Chamber and committees

I welcome the impact report. A fundamental part of Scotland’s Climate Assembly process was the involvement of children. I am pleased that the impact report recognises the Government’s work to ensure that children’s voices are heard. We are committed to upholding children’s rights, as is demonstrated, of course, by our approach to the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That inclusion of children reflects our commitment to empower children and to respect, protect and fulfil their rights.

In the impact report, children ask us to do more, and that is what we intend to do. At the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—I committed to on-going and meaningful engagement between the Scottish Government and children and young people, and I remain committed to that.

I am grateful for the children’s hard work and for their creativity and commitment.

The Scottish Youth Parliament and the Children’s Parliament do a fantastic job and have a key role to play. I hope that our annual Cabinet meeting with children and young people demonstrates the on-going commitment of the Government at the highest level to meaningfully engage with them on the issues that matter most to them.

Scottish Government core funding of more than £580,000 this financial year for the Scottish Youth Parliament and the Children’s Parliament will continue to support children and young people to participate in climate decision making.

The Scottish Youth Parliament’s work at COP26 was very successful. It included partnership working with the Scottish Parliament and the Children’s Parliament on the Moment. The work of young people as Scottish delegates to the conference of youth led to the public commitment that I gave to work with children and young people to tackle climate change going forward, and I want to reiterate that strong commitment today.

That document would have been an email or a note that said, “The ministers are content on the basis of the reasons set out”.

I will say, first of all, that it was and is an achievement to have saved almost 400 jobs. As we speak, 400 people are working in Ferguson’s shipyard, earning a wage and supporting their families. I know that jobs do not matter much to the Conservatives, but they matter to this Government and they always will.

Let me run through it again. On 8 October 2015, a submission goes to ministers, asking for confirmation that ministers have considered the CMAL note and are aware of the potential procurement and financial risks—of course, the mitigations are set out in the submission—and that ministers are content to proceed. The next day, Transport Scotland writes to CMAL and says that

“Scottish Ministers have ... seen and understood”

the risk paper,

“have noted and accepted the ... technical and commercial risks”

and have decided “to proceed”. The decision is recorded there. The bit that is missing is the link in the chain between those two things that says simply that the ministers were content. However, the fact that the ministers were content is narrated in the document from the next day.

I suggest to Douglas Ross that it might be a good use of his time to read the 200 documents—the 1,500 pages—that are published on the Scottish Government’s website.

The email, as the Auditor General said last week, has not been “withheld”. It was, in his judgment, “not prepared”. I am answering that question.

Let me set it out again. On 8 October 2015, a submission goes to ministers, setting out CMAL’s concerns, the issues with the guarantee and the steps that have been taken to mitigate those risks. That is what ministers considered. On 9 October—the very next day—Transport Scotland narrates to CMAL—

Let me read it again, a bit more slowly:

“The Scottish Ministers have also seen and understood”

the CMAL risk paper

“and have noted and accepted the various technical and commercial risks identified and assessed by CMAL and have indicated that they are content for CMAL to proceed with the award of the Contracts.”

On the basis of the advice on 8 October, that is the decision that was narrated to CMAL on 9 October.

On the issue of non-disclosure agreements, it was the Scottish Government that negotiated with the FMEL—Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd, which was the previous owner of the yard—administrators to secure the release of FMEL’s employees, who gave evidence to the inquiry, from their terms and conditions of employment confidentiality obligations. The Scottish Government complied fully with Audit Scotland’s inquiry and will encourage everybody to comply fully with any future investigations or inquiries.

On an issue as serious as this, Anas Sarwar is shamefully misrepresenting my words. I did not suggest that people should have to go to court. What I recognised was that people have a right, if they so choose, to go to court, and that they might choose to do that. It was not a suggestion that they should. I believe that people should get the answers to the questions that they have around all aspects of the handling of the pandemic without having to do that, which is why this Government has set up an independent public inquiry that is chaired by a High Court judge.

I refer Jackie Baillie to the Inquiries Act 2005. The conduct of the public inquiry, the rhythm of reporting and the time taken for it to report are entirely matters for the independence of the inquiry and not for ministers. Jackie Baillie should stop indulging in political commentary from a sedentary position and engage with the importance of the issues.

I do not have to be reminded of the numbers and consequences of the pandemic. The facts and figures and the human consequences are embedded in my soul and always will be. That does not mean that my decisions and actions and those of my Government should not be subject to scrutiny; they should be subject to full, independent scrutiny, which is exactly what the independent public inquiry will do. That is what families deserve, and they deserve a process that takes place in a proper way. I am determined that they will get that.

Jackie Baillie says that we are three health ministers later, but she omits to mention that we are a global pandemic later. That has impacted on such issues in Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and probably in every country in the world.

Delayed discharge is unacceptable, which is why Jackie Baillie is right to say that I will talk about the actions that we are taking, because they are important. We have spent £62 million to enhance care at home, £48 million to increase the pay of those who work in the social care sector, £40 million to support interim care arrangements and £20 million to enhance multidisciplinary teams. Two new programmes—the interface care programme and the discharge without delay programme—have been launched and are supported by a further £10 million.

We will continue to take action and make investments to get delayed discharge down in our national health service as we recover across society from the impact of the global pandemic.

I think that safeguarding is important, but I think that it is also important that we understand and apply principles of safeguarding properly.

I hope that everyone recognises, as the Scottish Government does, that it is important and right that trans people or anyone who is questioning their gender identity should have access to the right support at the right time for them. One of the biggest issues in this area is that of the waiting times for access to NHS gender identity services, for adults as well as for young people. That is why we are making the investments that I referenced in my original answer.

It is also important to recognise that, in Scotland—as a matter of law under the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991, which predates the life of this Parliament—any person under 16 can consent to a medical procedure or treatment when the qualified medical practitioner attending them considers that they are

“capable of understanding the nature and possible consequences of the procedure or treatment.”

Rightly, any decision on the type of treatment to prescribe is for the clinician to make, in consultation with the patient, following an individual assessment.

On the issue of puberty blockers, it is also important to narrate that the Sandyford young people’s services reported that, during the 11 years from 2011 to 2021, fewer than 100 young people in total—93—were referred for an appointment with a hormone specialist. That is an average of eight per year. The number of young people who were prescribed hormones was even smaller than that.

We must take these issues seriously, but we owe it to everybody also to treat these issues incredibly sensitively and, in doing so, to have at the heart of it the rights of all young people to get the advice that they need at the time that is right for them.

It is important to record the good news that the Parliament now has a record number of women MSPs, although the proportion who are women is not yet at 50 per cent. We should aspire to all our Parliaments having representation at national and local levels that properly represents the society that we live in.

There is no doubt that women in society, including those in public life, continue to face unacceptable levels of sexist and misogynistic behaviour. That can—and does, I believe—put many women off standing for elected office. It harms democracy; it harms all of us; and it is completely unacceptable. Those things need to change. To change them, we need men to end their sexist and misogynistic behaviour and to be much more aware of their actions and words and of the impact of them.

The Scottish Government funds projects to support and equip women to stand for elected office. That includes Engender’s equal representation project to help political parties to increase their diversity, and the young women lead programme and Elect Her, which empower women to stand for elected office.