Chamber and committees

I welcome the report that has been produced by MND Scotland, and I recognise that more needs to be done to ensure that people with degenerative illnesses such as motor neurone disease have the choice, dignity and freedom to access suitable homes. We know that there are issues with the way in which adaptations are being accessed and delivered locally, so we are considering how the process can be streamlined and made easier for people who need adaptations.

We are working to increase the supply of accessible and adapted homes. Whenever possible, all new affordable homes are designed to be flexible so that they meet people’s needs as they change over time. We are also delivering a programme to retrofit homes in the social rented sector to makes them more accessible.

I can understand why the Tories might groan at that answer, but I really do not understand why Labour members are doing so, because I am making exactly the same arguments that their colleagues in London are making right now. The chancellor must step up and act in order to protect households the length and breadth of the country. The question, and the mystery, is why Labour members are so upset by the fact that we are calling for that action.

These are important issues. In light of what is happening in Ukraine, we have to look carefully at all the issues. As I said, the work on our energy strategy is under way, and it will allow us to properly understand our energy requirements as we make the transition to net zero.

I think that around 80 per cent of North Sea production is already exported—a fact that it is important to bear in mind. We need to consider very carefully the implications for us of the current volatility in the energy market. I repeat: for the UK, this is not an issue of security of supply. Only around 3 per cent of our gas supplies and around 8 per cent of our oil and petroleum supplies come from Russia, but we will all bear the burden of global price increases for energy, and, indeed, for food, which are driving inflation and the cost of living.

It is important that we understand the realities here. Even if we were to put to one side the environmental considerations—which none of us should do, because the climate crisis has not gone away—given the timescales and practicalities involved, it is not credible to suggest that the short-term solution to the crisis lies in increasing North Sea production. Existing fields in the North Sea are not currently operating under capacity. Expanding existing fields is possible, but that would take months, if not years. New fields take years, if not decades, to plan and develop. We should not go after solutions that might sound superficially attractive but whose practicalities and realities do not stand up to scrutiny.

In the short term, what we must see, in response to rises in global prices, is substantial and significant action from the Chancellor to shield households across the UK from that impact, including, as suggested from a sedentary position behind me, action on reducing VAT.

In the medium to longer term, as I have heard UK ministers and the European Commission say in recent days, the action that the world needs to take to reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels is exactly the same action that the world needs to take to address the climate emergency. We must accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels to renewable and low-carbon energy, and that is what the Scottish Government remains focused on.

All of us are horrified and deeply distressed by what we are witnessing unfold in Ukraine on not just a daily but an hourly basis. Yesterday’s developments were a new low—a low that I believe that all of us hoped we would never see: the targeting of children and babies in a maternity hospital.

Vladimir Putin is committing, on a daily basis, crimes against international law. He is committing crimes against humanity. He is committing war crimes. It is important to do everything that is possible to stop Vladimir Putin, and it is also important to ensure that he pays the severest price for the actions that he is undertaking and the crimes that he is committing now.

I welcome the limited movements on refugees that we heard this morning from the Home Secretary, but they need to go further. I repeat my appeal to the Prime Minister to emulate the example of the Republic of Ireland and countries across the European Union: to waive visa requirements and put sanctuary first and paperwork second. I intend to write to the Prime Minister later today, to make that call again, and I would welcome the signatures of Douglas Ross, Anas Sarwar and Alex Cole-Hamilton on that letter. I will liaise with their offices later today.

These are important matters. Although refugee entry is a reserved matter, let me be clear that the Scottish Government is actively working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, councils and the Scottish Refugee Council to make sure that we are ready and able to welcome refugees from Ukraine and give them the support that they need.

On the question that Douglas Ross posed, as he knows, the Scottish Government is in the process of updating our energy strategy. That work commenced prior to the horror that is now unfolding in Ukraine, but, of course, the situation in Ukraine has an implication for energy prices. There is not so much of an implication for energy supply in Scotland or the UK, because we are not dependent on Russian oil and gas in the way that many other countries are, particularly in Europe, but we will all bear the burden of increased prices. Obviously, those developments will now be factored into the work on the energy strategy, which will be published when that work is complete.

I repeat that the thoughts of us all are with the families who have lost loved ones. It was a tragedy, and nothing that any of us or any report can say will remove or lessen the pain that they are going through. However, it is important that lessons are learned from any tragic incident such as this, and it is important that that is the case for this incident.

I will not repeat what I have already said in regard to the train, but it is important to underline the point that, according to the report, the accident was caused by a failure of the infrastructure and not the train, which was confirmed to have been properly licensed and approved to operate, albeit that I refer back to the comments that I made earlier.

On the transfer of ScotRail to public ownership, which I am proud that this Government is undertaking, we will, of course, continue to negotiate with the unions on all these matters, as would be expected of us. I will not pre-empt any of that, but I will say that this Government has a very strong record of no compulsory redundancies in the agencies for which we have responsibility. That commitment is important across a whole range of our responsibilities. The principles that have guided us to date will continue to guide us as we take over ownership of and responsibility for ScotRail next month.

I read ASLEF’s comments this morning, and I totally understand, without hesitation, why it feels so strongly about the report and its findings. The rail family in Scotland, as in many countries, is a very close-knit one. They have lost one of their own in the tragedy, and I absolutely understand why they are making the comments they are making.

Anas Sarwar rightly poses his questions to me, but it is important to stress the independence of the investigations and to repeat—he has acknowledged this—that not only is the report not the final report but the remit of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch is to investigate such incidents on a no-blame basis. It is not there to apportion blame; it is there to establish the facts, which is what it has done.

The further investigation that is under way by the Office of Rail and Road, in parallel with Police Scotland and the British Transport Police, will report to the procurator fiscal, then it will be for the law officers and the Crown Office to determine whether there should be criminal prosecutions or a fatal accident inquiry. That would be the moment to consider any wider issues of accountability. It would be completely wrong for me to pre-empt the investigations or to try to curtail them in any way by commenting on the appropriate timescale. As I understand it, the latter investigation is due to report later this year.

The comments that have been made about the train are, of course, for the operating company. That is ScotRail, which, from 1 April, will be publicly owned. The comments in the report about the infrastructure—the report found that there was an infrastructure failure—are matters for Network Rail. I again point out that Network Rail remains a reserved body that is accountable to the UK Government and not directly accountable to this Government.

Railway safety is also reserved. Perhaps one of the wider, longer-term lessons on which the Parliament will want to reflect is whether that is right or whether the Parliament could come together and make the case for it to change, so that we have devolution not just of the operation of the railway but of the infrastructure on which it operates.

There are lots of lessons to learn, and I am committed to doing everything possible to ensure that they are learned.

I make it very clear that we fully support a presumption against any people under the age of 18 being dealt with through the criminal justice system.

Since the shift towards prevention in 2007, there have been positive changes in youth justice. According to official statistics, at 30 June 2007, there were 221 young people under the age of 18 in custody. As of Tuesday this week, the figure was 15. Between 2008-09 and 2019-20, there was an 85 per cent reduction in the number of children and young people who were prosecuted in courts and a 93 per cent reduction in the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who were sentenced to custody.

However, there is more to do. In line with our commitment to keeping the Promise, we are committed to reducing that number further. We all want Scotland’s young people to be safeguarded within the youth justice system and kept out of young offenders institutions, and we will consult shortly on necessary legislative changes to underpin the changes in practice that I have just narrated.

First, it is important to stress that the recommendation to temporarily defer fertility treatment for women who have not been fully vaccinated was taken as a clinical decision in response to emerging evidence and clinical concerns about the risk to mothers and babies of not being vaccinated. Those concerns were raised by lead clinicians in the four national health service assisted conception units.

The concerns were based on patient safety, and the decision affected a small number of patients, although I understand the distress and trauma that it will have caused. For the vast majority of women, treatment was able to proceed without delay. The chief medical officer is now recommending that fertility treatment for unvaccinated patients no longer needs to be deferred. That decision will be given immediate effect, so that the treatment of patients can recommence. I am not aware of the administrative issue that Jackie Baillie has raised, but I will look into it and make sure that, if the issue subsists, it is rectified as soon as possible.

Members of my party are engaging in an intelligent way on the issues, and it is incumbent on us all to do that. On Ian Blackford’s comments, we should cut off demand for Russian oil and gas. For as long as states or companies are buying that, we are inadvertently helping to fund Putin’s illegal war and probably prolonging that war in the process. Therefore, I call for import bans on Russian oil and gas by countries and states, and I welcome the albeit still limited action that the UK Government announced in that regard earlier this week.

I do not know whether Douglas Lumsden listened to the answers that I gave to Douglas Ross. I obviously take a different view on some of the issues but, even if I were to stand here and say that we should increase North Sea oil and gas production, the timescales and practicalities involved mean that that would not offer a solution to the immediate challenges that we face. I set out in some detail the timescales that would be involved. In the case of Cambo, which is the project that is closest to potentially being given approval by the UK Government, 2026 would be the earliest that it would start producing oil.

Let us not grasp at false solutions. Instead, let us focus on our obligations. Oil and gas are part of our energy mix right now, and will continue to be so during the transition. It is important to recognise that, but existing fields are not operating under capacity.

We must now focus on ensuring that the transition is a just one, that we invest in alternatives and that we protect jobs, because that is in the interest not just of helping to defeat Putin but of ensuring energy security and protecting our planet.

Of course, vaccination remains a critical component of our Covid response. To date, 86.3 per cent of eligible people in Scotland aged 18 and over have received a third or booster dose of vaccine, and our vaccine delivery rate continues to be the highest of anywhere in the United Kingdom. We welcome the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s recommendation that we offer some of the most vulnerable groups an additional vaccine dose in the spring of this year. From the start of this week, we began the process of delivering that in care homes and also started to invite all those who are now eligible for their additional booster. Those vaccinations will continue over the next few months, as those individuals become eligible when they reach six months from the date of their last dose. We continue to act on JCVI advice and we are planning for a number of scenarios, including an annual booster programme for those who are most at risk.