Chamber and committees

I must admit that that leaves me no clearer. I will say it again: we have ended up in a position in which Orkney, Shetland and the Highlands have been placed alongside the City of London in the category of areas that are least likely to benefit from the fund. How on earth did that happen? I gently suggest that, had you consulted the Scottish Government, it might have been able to inform you that that was a ridiculous outcome. I am asking you to reflect, with the benefit of hindsight, on the methodology that was used to arrive at that position.

That is a rather heroic attempt to talk the issue away, but let us carry on.

What engagement have you had with Audit Scotland? We have bounced around the idea of governance, which is important, and you have said that there should be scrutiny of the effectiveness of spending. What agreements have you made with Audit Scotland that are in the public domain and that you can share with us today about how you will be accountable to Audit Scotland for your spend in Scotland?

That will be the case only if people can compare apples with apples, and that is precisely my point about the methodology, which was called so wrongly in relation to transport connectivity. I again make the point that you could have spoken to the Scottish Government in the first place, and it would have pointed that out.

I want to quote from my local council, which is Falkirk Council. On the delays, it notes:

“there was increasing concern over damage to reputations, of the applicants, the Council and the UK Government, such was the lack of engagement by the UK Government”.

You will probably be aware that that local council won some money, although it also comments that it felt that the approach involved

“cherry picking a small number of high-profile projects.”

What will you do specifically to engage effectively, primarily with the Scottish Government, here today in the Scottish Parliament? What are you going to do differently?

At what point? Will that be after it is a done deal?

To ask the Scottish Government what steps are being taken to ensure access to care and support planning by a specialist team for people with ME and chronic fatigue syndrome, as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (S6O-00786)

I apologise, Presiding Officer—I had a supplementary to an earlier question.

The condemnation of Russia’s declaration of war on Ukraine must be absolute and the reaction must be exceptional. The UK’s pitiful action thus far in the sanctioning of three individuals and five banks was simply waving a green flag to Putin. He will not care about sanctions unless they are so strong as to imperil the Russian economy, including the entirety of his inner-circle oligarchs and their involvement in international corruption and money laundering. Action such as that will require us to be willing to accept some costs.

Further Russian aggression will see countless innocent people, including women and children, killed, maimed, left homeless and destitute, with their future in tatters.

As declared in my entry in the register of interests, I am a director of the REVIVE Campaign, which advocates for the victims of conflict and explosive weapons. For some time now, we have been deeply concerned about Ukraine and her people. Parts of Ukraine still remain heavily contaminated with landmines and unexploded ordnance from previous conflicts.

The fog of war will make it even more difficult for those of us working in the humanitarian space to have an accurate picture of where the victims are and the extent of harm. Of course, it is always the innocent who suffer most in conflicts.

However, UK action thus far has hardly reached the level of feeble. In January 2017, David Leask in The Herald reported on an accusation by Ukraine’s anti-corruption bureau that a Scottish limited partnership was at the heart of a major arms scandal. That was part of Ukraine’s crackdown on corruption. Calls from the then SNP MP, Roger Mullin, for the security minister, Ben Wallace, to launch a detailed investigation fell on deaf ears. The UK Government still has no equivalent of Ukraine’s anti-corruption bureau and has never launched a major crackdown on corruption and money laundering.

In earlier debates, I have stated that £190 billion of financial crime plus £100 billion of money laundering occurs every year in the UK. Presiding Officer, I was wrong to quote the figure of £290 billion—I have underestimated the amount of money laundering. The UK’s National Crime Agency has stated that, because of the presence of the City of London’s financial sector,

“there is a realistic possibility”

that it is

“annually in the hundreds of billions of pounds”.

Money laundering on a gigantic scale, a significant proportion of which will involve Russian institutions and oligarchs, has been met with indifference for years. An economic crime bill has been talked about and then dropped—I will watch to see whether it will now proceed.

Mention has been made of the case of the Russian laundromat scandal, in which 113 Scottish limited partnerships were at the heart of over $20 billion that was being laundered from Russian banks. That is a direct stain on our international brand. One of those involved was Igor Putin, Vladimir Putin’s cousin.

The UK Government should have closed down massive corruption and money laundering long before now. The oligarchs and corrupt institutions have been given a free pass. Real and substantive action must now be taken. We will not be standing with the Ukrainian people if we do not act decisively now.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and all its variants has caused significant damage to people and families throughout Scotland, and we know that ME/CFS can be triggered by infection in patients, although susceptibility may have a genetic element. Does the minister therefore agree that access to care and specialist support is essential for those who are currently diagnosed? What work is being undertaken to identify any lasting effects from Covid infections that may lead to the development of ME/CFS?

Experience tells us that significant public health issues remain prevalent after a pandemic has ended. For example, the incidence of strokes and heart attacks increases after every flu season, infection of the brain can occur in patients with measles, and I have a friend who still suffers from post-polio syndrome 65 years after their illness. Given that, does the First Minister share my concern that the potential removal of wider infrastructure by the UK Government will impact on important data gathering and might ultimately condemn more citizens to the longer-term consequences of Covid-19?

Will the member take an intervention?