Chamber and committees

I was very pleased to convene, with Maree Todd, the second abortion summit on Tuesday. I thank members from across the parties who attended it.

We had a very constructive discussion on the outcomes of the recent United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment on Northern Ireland’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill and on the further issues that we must consider for Scottish legislation. The discussion underlined the continuing need for national legislation on that matter—I reiterate the Government’s commitment to that—and provided useful insights. The Government continues to work with Gillian Mackay to develop a bill that is robust and effective. I know that we want to see that bill introduced to the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible.

In addition, we were all clear that the commitments to progressing abortion care and ensuring that women have access to high-quality abortion care in Scotland, which are outlined in the women’s health plan, are a priority and will be taken forward.

Let me be very clear: the Scottish Government is firmly committed to completing the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness. [Interruption.]

Let me take those issues in turn. First, let me reiterate that the law that this Parliament passed before Christmas, backed by two thirds of MSPs across the chamber, including members of Douglas Ross’s party, is not yet in force. It would not have the impact that Douglas Ross says it would, even if it was in force, but it is not in force, so, by definition, it cannot have that impact.

The policies of this Government on the issues are guided by the Equality Act—I think I said the Equality Act 2004 earlier, but of course it is the Equality Act 2010—and governed by that act, which is a United Kingdom-wide piece of legislation. The rights and protections that trans people have flow from that legislation, and it is important to set that out.

Those in the prison estate are dealt with depending on the nature of the crime and the nature of the risk posed. Again, it is important, for reasons of public assurance, to underline that as well. That is demonstrated by the two cases that have been cited in the media in recent days and here, again, today.

When it comes to searches in the prison estate, the Scottish Prison Service has been dealing with transgender prisoners—although they are very small in number—for many years now. It has been doing that safely and effectively and it is experienced in managing those situations. However, it is also the case that the SPS has the ability to use technology to search individuals without the need for officers to conduct any physical search.

The SPS has a trauma-informed approach to the management of those in custody, and an approach that supports staff as well as the inmates who are in their care.

The SPS is experienced in these matters and I trust its handling of them. It is important that we continue to ensure that they are handled appropriately, which is what the Government, in association with the Scottish Prison Service, will continue to do.

First, I really think that Douglas Ross is clutching at straws in his follow-up question. I made it very clear that the findings of the report will be published. The cabinet secretary confirmed—I believe that he did so in the chamber—that he will update the Criminal Justice Committee this week.

Today, Parliament rises for a week. Both the cabinet secretary and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Teresa Medhurst, will attend a meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee on 22 February, following the Parliament’s recess week. Members of that committee will be able to ask questions about the review then. I am therefore not sure how anybody can suggest that there will not be full transparency around the review, but I am grateful for the opportunity to set that out again for Mr Ross.

On the subsequent parts of his question, the individual whom we are talking about identifies as a woman. However, it is really important, I think, to very calmly set out that any rights that are associated with that are not a result of any legislation that has been passed by this Parliament; indeed, they would not be a result of that legislation even if it were in force. They are a result of the Equality Act that was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament in 2004, which is, and has always been, effectively based on self-identification. However, that act does not give any individual an automatic right to be treated in a certain way in the prison estate. This case actually demonstrates that, because the individual is in a male prison.

What is relevant here, and is the reason why I have focused on it, is the crime and the nature of the risk that is posed. In this case, the individual is a double rapist. In terms of decisions about how they are dealt with in the prison estate, that is the relevant factor.

Finally, in any group, a small minority of individuals will commit crimes. In no other circumstances do we accept the stigmatisation and denial of rights to the whole group, and we should not do that here.

I think that Douglas Ross is demonstrating a lack of understanding of the law. [Interruption.] Any rights that any individual who identifies as a woman have do not flow from any decisions of this Government or this Parliament. They flow from the protected characteristics provisions in the Equality Act 2004, which is UK-wide legislation and which is and has always been based on self-identification. Of course, the law that was passed by this Parliament is not yet in force. A gender recognition certificate simply enables somebody to change their birth certificate; it does not give trans people any additional rights. That is important.

How individuals are treated within the Prison Service, as I have said, is based on the nature of the crime and the nature of the risk posed. Both of the cases that Douglas Ross has cited today demonstrate that point in terms of the prisons that those individuals are in.

In terms of how prisoners are treated when they leave prison, there are well-established procedures for sex offenders, including those under the multi-agency public protection arrangements—MAPPA. Again, they are based on an assessment of the nature of risk.

These are important issues; they are sensitive issues, not least for the trans community. As I said last week and have said before, the overwhelming majority of them only want to get on with living their lives and never commit any offences of any nature.

I do not think that Douglas Ross does any service to anybody in the way that he approaches the matter. I am struck by something that his predecessor as Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, has said:

“Trying to do gotcha questions about who is a woman, who is a man, I’m not sure that helps, particularly for people in the trans community who are looking at the way this is reported”.

Perhaps Douglas Ross could take some guidance from his predecessor on the matter. That might serve the whole debate better than he is doing right now.

Fiona Hyslop has raised another important issue, and I absolutely agree that consumers should be entitled to have a prepayment meter removed from their home at no cost to them. Last autumn, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport wrote to the UK Government on a number of issues, including protections and flexibility for consumers on prepayment meters. Given the recent developments surrounding such meters, I confirm that that is one of a number of issues that we will be raising urgently with both the UK Government and the regulator.

It is only a couple of weeks since Stephen Kerr’s leader in this Parliament said that the Government had to ensure that there will be no reductions in teacher numbers. The Tories should make up their minds about which side they are on.

However, if Stephen Kerr wants the Government to allocate more resources to local government or to any other part of public services, either he must tell us—as I challenged Anas Sarwar to do—where that money should come from, or his colleagues should call on their bosses at Westminster to deliver more funding for the devolved Administrations.

Finally, the Conservatives should probably drop their call for tax cuts for the richest people in our society. Just this morning, I saw that Liz Smith has said that one of the priorities for the Scottish Government in our budget should be to narrow the tax gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK. That tax gap exists because we ask those who earn the most to pay a bit more. Obviously, what she said means that the Tories still want tax cuts for the richest, which would reduce funding for public services. There is no consistency or principle whatsoever coming from the Tories.

High energy prices, along with the wider cost of living crisis, are causing extreme challenges for many people, right now.

We provide a range of disability benefits to help disabled people and those with long-term conditions. The child winter heating assistance and carers allowance supplement provide financial support that is available only in Scotland, as does our new winter heating payment, which will begin in a few weeks. We have also doubled the fuel insecurity fund to £20 million, and some patients who use haemodialysis or oxygen equipment at home are already accessing financial support.

It is deeply regrettable that the United Kingdom Government is cutting, from the end of March, the support that is provided to hard-pressed families. I hope that it will reverse that decision and that members all across the chamber will call on it to do so, and that it will continue to provide the assistance that households need so badly at this time.

From my constituency, I know the importance of community centres and facilities, so I certainly agree with the sentiment that is being expressed. The individual issue that the member has raised is for the local council. On the central question about whether the Scottish Government will further increase the allocation to local councils, as I said earlier, the draft budget already proposes an increase in resources to local government of more than £0.5 billion. However, as I said to the leader of the member’s party some moments ago, if Labour wants to further increase that allocation, it is entitled to put forward that proposition, but it needs to point to the line in the budget where it thinks that we should take that money from. This afternoon and during the remainder of the budget process, we will wait to see whether any balanced proposals in that regard come from members on the Labour benches. However, based on the experience of past years, I will not be holding my breath.

I agree with Donald Macaskill and I think that he was very clear in his comments last night when he said that we have lost thousands of front-line staff in nursing and in direct social care because of Brexit and because of the Westminster visa and immigration system. Of course, the wider cost crisis is also having an impact.

As a country, we need to find a way back to Europe. As a country, we need to find a way of ensuring that we have an immigration system that is not just humane but meets our social and economic needs. It is clear—and it is becoming clearer every day—that Scotland will not find either of those things as part of the Westminster system of government. The route to both is through Scotland becoming an independent country.