United Kingdom Supreme Court Judgment
The Scottish National Party’s policy of gender self-ID has now been ruled to be unlawful by our highest court. SNP politicians, including Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney, were willing to trash women’s rights while pushing their dangerous and divisive ideology. Common sense and a basic respect for biological truth have now prevailed thanks to the incredible Scottish women who would not wheesht.
The SNP’s fringe obsession has cost obscene amounts of taxpayers’ money and wasted huge amounts of Government time while public services were neglected. Politicians have a duty to hold up their hands and admit their mistakes, so will John Swinney finally apologise to the women of Scotland?
The Scottish Government accepts the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 is defined by biological sex, and the Government accepts that ruling. I also accept that the court emphasised that that decision does not reduce trans people’s protections from discrimination, whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate. The Equality Act 2010 expressly prohibits discrimination against and harassment of trans people, and it is not necessary to have a GRC in order to be protected. I believe that the vast majority of people in Scotland want to live in a country that is respectful, compassionate and caring, and I am committed to protecting the rights of all. That will guide all my actions as First Minister.
For John Swinney, it seems that sorry really is the hardest word to say. We know why: it is because he is not sorry. The SNP still believes in gender self-ID. Two months ago, John Swinney said that he accepts that trans women are women. Yesterday, he dodged the same question and said:
“There will be plenty of opportunities for that.”
Well, here is his opportunity. Are trans women women? The court ruling makes that clear. As a result, Scotland’s public bodies must now abandon SNP gender policies and respect the rule of law.
For the country to move on and for trust to be rebuilt, it is important for the Government to accept accountability and to own its mistakes. Will John Swinney at least now admit that he got this so very wrong?
As the Supreme Court judgment narrates, there is a complex reconciliation of two pieces of legislation that the Scottish Government is obliged to work within. Those are the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010. I remind Russell Findlay that, on two occasions, the Scottish Government legislation that was passed in 2018, which was the subject of the legal challenge, was supported by decisions taken in courts in Scotland. That was not the case in the Supreme Court judgment, which I accept unreservedly.
As Mr Findlay knows, I am a believer in the rule of law. Therefore, the Government will take steps, as the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice set out to the Parliament on Tuesday, to make sure that all the regulatory changes that require to be made in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision are made. As we did in relation to the previous guidance, we will draw on the input of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as the Government is obliged to do, given that the EHRC is the regulator of the Equality Act 2010.
We spent years telling the SNP to drop this nonsense and get back to the day job. It refused to listen. It was absolutely obsessed. Now, John Swinney does not want to talk about it, because mainstream Scotland has turned against him.
The harms that are caused by gender self-ID are real. Female prisoners were the first target of SNP gender ideology and, today, a prison officer told me that staff still face disciplinary action if they call male sex offenders identifying as female “he” or “him”. Following the scandal of a rapist in a women’s prison, there are still male prisoners in the female estate, despite last week’s seismic court ruling. Will John Swinney now instruct the Scottish Prison Service to ensure that male prisoners do their time in men’s prisons?
As the Government has already set out to the Parliament, we are considering the detail of the Supreme Court’s judgment and taking the necessary advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission about the application of that advice. That will have a bearing on the judgments that are made in relation to public services and, as is well established in our politics and discourse, I will expect all public bodies, including the Scottish Prison Service, to operate on that basis and within the law.
That was a typically weak and evasive response. The SNP’s focus on radical gender ideology has not only impacted prisons but damaged trust in politics. It showed that Holyrood had lost the plot and that Nicola Sturgeon was detached from reality.
John Swinney has a chance to be his own man and to go a different way from his closest ally, who is not even showing up at work any more. He could guarantee that all public bodies will have new and lawful policies to respect women’s rights in place by the summer. He could be honest and admit that trans women are not women. He could hold his hands up and apologise fully and sincerely.
John Swinney could ditch Nicola Sturgeon’s toxic legacy once and for all. Will he now take the chance to finally bring to an end the era of divisive gender politics?
In one of his earlier questions, Mr Findlay said that the Conservatives had been warning about all of this for years. I will read to the Parliament a comment that was made by Alison Harris, who was a Conservative member of the Scottish Parliament during the previous parliamentary session. On Tuesday 30 January 2018—[Interruption.]
Members!
The Official Report of the Parliament shows that Alison Harris said:
“As a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, Annie Wells was pleased to see positive changes being made”
to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Bill
“at stage 2 ... In particular, she was pleased to see the committee agree to Mary Fee’s amendment 10, which sought to broaden the definition of ‘woman’ so that the legislation would be as inclusive as possible, recognising that not all trans women possess a gender recognition certificate.“—[Official Report, 30 January 2018; c 26.]
I simply read that into the Official Report to show that the Conservatives—[Interruption.]
I am keen to ensure that as many members can take part in this session as possible. If we could ensure that we could hear one another, that would be helpful.
I simply read that quote into the Official Report because the Conservatives have changed their position from what they said in 2018.
My Government will do what it always does. It will follow the rule of law, take careful account of decisions and of the context in which we take them and act wisely to protect the rights of all within Scotland, because the first duty of the Government is to protect the rights of everyone in Scottish society.
Divisive Politics
Yesterday, I joined political leaders, faith leaders and representatives of charities at the summit against polarisation and disenfranchisement. As I warned at that summit, this Parliament must not look like some kind of Scottish establishment talking to itself, distant from the realities that Scots face.
However, as I feared, what was missing was any reflection on Scottish National Party Government failure and how that drives people towards divisive politics. Why does John Swinney not recognise that, if we are to tackle division and polarisation, we need a Scottish Government that actually delivers for the people?
That is what the people of Scotland have, because, in a variety of different areas, this Government is delivering for the people of Scotland.
Families in Scotland benefit from having 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare for all three and four-year-olds and for eligible two-year-olds. We have rising investment in our housing sector and we are tackling the housing emergency, building on the fact that we have built more affordable housing per head of population than has been built in other parts of the United Kingdom. We have low unemployment in Scotland today, and progress has been made on reducing waiting lists and waiting times in the national health service. Crucially, on the issue that absolutely matters to me, in Scotland we are seeing a fall in the level of child poverty when it is rising in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I fear that the progress that we are making in Scotland will be damaged by the welfare reforms of the United Kingdom’s Labour Government.
That complacency is part of the problem, and it proves that John Swinney does not get it. The measure of success for the Scottish Government is how it uses its power to improve the lives of Scots. For 18 years, John Swinney’s SNP has been in charge of our NHS, but we have one in six Scots on waiting lists. For 18 years, John Swinney’s SNP has been in charge of housing, but we have 10,000 children with nowhere to call home. For 18 years, John Swinney’s SNP has been in charge of keeping Scots safe, but we have gang violence on our streets and blades being taken into primary schools. The gulf between the SNP Government’s rhetoric and the reality that people across our country face could not be starker. Can John Swinney not see that his and his party’s failures have made them the architects of divisive politics in Scotland?
I frequently set out to Parliament the record of this Government, on which I am very proud to stand. We are giving young people and their families the best start in life by providing the most extensive early learning and childcare offer in the United Kingdom. On housing, we have delivered 47 per cent more affordable homes per head of population than have been delivered in England, and 73 per cent more than in Wales, where the Labour Party has been in power for even longer than we have been in power in Scotland.
On waiting times, we promised that an additional 64,000 NHS procedures would be delivered in a 12-month period, and 75,500 extra procedures were delivered in the period to January 2025. This Government is focused on eradicating child poverty, improving our public services, achieving net zero and boosting the economy. That is what this Government is about, and that is what we are delivering for the people of Scotland, day in and day out.
John Swinney’s head is in the sand, and it proves why he cannot be the person to lead the fight against disenfranchisement and polarisation of our politics. He simply does not get it.
There are record-long waiting lists and record levels of homelessness among our children on John Swinney’s and the Scottish National Party’s watch. After nearly two decades of the SNP being in power, if it had a plan to improve the lives of Scots, we would have seen it by now.
Research from Carnegie UK has revealed that 63 per cent of Scots feel that they cannot influence decisions in Scotland and that almost 40 per cent of Scots have low trust in MSPs. From ferries that do not sail to astronomical levels of public money wasted, is it any wonder that the SNP Government delivers nothing and tells Scots to be happy about it?
The fact is that the SNP Government has lost its way and is out of steam. It is responsible for divisive politics in our country, so it cannot be the one to sort it. Is it not the truth that we will tackle division and disengagement only if we have a Scottish Government that serves the people of Scotland and that the only way to deliver that is to remove the SNP from power?
Let us take a moment to see how the most recent change-of-Government process went in the United Kingdom. Last summer, the Labour Government was elected on a commitment to end austerity and to deliver change. What has the Labour Government done? The Labour Government has delivered a continuation—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
—of austerity. I cannot believe that the Labour Party is comfortable with the fact that its United Kingdom Government is going to deliver welfare reforms that will increase poverty levels in the United Kingdom. I invite Parliament to think about that point for just one moment. A Labour Government has come into office and poverty is going to rise. That demonstrates that there is no point in the Labour Party, because Labour delivers poverty and austerity to the people of Scotland when the SNP Government is reducing child poverty in this country. I will take that to the country and be proud of our record.
Teacher Numbers
After four years of asking, I have finally got the message—I am pretty sure that I know when the Cabinet is next going to meet. Thanks to Jamie Greene’s principled defection to the Liberal Democrats, I need never trouble the First Minister with that question ever again.
There is a crisis in teacher training. Over the past three years, the Scottish Government has aimed to recruit and train 750 maths teachers. In reality, it has missed that target by a country mile and has trained only a third of the maths teachers that Scotland needs. What is going wrong?
First, I am glad that I have been relieved of the burden of trying, on a weekly basis, to remember when the Cabinet meets.
I also welcome Jamie Greene to his position on the Liberal Democrat benches. I am not at all surprised to see him there. He looked decidedly uncomfortable on the Conservative benches for an awfully long time—like many others, I dare say. [Interruption.] Listen—[Laughter.] I am very happy about it all.
Thank you, members. Let us hear one another.
On the substantive point that Mr Cole-Hamilton puts to me, there are challenges in the recruitment of teachers to particular specialisms. The Government has acknowledged that in the steps that we have taken. For example, the teaching bursary scheme provides a £20,000 bursary to career changers, which is aimed particularly at individuals who aspire to be maths teachers. We recognised that, if people were leaving jobs in other sectors to go into teaching, we had to provide a mechanism to enable them to do so, and those mechanisms have been made available. The Government provides more than £186 million to support the recruitment and retention of teachers, to ensure that we reach 2023 levels in our local authority employment of teachers. The Government is working in partnership with local authorities to ensure that we achieve that objective.
It is clearly not working. Although that was a predictably managerial reply from the First Minister, we are talking about our kids and their futures. Where are the hunger and the passion to resolve that?
Also, it is not just maths—chemistry, physics and biology are each hundreds of trainee teachers short. The Government says that there
“is an economic urgency to address”
our digital skills shortage, yet it is training only 16 computing teachers this year—I repeat, 16—for the whole of Scotland. We need home-grown skills if we are going to lead in industries such as renewables, artificial intelligence, defence and precision medicine.
In this volatile world, amid the economic fire-storm of the Trump presidency, Scotland’s people are our biggest asset. How are we going to compete if our schools cannot teach those subjects properly because they just do not have the teachers?
I agree with Mr Cole-Hamilton about the economic challenges that we face as a consequence of the decisions of the Trump Administration and the volatility that has flowed from that. That is why I gathered together a range of stakeholders during the Easter recess to ensure that the Government is well sighted on the issues that individual sectors are facing as a consequence of the unwelcome changes in international trading arrangements, which generate a great deal of volatility.
In relation to the points on education, we will work with our local authority partners to increase teacher numbers. That was one of the central commitments made in the budget that we negotiated with our local authority colleagues. The Government has delivered its side of the bargain in relation to financial support to local authorities, and I look to local authorities to recruit.
There is co-operation through the strategic board for teacher education, which explores the issues around recruitment and addresses some of the challenges. The bursary scheme came as a consequence of practical endeavour by the Government to address those issues.
I assure Mr Cole-Hamilton that there is no lack of energy in Government to ensure that our schools are well supported with the recruitment of teachers to meet the needs of children and young people in Scotland.
Rural Nursery and Primary School Closures
To ask the First Minister, in light of the reported issues arising from proposed rural nursery closures or mothballing, including the potential impact on the sustainability of rural communities and the operation of primary schools, whether the Scottish Government will review the relevant legislation and the guidance on criteria for protecting rural primary schools from closure. (S6F-04008)
The Scottish Government recognises the vital role that rural schools and early years provision play in sustaining local communities. Responsibility for decisions about local provisions rests with local authorities. Any closure, temporary or permanent, should be considered in consultation with local communities.
We are reviewing guidance on mothballing to provide greater clarity on whether it is an appropriate action to take. That will ensure that local decisions are based on effective engagement with the community, better reflect the needs of rural families and help to maintain access to early learning in such communities.
Across Scotland, rural nurseries—including seven in the Scottish Borders—are threatened with so-called mothballing. Many of them are physically attached to primary schools, such as those in Channelkirk and Walkerburn in my constituency. They are just through a doorway, so that the school and nursery are actually as one. Children have the same teacher and headteacher, and nursery children share mealtimes with the primary pupils, so transition and integration are simply not an issue—the children just move next door. It is my belief, for educational and social reasons as well as because of the need to sustain the primary schools and the wider community, that in such circumstances, those particular nurseries require added protection.
I am pleased to hear what the First Minister says. Given what I have said, in the review of the guidance, will he consider including additional criteria for retaining nurseries that form part of the school?
Christine Grahame makes a compelling argument. The Government has been working with our local authority partners to ensure that young people are able to get the best start to their early years education and that there is a natural progression into the school. That is at the heart of the reforms on early learning and childcare.
In primary 1 in many schools, and in primary 2 in some schools, there will still be a play-based curriculum, which has been the foundation of the early years experience for three and four-year-olds and for some two-year-olds. The structural point that Christine Grahame makes about the school is also a structural point about the curriculum and the approach that we take to giving young people the best start in life.
We will reflect on the substantive points that Christine Grahame has made and consider how we can make sure that we have that provision available in all communities in Scotland. That is what the Government is funding through the local authority settlement that we put in place.
On the subject of the closure of rural primary schools, during the consultation process on the proposed closure of Blackness primary school, parents accused Falkirk Council of deliberately spreading misleading information and, worse still, frightening the children in the school by telling them that their school was going to close. Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish Government must now step in to properly investigate how that consultation was conducted and to ensure that the voices of parents and families are not only heard but respected?
There are very strict elements of legislation in place regarding rural school closures. When there is any question of such a closure, that legislation has to be followed assiduously as part of the statutory process. If Mr Kerr wishes to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills with detail of the points that he is raising about the situation at Blackness primary school, the Government will consider that.
I remind Mr Kerr that local authorities are independent bodies; the Government does not control local authorities. It is for local authorities to come to their own decisions, but they must operate within the statutory provision that the Parliament has determined on the question.
Public Sector Equality Duty
To ask the First Minister what impact the Scottish Government anticipates that the Supreme Court judgment regarding For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers will have on the implementation of the public sector equality duty in Scotland. (S6F-04003)
The Scottish Government accepts the Supreme Court’s judgment. This Government is committed to protecting every woman’s rights, including through effective implementation of the public sector equality duty. We continue to take forward a phased programme of improvement to the operation of the public sector equality duty in Scotland and, in that work, will consider the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice will meet the Equality and Human Rights Commission later today and seek an update on the timing of its revised guidance, which is essential to fulfilling the statutory underpinnings of the approach that we take.
As I mentioned earlier this week, I was honoured to attend and witness the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s judgment, which provided clarity on what a woman is. However, some members in the chamber refuse to accept it. Although it is now the law that biological sex trumps gender identity, self-identification remains central to the Scottish National Party Government. That is the same SNP Government that presided over public bodies suspending nurses for refusing to share changing rooms with biologically male colleagues and allowing dangerous male prisoners to be sent to women’s prisons. Public bodies need clarity. Every day of delay risks further uncertainty. Can the First Minister give me a clear answer? When will the SNP Government issue new guidance on compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment?
I give Pam Gosal the assurance that we will develop that guidance in a timely manner. As I said in my opening answer, there is a meeting today with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, whose advice we relied on for the previous guidance that we had in place and whose advice and guidance we will have to rely on in the future. The Government will report to Parliament about the progress that has been made in that respect. However, I recognise the need for us to put in place timely guidance to apply the judgment that the Supreme Court has arrived at.
The public administration section of the Finance and Public Administration Committee recently met the outgoing permanent secretary. It was clear from evidence to the committee that Scottish civil servants are being subjected to internal policies that have not adhered to the public sector equality duty, with women’s networks allowing men to self-identify into membership and policies being developed on private spaces where no input was sought around sex as a protected characteristic. The First Minister has made it clear that considerable work is under way, but will he personally ensure that that work puts women’s voices—as 57 per cent of the Scottish civil service—at the heart of such policies and that the public sector equality duty is met?
I intend to ensure that the public sector equality duty is met and, as I have made clear to Parliament in all my answers on the subject, we will act within the law. Obviously, the Supreme Court gave legal clarity last week, and the Government must consider the details of that ruling to enable it to be applied in taking forward the public sector equality duty.
The Court of Session’s ruling against Scottish Borders Council marks yet another legal failure to uphold long-standing protections for women and children, this time involving a primary school child. It exposes the broader pattern of public bodies disregarding the Equality Act 2010 and other regulations in place since 1967. The undue influence of activist lobby groups such as LGBT Youth Scotland has led to policies breaching single-sex safeguards. All such policies must now be withdrawn. Will public funding finally be withdrawn from organisations that are wrongly advising that gender self-identification is lawful in Scotland when it never has been?
Throughout this whole discussion, I have made it clear that the rule of law must be the central consideration of the actions of Government, and that is what we will take forward in all our judgments. I am aware of the judicial review decision that the Court of Session announced yesterday in relation to Scottish Borders Council. That judgment does not involve the Government—it involves Scottish Borders Council. However, the Government will consider the issues that arise out of that, as we consider all aspects of the reform of regulation that is required.
This is a very straightforward question. Does the First Minister believe that a trans woman is a woman—yes or no?
I have set out that the Scottish Government accepts the judgment of the Supreme Court, which ruled that, in the Equality Act 2010, a woman is defined by biological sex.
Loch Long Salmon Farm
To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on when the Scottish Government expects to respond to the Loch Long salmon farm planning application. (S6F-04007)
The Scottish Government is giving full and proper consideration to the appeal, and every effort is being made to issue a decision as soon as possible. It would not be appropriate for me to say any more in relation to what is a live planning case.
The industrial salmon farm development that is proposed for Loch Long will scar the loch’s coastline and harm its wildlife. It has been opposed by the community, the local planning authority and even the industry. However, we have now been waiting over a year for the Government’s response after the application was called in. More than 4,000 people have written to the Government asking it to protect Loch Long from this damaging development. Will the First Minister personally ensure that my constituents’ voices are listened to?
As I indicated in my earlier answer, I cannot go into details on the handling of a live planning appeal. All relevant information will be considered by ministers in coming to a determination on the issue. That determination will be arrived at as soon as it is practically possible to do so.
It has been more than a year since the Loch Long salmon semi-closed containment project was called in for a decision by the Scottish Government. That length of wait for a decision from ministers could discourage investment in Scotland. It is now more than a month since I last raised the issue in the chamber, with no update since. Does the First Minister acknowledge that long waits for planning decisions are bad for business?
I certainly want to make sure that we take decisions as efficiently and swiftly as we possibly can, but I also have to make sure that the Government has adequate space and opportunity to consider all the issues that are involved. I am sure that Beatrice Wishart will understand the significance of that point. Beyond indicating that the issue is under consideration, there is little more that I can say, given that it relates to a live planning application. However, I understand the importance of her point and the importance of early decision making, where practical.
We move to general and constituency questions.
Pension Age Disability Payment
The pension age disability payment is opening for applications across the whole of Scotland this week, replacing the United Kingdom Government’s attendance allowance. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that older people in my constituency who are disabled, are terminally ill or have care needs get the money that they need to help them to look after themselves, stay safe and live with dignity?
I am very pleased to confirm to the Parliament that the pension age disability payment was launched on Tuesday. It will pay up to £441 a month extra to disabled people who are over state pension age. We estimate that it will help more than 170,000 disabled people and people living with a long-term health condition who need help looking after themselves or supervision to stay safe.
The launch of the payment ensures that disabled people of all age groups in Scotland are now able to receive support from a social security system that is based on dignity, fairness and respect. Those principles are at the heart of the legislation that this Government brought to Parliament, and I am pleased that we continue to apply them as we deliver the type of social security system that benefits and supports the individuals in Scotland who are most in need at the moment.
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (Givinostat)
My constituent Michael Rankin is 12 and suffers from the degenerative condition Duchenne muscular dystrophy. He can still walk with an aid at home, but his mother does not know for how long that will continue.
The First Minister will be aware of the efforts of Scottish parents who are seeking access to the drug Givinostat, which is used to treat the condition by holding back the progression of irreversible muscle damage. The drug has now been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and can be accessed through the national health service through the early access programme. It is now being prescribed in some NHS trusts in England and Wales, but the Scottish Medicines Consortium is yet to assess its use here. In the meantime, sadly, health boards are not prescribing the drug. For boys such as Michael, time is muscle, so will the First Minister urgently agree to meet parents, including Nicola Rankin, to learn more about how the drug could be life-changing for those boys?
I am grateful to Mr Hoy for raising this important issue. On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care met some of the families who are involved in the efforts that Mr Hoy has drawn to the attention of the Parliament. Yesterday, the cabinet secretary met four health boards that are involved in providing services to children with the condition, to discuss what is needed to enable delivery of the medicine in a way that is safe but also ensures fair and equitable access at pace across the country. Very active work is under way to deliver on the expectations of Mr Hoy and his constituents. We are very sympathetic and are trying to get there as fast as possible.
The engagement that the cabinet secretary has had so far is perhaps sufficient. If there is a need for a personal meeting with me, I will of course be happy to have that, but I assure Mr Hoy that the issue is being advanced with urgency by the cabinet secretary.
Additional Support Needs
This morning, I met the families of children with additional support needs, who have joined us in the public gallery. They have spent years fighting for the support that their children need, and they represent thousands of parents across the country whose children are being failed—some of them are out of education entirely. In a survey that they ran, 97 per cent of respondents said that education is failing to meet their children’s needs. They have engaged in every process, consultation, review and action plan. They have met ministers, responded to calls for evidence and taken their experiences all the way to this Parliament, but they are still being ignored.
Why is the First Minister not listening to the parents? When will he admit that the Government is failing on ASN? Will he commit today, in front of the families in the gallery, to finally listen to them and take the urgent, properly resourced action that their children need and deserve?
I recognise the importance of ensuring that the needs of every child are met in our education system. For some young people with additional support needs, that can be achieved in mainstream education. For others, that is not possible, and those judgments should be made on the assessed needs of every individual child. The Government works closely with our local authority partners in delivering on those objectives.
In the past financial year, more than £1 billion has been spent by local authorities on additional support for learning. However, in its latest budget settlement, the Government recognised the significance of the demand for services. As part of that settlement, we specifically agreed an additional £29 million of funding in the budget, which is to be allocated through local authorities in response to the legitimate issues that Pam Duncan-Glancy has put to me today.
I assure Pam Duncan-Glancy and those on whose behalf she speaks today of the importance that we attach to the issue. We are working with local authorities to ensure that the needs of every child are met, and that will continue to be our approach.
Nuclear Power
Security analysts have warned that the United Kingdom Government’s plans to build a network of mini nuclear power stations across the country have failed to adequately assess major security threats to the public. Does the First Minister share those concerns? Does he agree that, rather than pursuing plans to invest in costly, slow-to-build and potentially hazardous nuclear power plants, the UK Government should support investment in Scotland’s huge renewable energy potential, which is far faster to build, cheaper and safer?
As Jackie Dunbar and the Parliament will know, the Government does not support energy production from nuclear power. We believe that the investment that is necessary in our energy networks will be more cost effective if it is invested in renewable energy.
I am reminded that Hinkley Point C, which is a new nuclear power station, is now projected to cost up to £46 billion, which is more than double the original cost estimate. There are opportunities for us to deliver energy security for our country through a variety of renewable energy interventions, through offshore wind, through pump storage and through various other technologies. That will certainly be the position that is adopted by the Scottish Government.
Respiratory Health Policy
Yesterday, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland issued a statement on its concerns about Government progress on respiratory health policy. Respiratory conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are leading causes of death and health inequalities in Scotland. However, the Government is stagnating in its delivery of the action plan on the issue. The lack of progress on delivery, including on ensuring universal access to pulmonary rehabilitation, risks increasing inequality and the number of preventable deaths. Will the Scottish Government deliver on the commitments that were made in the plan before the end of this parliamentary session?
The Government will engage with Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, which does fantastic work in raising awareness on all of those questions. We support a range of prescribing routes for COPD, and the national centre for sustainable delivery is working with COPD patients to develop new treatment pathways.
We are taking forward a variety of policy measures, including some wider societal policies, such as low-emission zones, which aim to assist in improving air quality and which will be of benefit to individuals with COPD. Our respiratory care action plan sets out how we are working to improve prevention, diagnosis, care, treatment and support.
The Government will, of course, be happy to engage further with Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland and with patients to determine what further steps we can take.
Retinoblastoma
My constituents Scott and Olivia Lyon recently received the heart-breaking news that their one-year-old son, Blair, has retinoblastoma, which is a rare type of eye cancer that affects young children—roughly 50 children in the United Kingdom each year. Although it can be hereditary, it can also affect a child purely by chance. It cannot be predicted or prevented, and it simply appears as a squint or a glow in the eye.
Given the importance of early diagnosis, Scott and Olivia are determined to raise public awareness. Will the First Minister join me in promoting the visibility of retinoblastoma, thanking the incredible national health service teams involved in care for patients across Scotland, and urging families to make an urgent appointment if they think that there are any concerns?
I join Roz McCall in endorsing that approach and I welcome the comments that she has made to Parliament today. The central point that Roz McCall makes about early intervention and assessment is really important. Some of the fantastic work that can be done in relation to ophthalmology services is an illustration of early intervention having significant benefits.
I very much endorse the points that Roz McCall has made and I wish her and her constituents well. I am glad to hear that they are being well supported by the national health service—I would expect nothing else. If any issues arise in the course of their journey, the health secretary will be happy to assist in any way that he can.
Disability Benefits (United Kingdom Government)
Yesterday, the highly thought of Glasgow Disability Alliance issued a stark warning that hundreds of thousands of disabled Scots could lose out from Westminster’s “brutal” welfare cuts.
Last night, in this Parliament, Scottish Labour MSPs voted to support Westminster’s austerity cuts to disabled people’s benefits. Will the First Minister outline how his Government is supporting disabled people in my constituency and across Scotland against the backdrop of Labour’s accelerated Westminster austerity?
I am deeply concerned about the cuts to the sickness and disability benefits that the United Kingdom Government has announced. Indeed, I referred to them in my earlier answers to Anas Sarwar. The changes will push 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, into poverty by the end of this decade and will reduce the funding that Scotland receives for devolved disability benefits.
Parliament had an opportunity yesterday to express its firm opinion on those commitments. The Government expressed our opposition to the changes and I am staggered that Scottish Labour MSPs supported the cuts, but that tells us all that we need to know—the Labour Party is in favour of continuing austerity and inflicting damage on the population of Scotland, while this Government will stand to take actions to reduce poverty and support the population in Scotland.
Wood Group (Takeover Bid)
The First Minister will have seen reports over Easter recess that Sidara has been given additional time to come forward with an updated bid for the Wood Group. That is concerning for two reasons. First, there is the potential loss of headquarters functions and the associated expertise from the Aberdeen headquarters. Secondly, the Wood Group is critical to our ability to deliver engineering in the North Sea, which is vital for our renewables future.
It is my understanding that the pressure on the Wood Group’s lenders has led to that situation. What discussions has the First Minister had directly with the Wood Group about that? Has the Scottish Government or its agencies explored the possibility of financial guarantees or facilities that might ease the short-term pressures and retain this vital Scottish company in Scottish ownership?
Those are complex corporate decisions that are being arrived at. As we do in all such circumstances, we will offer the engagement of the Deputy First Minister and Scottish Enterprise to determine whether there are any steps that we can take to assist in relation to the legitimate points that Mr Johnson puts to me about the importance of retaining headquarters functions and the effectiveness of those organisations in Scotland. We will engage on that basis.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the public gallery and the chamber to do so.
12:45 Meeting suspended.