Chamber and committees

First, nothing that I am saying is about shifting the blame—I say that respectfully to the Parliament. I am simply putting on the record factual information that Police Scotland has provided to me.

My parliamentary record demonstrates that I am prepared to ensure that significant efforts are made to address abusive conduct in our society. The Scottish child abuse inquiry was sponsored under my leadership as education secretary and as Deputy First Minister for many years, and it does vital work in making sure that the voices of victims are heard loud and clear in our society.

On the question of online child abuse, I was clear in my answer to Martin Whitfield last week in the Parliament that I want to make sure that every step that the Government and other authorities in Scotland can take to tackle online child abuse is taken. The efforts that have been made at the Gartcosh crime campus, under the auspices of Police Scotland, have been lauded around the world as an example of integrated proceedings involving multiple agencies. We aim to ensure that organised crime networks in Scotland are shattered as a consequence of our efforts. I assure Mr Findlay of our determination to carry out all that activity.

As I said to Mr Whitfield last week, we are also determined to work collaboratively to ensure that a legislative approach is in place that uses the powers of the United Kingdom—powers that the Scottish Parliament does not have—to tackle the culture of online abuse, which is attacking the very fabric of childhood in Scotland today as a consequence of the lawlessness that is perpetrated by online agencies.

Mr Findlay is not setting out properly the effect of the amendment that his colleague Liam Kerr lodged to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, because all that that amendment would have required was the victims and witnesses commissioner, who has not yet been appointed, to undertake a report to consider whether any further action was required in that respect. Therefore, that is not something that could happen today. The commissioner would have to first be appointed and then consider whether it was appropriate to take any action, so it is a complete and utter distortion to say that there was a grooming gangs inquiry proposal in front of the Parliament that was not supported—[Interruption.]

This Sunday, we will once again pause to remember the brave men and women who selflessly laid down their lives to protect our country and to provide us with the freedoms and security that we enjoy today. In our shared moment of silence, in the poppies that we wear, in parades and in solemn ceremonies, we honour their courage and their sacrifice. We will always remember who they were and what they did for us: countless men and women who fought to protect and preserve our democratic way of life. Alongside our acts of remembrance over the coming week, let us commit ourselves once again to the same fundamental values that define who we are as a nation. We do that so that their great sacrifice may never be in vain.

I am very open with Parliament about occasions when public services do not meet the reasonable and legitimate expectations of members of the public. I looked into the Brooke Paterson case, and the examination of the information that was available to me showed that an error had been made in the classification of that call. That is regrettable, and I have apologised in writing to her.

In relation to the case of Charlie Fox, the length of time that he was left to wait appears to me to be completely unacceptable. The Scottish Ambulance Service is investigating the circumstances behind the incident, and I apologise for the length of the wait that he experienced.

Our public services continue to operate under enormous pressure, but they also deliver a fantastic service to members of the public in most cases, although not in all cases. In those cases in which they do not deliver, people can expect the First Minister to address those issues and to apologise accordingly.

The approach that the Scottish Government has taken consistently through my time as First Minister, and the terms of Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon, is to insist on the importance of a climate compatibility assessment for any development that is proposed. That is the position that has been adopted in legal judgments that require the United Kingdom Government to go through the process that it is currently going through in relation to the applications that are being made. That is the point of consistency.

Any development of oil and gas licensing has to be compatible with our journey to net zero. The importance of that—which is widely accepted, and I think that even members of the Green Party accept it—is that, for some time, there will be a requirement to utilise fossil fuels as we transition from our current situation to net zero. The question that must be addressed, given society’s requirements in that respect, is: can any of that activity be compatible with our journey to net zero? That is the policy position of the Scottish Government.

I recognise the significant practical issues that Beatrice Wishart raises. The Aberdeen to Wick PSO is a Highland Council PSO. We are engaged with Highland Council in trying to find alternative solutions to the situation, and we are in regular contact with the council. Measures have been put in place for alternative transport arrangements, but I accept that the Aberdeen to Wick link is very important to the local community. We are working with Highland Council to establish what alternatives can be brought forward. I will, of course, be very happy for members to be kept updated on the issue by the relevant minister.

I think that, generally, people will see me as being on Scotland’s side in everything that I do. [Interruption.]

The Scottish Government’s position is that it is committed to fully dualling the A96. The feedback received following the publication of the draft corridor review outcomes, a summary of which was published in June, will help to inform the final decision on how best to take forward improvements, while recognising the current economic challenges. Future decisions will be shaped by the available and planned budgets, which will be influenced by the United Kingdom Government’s autumn budget and by the forthcoming Scottish Government infrastructure investment plan, which will be published in the new year.

As I recounted in my answers to Mr Greer, a significant economic challenge is coming to individuals who are employed in the North Sea oil and gas sector, which is why the issues that Audrey Nicoll raises are so serious. There is an opportunity for us to build the renewable industries and clean energies of the future, and the Scottish Government is taking that forward. However, we have to ensure that that activity is aligned with activities in relation to the oil and gas sector.

The energy profits levy, which has been a key part of UK Government interventions, was always supposed to be a temporary measure. Anyone looking at the performance of the levy could demonstrate that there are significant issues with its performance in relation to the UK’s public finances that are also having an effect on employment in the oil and gas sector. There has to be a careful reassessment of the energy profits levy, and I encourage the UK Government to do that.

I assure Mr Ewing that we are engaging constructively with the United Kingdom Government on the housing of asylum seekers, and particularly on the Cameron barracks proposal. The social justice secretary answered a question in some detail on the issue in the Parliament, setting out the importance of dialogue in ensuring that the legitimate issues and practical concerns that I understand the Highland Council will debate today are properly and fully addressed.

The social justice secretary also had a conversation with the UK Government on Tuesday morning, in which she set out the range of practical questions that must be explored to address the issues that Mr Ewing is, understandably, raising on behalf of his constituents. However, I have to say—and I say this for transparency in the Parliament—that there has been no substantive, detailed response to the legitimate points that have been made. The starting point for any consideration of the matter must be substantive engagement on the issues of substance so that members of the public in the Inverness area, the Highland Council and the Scottish Government can come to a conclusion on a matter that must be addressed.

Asylum seekers are housed in the city of Perth, right in the heart of my own constituency, and they are supported with appropriate arrangements. I therefore recognise that the task must be undertaken, but there has to be good and substantive engagement with communities and public authorities. Regrettably, in relation to Cameron barracks, such engagement has been completely absent from the United Kingdom Government’s approach.