iain Packer has the right to appeal, so we must wait, to some extent, to see the next stages of that legal process. Let me be clear that we are exploring a judge-led public inquiry. It is absolutely not off the table, and we are giving serious consideration to that, given the systemic failings of the case.

I agree with almost everything that the First Minister said, but a judge-led inquiry needs to be more than explored and should not be off the table. Of course, legal routes still have to be established and finished, but we know that there are major failings in the case that will not change, regardless of an appeal.

This morning, via her legal counsel, Aamer Anwar, Margaret Caldwell told us:

“A judge led public inquiry—that acts without fear or favour—is the very least my Emma and the many women who spoke up deserve. For far too long, those in the police or crown who failed us have remained in the shadows.”

She finished by saying:

“Only a judge led public inquiry will reveal the corruption, the criminality and the motivation.”

Emma Caldwell’s family and many other women who were attacked need answers now, not in another 20 years. The victims and their families need a free and fearless public inquiry that they can fully trust. The First Minister needs to say today that he agrees to that judge-led inquiry. We are calling for that inquiry to be led by a judge from outwith Scotland. Will he agree to that?

There is not much difference between Douglas Ross and me in this regard. I do not rule out a public inquiry. I am suggesting that it is important and prudent for me to meet Margaret Caldwell in order to hear directly from her and from her legal representative, and to explore and examine what the interaction would be between any inquiry and an on-going legal process. I hear what Douglas Ross is saying. If there is to be a judge-led public inquiry, the question is whether it should be led by a judge from outside Scotland. That question is worthy of consideration if we get to that position.

Let me be absolutely clear that we do not rule out a judge-led public inquiry—in fact, it is firmly on the table. As First Minister, it is important that I consider the on-going legal process.

I go back to the central point, on which Douglas Ross and I do not disagree, that many women—we know of at least 21 of them—were subjected to the most horrendous attacks, sexual assault, rape, and, tragically in Emma’s case, murder, by Iain Packer. Ultimately, they were let down by failings in the justice system and failings in the police service at the time. I commend the bravery of the many women who have come forward to speak about their experiences in the pursuit of justice.

I go back to my central point. I will meet Margaret Caldwell and her legal representative. I am very open to the suggestion of and the calls for a judge-led public inquiry.

I really feel that the First Minister has to go further. He said in his answer that people have been let down. There are many failings—we know that. Regardless of any appeal that is still to come, the failings of the police and the Crown are crystal clear. That is why a judge-led inquiry by someone from outwith Scotland is the only option—it must be the only option on the table. The First Minister needs to take the opportunity today to agree to that and announce it.

An inquiry led by a judge from outwith Scotland will get to the bottom of what happened. Those were not just mere accidents by Police Scotland or the Crown Office; it seems that evidence was deliberately ignored and suppressed. The truth only emerged after years of campaigning by Emma’s family and when a former detective, Gerry Gallacher, stepped forward as a whistleblower. He publicly identified Iain Packer as a suspect in the media. It is utterly shocking that the response from the police was to launch a surveillance operation targeting the journalists and the whistleblowers. One of the whistleblowers, Gerry Gallacher, said that there must be consequences for those who are responsible. Does Humza Yousaf agree on that point?

I agree that the targeting of not just police officers but journalists is incredibly worrying and concerning.

I go back to the question that Douglas Ross asked me from the very beginning about a public inquiry. If the Government is to announce a judge-led public inquiry, which we are seriously considering and exploring, it is important for us to speak to Margaret Caldwell and to come to the Parliament with the full detail of what any public inquiry could look to explore and examine, and what any potential terms of reference might look like. I go back to my central point that we are not at all opposed to a public inquiry and that, in fact, that is very firmly in our consideration.

Douglas Ross is absolutely right. When we look back over the history of the case, some of the allegations that are being made in relation to Police Scotland—and the legacy forces that existed prior to Police Scotland’s formation—are astonishing. On behalf of the Government and to give some level of assurance, I note that that is why the work on violence against women and girls is so important to this very day. We continue to ensure that we fund that work.

There are many questions to answer around why Iain Packer was able to evade justice and continue to commit the many crimes that he did for so long. We will seriously consider all the options that are on the table, including a judge-led public inquiry. We will also take on board Douglas Ross’s suggestion that, if there is to be a public inquiry, we should consider whether a judge outwith Scotland should lead it.

Emma Caldwell, her grieving family and Iain Packer’s many other victims were betrayed by what was one of Scotland’s worst policing scandals. Many questions remain about this shameful saga, which can be answered only by a fearless, transparent and independent inquiry. I really think that that is the only option.

We need to know why it took so long to charge Iain Packer. Why was he allowed to remain free to attack more women? Who was responsible for allowing him, after multiple interviews, to continue to walk free?

I hope that the First Minister can take from this the need to urgently and immediately meet Margaret Caldwell and her legal representatives, to give an urgent statement to Parliament in a matter of days, and to finally announce that the Government is launching an independent inquiry, and that it will be led by a judge from outside Scotland.

Douglas Ross is right that there are lots of questions that demand an answer. It is important that the many women who have been failed—Emma Caldwell was ultimately failed, but many other women have also been failed by the justice system and police forces previously—get the answers to the questions that they rightly have.

I assure Douglas Ross that we will seek to meet Margaret Caldwell and her legal representative urgently, and we will look at the options in front of us and come back to Parliament on that urgently. As Douglas Ross said in his opening question, women have waited far too long for justice, given the history of the case.

I will end where I started, by paying tribute to Margaret Caldwell in particular, but also to the many other women who came forward bravely to speak about their experiences, and to the fearless journalists who first unmasked Iain Packer’s activities and were tireless in their pursuit for justice. Not only will we meet Margaret Caldwell, but we are very seriously considering the option of a public inquiry.

---

Emma Caldwell Case

Presiding Officer,

“A toxic culture of misogyny and corruption meant the police failed so many women and girls who came forward to speak up against Packer. Instead of receiving justice and compassion, they were humiliated, dismissed and in some instances arrested, whilst the police gifted freedom to an evil predator to rape and rape again.”

Those were the powerful words of Margaret Caldwell yesterday. We know that, after the murder of her daughter Emma in 2005, Iain Packer committed 19 rapes, sexual offences or assaults. Those victims could have been protected if Iain Packer had been properly investigated.

I want to press the First Minister on the issue of who would lead any potential inquiry. This injustice has spanned 19 years and, in that time, we have had five Lord Advocates and six chief constables. Does the First Minister agree that, for any inquiry or review to be truly independent, it requires to be led by an individual who is separate and independent from Scotland’s criminal justice system?

Much like Douglas Ross, Anas Sarwar makes some very important points on this issue. I will come to a few of them, if I can.

First and foremost, Anas Sarwar is right that, in Scotland, we still have a serious problem with misogyny. There is a lot of cross-party consensus on some of the actions that the Scottish Government is taking forward to tackle violence against women and girls. I hope to bring a debate to the Parliament on positive masculinity, which is a concept designed to remove and eradicate some of the toxic behaviours that we see among some young men and boys in our society. There is little difference between us on the need to tackle that pervasive issue in our society.

With regard to the timeline of the multiple failures of the justice system in relation to Emma Caldwell’s murder, as I said to Douglas Ross, I think that there is a strong argument that, for whichever type of review is held, or if there is, ultimately, a judge-led public inquiry, it should be led by somebody outwith Scotland. I do not remove that option from the table—it is firmly on the table and part of our consideration.

However, as I said to Douglas Ross, there are a few considerations that we must deal with rapidly and urgently around the on-going legal process. I must also hear directly from Margaret Caldwell—I have not yet had the opportunity to meet her, as I am waiting for the conclusion of the case before I do so.

We will give the suggestion that both Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar have made serious consideration.

There are many troubling issues with this case—misogyny, prejudice and the failure to listen to women who come forward with evidence. Among those failures is a wider culture in which Scottish institutions too often fight for their reputations rather than take the side of victims and seek to find the truth. That culture still prevails today.

Key breakthroughs in this investigation were possible only due to the work and bravery of journalists who investigated leads that officers had ignored. Distressingly, the police’s first response to that vital work was not to look at the flaws in their own investigation but to attempt to intimidate and criminalise those journalists. In this case, and today, journalists, victims and campaigners who seek to uncover an injustice in Scotland too often find themselves victims of intimidation and harassment. Does the First Minister accept that? What steps is he taking to end that culture?

That should not be the culture in any of our institutions. Anas Sarwar will be aware that, on the back of the work that Dame Elish Angiolini has done for the Government, we have introduced the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill, which is making its way through the parliamentary process. The bill will improve the police complaints and misconduct process.

There is a lot of cross-party consensus, although there will obviously be some challenge from Opposition colleagues for the Government to consider. However, the bill includes important provisions to ensure that justice can be pursued even after a police officer retires or resigns. The bill will build on the significant improvement work that has already been delivered by policing partners since Dame Elish Angiolini’s report in November 2020.

There are things that we can do to improve the culture across our institutions. Anas Sarwar and I have often debated the national health service and the actions that the Government is taking to ensure that there are whistleblowing champions, for example. The Government takes seriously the premise that all our public institutions should encourage whistleblowing and the bringing forward of any concerns. The individuals who raise such concerns should not be the ones under scrutiny and pressure, and they should not be subject to any intimidation whatsoever.

On the issue of violence against women and girls, there are always improvements for Police Scotland to make—that almost goes without saying. I have seen comments from organisations that work tirelessly to tackle violence against women and girls that, since the formation of Police Scotland, they have noticed improvements in the investigation of rape and sexual offences. However, there is still room for improvement. There is no doubt about that.

Although any inquiry will look at the failings in this case over the past 19 years, we know that there are issues that persist today. The First Minister has referenced some of them already. In 2020, an independent review of the police complaints and disciplinary system found evidence of misogyny, racism and serious discrimination issues in Police Scotland. Only last year, the outgoing chief constable, Iain Livingstone, clearly stated that

“institutional racism, sexism, misogyny and discrimination exist”

in Police Scotland.

I return to the words of Margaret Caldwell:

“Whatever a woman’s job, status, addictions or vulnerabilities, it should never be used as a reason to ignore sexual violence or treat them as a second-class citizen.”

Whether 19 years ago or today, we know that that culture leaves victims unprotected and costs lives. As a previous justice secretary and now as First Minister, how will the First Minister end the culture of prejudice and discrimination that denies so many justice?

I thank Anas Sarwar for reading out Margaret Caldwell’s words—they are incredibly powerful. I think that every single one of us will be moved by her words. She is absolutely right.

We are doing a lot of work, particularly through our equally safe strategy but also to challenge men’s demand for sex. I am happy to write to Anas Sarwar with greater detail. It is important that we all recognise that prostitution is a form of violence against women and girls and is completely unacceptable. Our recently published strategy to challenge men’s demand for prostitution outlines actions to support women who are in prostitution and describes a new pilot programme to improve access to support for those with experience of prostitution. Lessons learned from the pilot will inform any legislative consideration, including whether to criminalise the purchase of sex.

The Government has an important job to do in supporting women, regardless of their background or vulnerabilities. We have taken forward a range of work, a lot of which has cross-party support, to improve victims’ experiences in the criminal justice system. I will write to Anas Sarwar with more detail. Just this week, we have been piloting free court transcripts for victims of rape and sexual offences. A number of campaigners have met members from across the parties on that issue.

The Government will continue to ensure that victims are at the centre of our justice system and are protected, but there are plenty of lessons to learn. I go back to my initial responses to Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar. I will meet Margaret Caldwell, and due consideration is being given to a judge-led public inquiry.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

My thoughts are with Emma Caldwell’s family. The discussion that we have just heard underpins the urgent need for a judge-led inquiry.

To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. (S6F-02869)

Tuesday.

An international study has shown that Scotland has among the longest waits for and poorest access to cancer treatment. I want to tell members about Gill. Her mum, dad, cousin, aunt and two grandparents have all died of cancer. Her sister tested positive for the CHEK2 cancer gene and was given preventative surgery and reconstruction in Edinburgh. However, Gill was repeatedly denied genetic testing by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, despite her family history. She persevered and discovered that she does have that gene. Now, she has been told that the surgery that her sister received in Edinburgh is not available in Glasgow, which means far longer waits and recovery times.

When cancer rips through your family and you know that it is coming for you, the last thing that you need is to fight for care. All that Gill wants is to see her young children grow up, which is something that her mother never got to do. I ask the First Minister to look into Gill’s case and ensure that all patients, wherever they live, have the highest quality of cancer care.

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for raising an incredibly important issue. I read through the international study that he referenced and I ask him, after First Minister’s question time, to send me the details of Gill’s case. I put on record my sympathy for all the losses that Gill has experienced. Alex Cole-Hamilton is absolutely right that the only thing that many of us want is to see our children grow up, spend time with them and have as much time with our loved ones as possible.

I am more than happy to look into the case. I can also ensure that we send Alex Cole-Hamilton some detail on the improvements that we are making in cancer care. It is still extremely challenging following the pandemic—there is no getting away from, or denying, that—but more and more people are on the 31-day and 62-day pathways. There has been some recent evaluation of our rapid cancer diagnostic services, which might be of interest to Alex Cole-Hamilton. There have been some really positive results in reducing waiting times for diagnosis for patients in the areas where the rapid cancer diagnostic services operate. I will wait for Alex Cole-Hamilton to send Gill’s details, and then we will see what the Government can do.

---

Livestock Worrying

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the latest reported figures highlighting the impact of livestock worrying in Scotland. (S6F-02874)

The worrying of livestock by dogs is completely unacceptable. The Scottish Government takes that very seriously, recognising the very serious welfare and financial impacts that livestock worrying can have. The figures that have been reported indicate that there are still individuals who do not recognise their responsibilities as dog owners and allow their dogs to chase livestock. Of course, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

We welcomed the introduction of Emma Harper’s Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021, which came into force on 5 November 2021, and I thank Ms Harper for her continued efforts in this area. Education is a key factor in the prevention of livestock worrying incidents, and the Scottish outdoor access code, which is widely published, is clear on the rights and responsibilities of land managers and those exercising access rights.

The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021 has proved successful in raising awareness of livestock attacks and livestock worrying and in encouraging farmers to have the confidence to report livestock worrying incidents. However, NFU Mutual’s latest report on rural crime shows that livestock worrying reports are increasing. Stakeholders including NFU Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates have called for a change to the outdoor access code to mandate that dogs be kept on leads when in fields where livestock is present. Will the First Minister comment on how the Government can continue to raise awareness of my livestock worrying act and on whether it will consider making such an amendment to the Scottish outdoor access code as part of the upcoming land reform bill?

All the points that Emma Harper has made are well worthy of consideration. She is absolutely right to highlight the difference that has been made by the legislation that this Parliament enacted on livestock worrying, thanks mainly to her efforts in introducing the bill and guiding it into law. It is interesting to note that only now is the United Kingdom Government proposing to legislate similarly to cover England.

We continue to work with partners to increase awareness of dog owners’ responsibilities under the livestock worrying act, including through NatureScot’s traditional media and social media activity on responsible dog walking. I have asked the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity to consider what more we might do to raise awareness and encourage more responsible ownership and owner behaviour, especially at times such as the lambing season.

I note that some people would wish us to review the access code, as Emma Harper has said, and we will give that consideration. However, we can be rightly proud in Scotland that we have among the most open access to our land anywhere. As a nation, we want that to continue. Closing off the countryside is not the answer, and it is certainly not what Emma Harper is suggesting. We want to encourage more people to follow and adhere to the Scottish outdoor access code, especially in relation to responsible dog walking.

The devastating cost of dog attacks on livestock has doubled in Scotland since 2022. It is causing harm and distress to animals and financial hardship to farmers. The legislation really is not working, is it?

There are a number of reasons why the number of incidents has risen. Rachael Hamilton is suggesting that the legislation is not working, yet the UK Government is looking to legislate for England in a very similar manner. We are happy to share any information with the UK Government on the legislation that we have introduced.

We have to ensure that more is done to raise awareness of responsible dog walking right across the year and especially during particular seasons such as the lambing season. Rachael Hamilton is right. The impacts of livestock worrying are significant. They are often traumatic to farmers and, indeed, to livestock, and they also cause significant financial hardship. That is why we will do what we can to tackle livestock worrying wherever it happens in Scotland.

---

Sex Offenders (Identity Change)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to prevent convicted sex offenders from changing their identity. (S6F-02863)

This is a matter of public protection, which we take extremely seriously. All registered sex offenders are subject to sex offender notification requirements, and any change of name must, by law, be notified to the police. The management of offenders’ documents includes the recording of any aliases.

Before Christmas, we became aware that the United Kingdom Government was working on legislative change on name changes through its Criminal Justice Bill, and we are keen to align arrangements, where possible. That is why we have made repeated requests at ministerial and official level to see the detail of proposed amendments. I am pleased that we have received those amendments—although only this week—and we have started the serious and careful consideration that is needed to examine how they would work in Scotland and to the tight deadlines of the UK legislation.

The First Minister will share my concern about news reports at the weekend about an individual with convictions for sexual assault of children who changed his name and was then appointed president of the Robert Burns World Federation, where he had access to children who were participating in Burns competitions. There are many similar cases involving individuals whose convictions predated the creation of the sex offenders register. It is clearly a very serious issue that potentially puts children at risk from predatory adults who are able to conceal their offending history by changing their name.

As the First Minister said, the UK Government proposes to make changes in the law to protect children in such circumstances. He referred to work that is on-going. Can he give us an assurance as to how quickly the Scottish Government can move to close the loophole in the law that exists, which might otherwise be very dangerous?

I thank Murdo Fraser for raising the issue. I was extremely concerned to read the press reports at the weekend on the case that he referenced. I can give him an absolute assurance that we are working hard to see how we can work with the UK Government to align the position in Scotland with some of the changes that it is proposing.

I understand the public’s concern around the issue, and I will always consider what changes we can make to ensure that there are effective safeguards in place, when it is within our legislative competence to do so.

Murdo Fraser will be more than aware that passports, driving licences and name changes relating to them are reserved to the UK Government, as we have just referenced. There are other ways in which people can change their name—for example, they can do so by marrying, divorcing, making a statutory declaration, using their middle name rather than their first name and so on. We will have to consider all those issues in the round. If there is anything that we can do that is within our gift, we will, and we are prepared to work with the UK Government, as Murdo Fraser asked, with urgency.

Can the First Minister provide an update on other measures to manage sex offenders, including licence and behavioural or prevention orders, and say how those measures link with notification conditions and whether they have been updated?

That is an important question. Following the weekend’s press reports about the case that Murdo Fraser referenced, there will be a lot of concern, so it is important to provide some reassurance. Last year, new behavioural orders were introduced to reinforce what were already stringent checks on individuals who pose a risk of sexual harm. The police can apply to courts for sexual harm prevention orders for individuals who are convicted of sexual offending, when it is believed that they pose a risk of sexual harm to the public. When such an order is granted, the individual will automatically become subject to the sex offender notification requirements.

The sexual risk order is a civil preventative order that is designed to protect the public from sexual harm. There is no need for a previous conviction.

Breach of either of those orders can result in imprisonment. In addition, licence conditions can be put in place to manage an individual’s behaviour on release from custody. Adherence to those conditions can be monitored by justice social work and electronically monitored, if that is deemed necessary.

As Audrey Nicoll will be aware, we have very stringent multi-agency public protection arrangements in place for offenders. In Scotland, the vast majority of registered sex offenders comply with the notification requirements that are imposed on them—in fact, according to the MAPPA annual report that was published in October last year, 93 per cent do so.

As I said to Murdo Fraser previously, if there is more that we can do, whether within our own competence or by working with the UK Government, to safeguard not only our children but other individuals from predatory behaviour, we will seek to work with whoever we have to in order to ensure that those safeguards are in place.

---

Temporary Accommodation (Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that the number of people living in temporary accommodation in Glasgow has increased by 25 per cent. (S6F-02861)

Statistics that were published on Tuesday highlight the challenges that we face in tackling homelessness. That has undoubtedly been compounded by the cost of living crisis, the impact of UK Government austerity and the economic repercussions of the pandemic, which are all driving up homelessness presentations. The Home Office’s streamlined asylum process is also impacting on local authorities, especially Glasgow City Council, which is creating increased demands for homelessness services.

The Scottish Government is doing what we can within the powers and the financial constraints that we have to mitigate the impact and reduce the number of people who are in temporary accommodation. We are providing record funding of more than £14 billion to councils in 2024-25, which is a real-terms increase of 4.3 per cent compared with the current financial year. The Minister for Housing has been meeting housing conveners to discuss homelessness and housing pressures.

The report to which the First Minister referred, which I assume he has read, also says that the Scottish Government report stated that a lack of affordable housing options was partly to blame for the rise in the number of children who required temporary accommodation. Why did the First Minister vote for a £196 million cut to the affordable housing budget on the same day that the Government published a report that blamed a lack of such housing for being a cause of the hike in the number of children in temporary accommodation?

The Government has a strong record of building record levels of affordable housing and providing money for tackling homelessness. For example, the budget is investing £90 million for discretionary housing payments in 2024-25, which is an increase of more than £6 million on this financial year. It also includes £74 million to mitigate the bedroom tax, which is something that Sir Keir Starmer wants to retain.

Independent analysis by Crisis shows that austerity-driven policies, including the two-child limit, are undoubtedly driving up homelessness right across the country. I say to Pam Duncan-Glancy that we are facing a Conservative cut of £1.6 billion to our capital budget and a £290 million cut to the financial transaction funding that is crucial to house building. It would be so much better if Scotland was not at the mercy of cruel Westminster Governments cutting our budget and if we could raise our own revenue and make spending decisions in our own country’s interests, as opposed to having to battle 14 years of austerity and a cost of living crisis that is worse than we have seen in living memory.

At the very end of last year, the Scottish Housing Regulator published updated engagement plans for Glasgow and Edinburgh councils. The regulator found systemic failure in the delivery of services to people experiencing homelessness. What has the Scottish Government done to address those failures and to prevent them in future?

I go back to the independent analysis by stakeholders such as Crisis, which says that the austerity-driven policies of the UK Government are increasing homelessness figures not only in Glasgow but right across the United Kingdom. We will continue investing in discretionary housing payments and will continue doing what we can to mitigate the worst excesses of the UK Government. We will give £35 million for specific action to end homelessness and rough sleeping, where we can.

I go back to the point that I made to Pam Duncan-Glancy: the Conservatives are threatening to cut our capital budget by £1.6 billion over the next five years and have cut by 62 per cent the financial transaction funding that is crucial to the affordable housing supply programme. If Annie Wells wants to have any influence whatsoever, rather than raising those issues here—which she has every right to do—she could use her influence with her own party colleagues to demand that the Tories’ cuts to our budget are reversed and that the 14 years of austerity that they have imposed on Scotland be halted, and halted immediately.

We move to general and constituency supplementary questions. If members can be concise, more members will be able to contribute.

---

Brian Low

The First Minister will be aware that Police Scotland is investigating the suspected murder of Brian Low in Aberfeldy, in my constituency, on 17 February. I take this opportunity to express my sympathy to Mr Low’s family for that terrible tragedy.

Does the First Minister recognise that that awful incident has caused deep unease in the community that I represent and that there is a need for full transparency from Police Scotland about its handling of the case? Does the First Minister also believe that it is vital that all resources are applied to bring to justice anyone involved, and that Police Scotland must maintain the necessary presence locally, in order to assure the community that I represent of its safety at this incredibly worrying time?

I agree, and I express my condolences to the family, friends and loved ones of Brian Low. I also give as much reassurance as I possibly can to the community of Aberfeldy, who are rightly shocked—in fact rocked—by that tragic incident. I must be careful in what I say, because it is a live and on-going murder investigation, but I give as much reassurance as I can about safety to the community of Aberfeldy. I know that Police Scotland is taking the case extremely seriously.

I know that, given media reports in the past 24 to 48 hours, questions have been asked about the time taken between Mr Low’s death, the post-mortem and the opening of the murder investigation. I have sought assurances and have been absolutely assured that Police Scotland is working around the clock on that murder investigation and is seeking to reassure the community as best it can.

Mr Swinney’s suggestion of an increased police presence is sensible, and I will ensure that it is fed back through my office to Police Scotland. Although these issues are at the behest of the operational independence of the chief constable, it is a sensible suggestion.

It should be said that Police Scotland has been appealing to any member of the public who might have any information to come forward. Anybody who was travelling through that area and might have, for example, dashcam footage should contact the police. That can be done anonymously through Police Scotland’s online portal.

I go back to the point that John Swinney rightly raised about reassurances for the community. I will raise that with Police Scotland, and I am certain that Police Scotland will do everything in its power to provide reassurance to the community of Aberfeldy.

---

Ambulance Services (Aberdeen Royal Infirmary)

On Monday, up to half of the north-east’s ambulance fleet—18 ambulances—were stuck outside Aberdeen royal infirmary. A paramedic told The Press and Journal that they are unable to help people who are most in need because they are repeatedly tied up. The situation is now so bad that earlier this month a shop worker in Dyce who was covered in blood after being attacked and left almost unconscious by robbers had to be driven to hospital by her employer because the ambulance service was too busy. What immediate action will the Scottish Government take to address the on-going crisis across the north-east?

Tess White is right to raise that issue. The level of ambulance stacking, the waits and the turnaround times at the ARI in particular are simply not acceptable. I am afraid that there is no reason that can justify that level of wait. I have been extremely concerned about the reports that we have heard from paramedics directly.

I am more than happy for the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care to write to Tess White—I will ensure that he does so—with the full details of the conversations that we are having with NHS Grampian and the actions that it is taking. For example, it is looking at doing more to increase discharge planning in order to maintain patient flow and increase alternative care pathways for ambulance clinicians to support patients in the community, as opposed to coming to the ARI. NHS Grampian is also expanding the site’s acute capacity, having recently opened 32 new acute beds at Aberdeen royal infirmary. Increasing the capacity will help with in-patient flow through the ARI and, I hope, the issue of ambulance stacking.

However, it is a very serious issue indeed. I am not happy at all about the continued long turnaround times at the ARI in particular. I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care writes to Tess White with full details of the actions that are being taken.

---

Rail Infrastructure Spending

I remind members of my voluntary entry in the register of interests.

Members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers are rallying outside Parliament today against a £315 million cut to Scotland’s safety-critical rail infrastructure spending. They say, “Rail cuts cost lives.” Seventy front-line maintenance workers have just been made redundant and a further 80 jobs are now at risk.

Which is correct: the Government’s assertion to Parliament that rail infrastructure spending is rising, or the view of experienced railway workers who are out there in the real world, on the front line, which is supported by all the empirical evidence, that Scotland’s rail infrastructure budgets and jobs are being axed and that, as a result, the health and safety of workers and passengers is being put at risk?

We, as the Government, and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will have regular engagement with rail trade unions, including the RMT. Investment in rail infrastructure is rising, as the Cabinet Secretary for Transport has outlined. We appreciate and share the RMT’s view that rail safety should absolutely be prioritised, but we do not agree with its assertion that rail infrastructure funding is being cut.

We will continue to meet the trade unions regularly, and my understanding is that the cabinet secretary recently wrote to the RMT to address some of the assertions that it made in previous correspondence. We will continue to engage where we can and to make sure that rail safety is an utmost priority not just for our staff—that is crucial, of course—but for those who use the rail network. Safety continues to be an utmost priority for this Government.

---

HM Prison and Young Offenders Institution Stirling

Disturbances at HMP YOI Stirling continue almost daily and have a serious detrimental effect on residents and the local community. The Scottish Prison Service has attempted to consult and to rectify the situation, but nothing that has been implemented to date has made any significant or lasting difference. Residents believe that the prison is out of control. What further action can the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs take to support the residents and vulnerable inmates in that prison?

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs continues to engage with the Prison Service on the issue, and my understanding is that she has met Alexander Stewart as well.

I take some exception to the suggestion that the estate is “out of control”. I do not agree with that assertion in any way whatsoever. We know that, through the actions that were taken, there was a slightly quieter period over Christmas, but there have been incidents in the past couple of weeks, which, rightly and understandably, have caused concern to residents. An action plan is in place and I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs engages again with Alexander Stewart in order to give him an update on the actions that are being taken.

That concludes First Minister’s question time. The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Paul Sweeney. There will be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the chamber and public gallery to do so.

12:45 Meeting suspended.  

12:47 On resuming—