 цветa f stacked ychydig hefyd, the next item of business is First Minister's questions. At question number one, I call Douglas Ross. The SNP Government have ordered an urgent review on how double rapist Ila Bryson, formerly Adam Graham was allowed into a Woman's Prison. The review was due to be delivered to prysen chiefs on Friday, but we've heard nothing further about it. The case of this double rapist has been a huge scandal, but the public are in the dark about exactly what happened and who was involved. Will the First Minister publish the urgent review in full today? Before I turn to answer Douglas Ross's question, can I take the opportunity to express my sympathy with the people of Turkey and Syria following the devastating earthquake earlier this week? The suffering and loss of life will be felt for generations. We are committed to doing all we can to help members of our emergency services. We have already been deployed to help the search and rescue operation on the ground. Just today, we confirmed a £500,000 contribution to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. I know that all parties will help to promote that appeal following First Minister's questions and anybody who wishes and is able to do so can do so at www.dec.org.uk. On the review that has been referred to, the SPS provided a final report to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 8 February. The chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service met the justice secretary in the course of a regular meeting schedule yesterday to discuss that. The cabinet secretary has already confirmed that he will update the criminal justice committee this week. Both the cabinet secretary and the SPS chief executive are due to attend the justice committee later in February, when members of this Parliament will be able to ask questions. There will be full transparency about the findings of that review, as is right and proper. Douglas Ross. I associate myself with the remarks of the First Minister and she is correct. All party leaders and MSPs will join in solidarity after FMQs to support the Dec Scotland appeal. I welcome the funding provided by the Scottish Government and I believe the significant match funding by the UK Government on all donations received to help and support those who have been terribly affected in Turkey and Syria. Sorry, we are in this situation. I ask the First Minister a very direct question and I don't get an answer. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice had this report yesterday. The First Minister spoke about further discussions with the justice committee but failed to commit to publishing the report in full. Will she now do that? Will the First Minister confirm that her Government will publish the report in full? It is on the justice secretary's desk. I assume that she has seen it. The public deserve to see it because there are still so many unanswered questions. At the last count, the First Minister had refused 12 times to say if Isla Bryson is a man or a woman. It is important because that affects how public bodies treat criminals when they are released from jail. The First Minister says that she does not have enough information to decide if this double rapist is a man. He is a rapist. He has a penis. What further information can the First Minister possibly need? When this monster comes out of jail, will Nicola Sturgeon—I am sorry, if SNP members are grumbling at me calling a double rapist a monster, you should look at yourselves—when he comes out of jail, will Nicola Sturgeon and her Government consider him a man or a woman? On the report, I think that Douglas Ross is clutching straws in his follow-up question. I made very clear that the findings of the report will be published. The cabinet secretary confirmed—I believe that he confirmed in this chamber—that he will update the criminal justice committee this week. Parliament rises today, of course, for this week. Both the cabinet secretary and the chief executive of the Scottish prison service, Theresa Medhurst, will attend the justice committee on 22 February following the week's recess of Parliament. Members of that committee will be able to ask questions about that review. I am not sure how anybody can suggest that there is not going to be full transparency around that review, but I am grateful for the opportunity to set that out again for Mr Ross. On the subsequent part of his question, the individual that we are talking about here identifies as a woman. However, it is really important to very calmly set out that any rights associated with that are not a result of any legislation passed by this Parliament and indeed would not be the result of that legislation, even if it were enforced. It is a result of the Equality Act passed by the UK Parliament, reserved to the UK Parliament in 2004, which is effectively—and always has effectively been based on self-identification. However, what it does not do is give any individual an automatic right to be treated in a certain way in the prison estate. Actually, this case demonstrates that because the individual is in a male prison. What is relevant here and why I have focused on this is the crime and the nature of the risk posed. In this case, the individual is a double rapist, and in terms of decisions about how they are dealt with in the prison estate, that is the relevant factor. Finally, in any group, small minority of individuals will commit crimes. In no other circumstances do we accept the stigmatisation and the denial of rights to the whole group, and we should not do that here either. The First Minister claims that I am clutching its straws on this. It seems that she is clutching on to this report because she is not willing to issue it in full today. The report findings, we are told, will be published at some point. Why not today? Why not publish the findings and the full report that your Justice Secretary has had for over 24 hours? For the 13th time now, Nicola Sturgeon has been unable to say if Isla Bryson is a man or a woman. She says that it does not matter because it is how they are dealt with on the prison estate. My question was very specifically about how they are dealt with when they leave prison. The First Minister has tied herself up in knots over this issue and is unable to answer that basic question because she cannot admit the truth. Her Government is going to consider this double rapist a woman. Nicola Sturgeon has brought in a policy that states that everybody who claims to be a woman must be considered a woman, even if they are a dishonest sex offender with a history of violence. Isla Bryson will be considered a woman by this Government, and that is why the First Minister is refusing cancer questions about this double rapist. Let me ask her about another offender, serving time right now. Not a rapist but a dangerous criminal with a history of brutal violence. Tiffany Scott, formerly known as Andrew Burns, claims to be a woman. Does the First Minister believe that this criminal is a woman? Douglas Ross is demonstrating a lack of understanding in the law. Any rights that any individual identifying as a woman has flow not from any decisions of this Government or any decisions of this Parliament. They flow from the protected characteristic provisions in the 2004 Equality Act 2020, which is UK-wide legislation and has always been based on self-identification. A gender recognition certificate—and, of course, the law passed by this Parliament is not yet enforced—simply enables somebody to change their birth certificate. It does not give trans people any additional rights, and that is important. In terms of how individuals are treated within the prison service, as I have said, that is based on the nature of the crime and the nature of the risk posed. Both cases that Douglas Ross has cited today demonstrate that in terms of the prisons that those individuals are in. In terms of how prisoners are treated when they leave prison for sex offenders, there are well-established procedures, including the MAPA procedures. Again, they are based on an assessment of the nature of risk. Those are important issues. They are sensitive issues, not least for the trans community. As I said last week and I have said before, the overwhelming majority of whom 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 this. I am struck by something that his predecessor, a Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, has said. Trying to do gotcha questions about who is a woman who is a man, I am not sure who helps, particularly for people in the trans community who are looking at the way that this is reported. Perhaps Douglas Ross could take some guidance from his predecessor on this matter, and that might serve this whole debate better than the way he is doing right now. Douglas Ross, thank you. This is not a gotcha question, it is a very basic question. It is not just me, it is journalists who are asking this repeatedly to the First Minister. I would not stand up here asking these questions if at any point in the 13 previous attempts I had ever got a straight answer from Nicola Sturgeon, so maybe do not focus on the question, focus on the deficiency of the answer. The fact that Nicola Sturgeon is now on two criminals who she said I have raised two different cases, they are. They are very different cases, but the similarity is the First Minister's point-line refusal to give an answer, and I think that she has to look at that. The First Minister accused me of basic misunderstanding of legislation. I would have to say that she is guilty of either basic or deliberate misunderstanding of our own policy, because it is quite clear that Tiffany Scott, this dangerous criminal, is treated as a woman in a man's jail. We have spoken to a former prison officer who told us this. All officers dealing with this individual were ordered to refer to Tiffany Scott as she and threatened with disciplinary measures if we did not. They said that Scott, and this is quoting them, has used gender recognition as a tool to create as much chaos as possible within the prison system, and they continued, this is a classic example of devious, dangerous individuals who are exploiting this ridiculous situation, the words of a retired prison officer who has dealt with this person. We also know that female prison officers have been ordered to carry out intimate strip searches of Tiffany Scott. Reports quote officers who say that nothing else about Scott has changed physically, and the officers say that their rights have gone out of the window. Does the First Minister agree with me that this is completely unacceptable, and will she intervene today to stop women prison officers being forced to strip search the likes of Tiffany Scott? First Minister, let me take these issues in turn. Firstly, let me reiterate this. The law that this Parliament passed before Christmas by two thirds of MSPs across this chamber, including members of Douglas Ross's own party, is not yet in force. It would not have the impact, Douglas Ross says, 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, the policies of this Government on these issues are guided by the Equality Act 2010. I think that I said earlier on 2004 that the Equality Act 2010 is guided by the Equality Act, governed by the Equality Act, which is a UK-wide piece of legislation. The rights and protections that trans people have flow from that legislation, and that is important to set 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, I think, for reasons of public assurance to underline that as well, and 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, first of all, the Scottish Prison Service has been dealing with transgender prisoners, although they are very small in number. For many, many years now, they have been doing it safely and effectively. They are experienced in managing these situations. Of course, it is also the case that the SPS has the ability to use technology to search individuals without the need for any physical search to be conducted by officers. The SPS has a trauma-informed approach to the management of those in custody and an approach that supports staff as well as inmates in their care. The SPS is experienced in these matters. I trust their handling of these matters, and it is important that we continue to ensure that they are handled appropriately. That is what the Government, in association with the Scottish Prison Service, will continue to do. We will all be devastated by the scenes in Turkey and Syria with the horrific earthquake and a death thrown out sitting at it. We will suspend business at this point. We will resume, and I call it a question to Anna Sarwar. I would question disruption at any time, but to disrupt when we are talking about the lives lost in Turkey and Syria, I think that it is frankly disgusting. The death toll has now reached over 16,000, and like Douglas Ross and Nicola Sturgeon, I send my condolences to all those that have lost their loved one in Turkey and Syria. I think of all those families living in Scotland that have a connection with Turkey and Syria. I welcome the announcements made by both the Scottish and the UK Governments in terms of money and resources to support the relief effort. I can also appeal to people across the country. I know that times are really difficult with family budgets, but anything that you can give to support the DEC appeal will make a huge difference to families suffering in Turkey and Syria. This SNP Government is leaving councils the length and breadth of Scotland in a dire position. Despite what Nicola Sturgeon claims, independent analysis shows that the budgets councils have control over are being cut by £304 million in real terms. That means devastating consequences for vital services, so will the First Minister finally admit that she is cutting local government budgets? This Government is increasing local government budgets. The resources available to local government in terms of next year's budget, of course, if Parliament passes next year's budget, the increase will be £570 million. Of course, inflation is sky-high right now. That is not a result of policies of this Government. Of course, that is affecting the budget of this Government as well. Absolutely, it is the case that local government is struggling with these financial constraints, as all parts of the public sector and, indeed, as Anna Sarwar has just said, households are struggling as well. That is why it is important that we continue to support local government as much as we can. Obviously, the budgetary process is still under way, and we will conclude following the February recess of Parliament. We will continue to discuss with COSLA ways that we can help them to mitigate the difficult situation that they find themselves in. Last week, I invited Anna Sarwar to point to other parts of the draft budget that he thought we could take resources from if he wants us to give more money to local government. He may have sent those to my office, but I do not know in which case I will look at those, but I suspect that he has not come up with any reasonable, realistic or credible proposals to do that. First Minister knows that we have published a document showing £3 billion of waste under this SNP Government. That would be a good place to start. However, the First Minister wants to deny reality. The Fraser of Allander, the IFS, Spice, Scotland's councils, including Aron, all say that there is a real-terms cut to local government budgets, but a truth that this First Minister is not willing to accept. There is no way for councils to balance the books without further destroying local services. All of Scotland's 32 councils are united in their opposition to this Government's cuts. That is what a presentation to council leaders said last week. Cuts have already fallen disproportionately on council services, libraries, culture and leisure, sports facilities, youth work, waste, roads, parks. Those are cuts that have already happened in previous years. The presentation concludes that the Government's plans are, and I quote, increasingly unrealistic, not sustainable, risk non-delivery of other statutory duties and puts the financial viability of local government at risk. Councilers of every political party, including her own, are angry and warning her of the dire consequences, but Nicola Sturgeon is not listening. As usual, she is right and everyone else is wrong. Why can't the First Minister see the damage that her decisions are making to our communities? First, I think that Anas Sarwar demonstrated the lack of any credible proposals coming from Labour in the first part of that question. Secondly, he mentioned the IFS. It's important to underline that IFS analysis confirms that council funding has increased since 2013-14. It's gone up by £2.2 billion, which is 22.9 per cent higher in cash terms. Of course, it is the case that inflation is high. When Anas Sarwar shouts at me from a sedentary position more about real terms, inflation is high right now, and that is affecting all parts of the public sector. Of course, that is down to decisions and economic mismanagement of the Conservatives at Westminster. However, we come back to the central point. All of us can accept that these are really difficult times for local councils, and we will continue to work with local councils to support them as much as we can. However, the draft budget that is before Parliament right now has all the resources at our disposal, including the revenue from asking those who earn the most to pay a bit more in tax. All that revenue is allocated within that draft budget. Anybody who says—and I understand why they would make this argument—that we should give more money to local government has a duty and a responsibility to point in that draft budget to the lines where they think that money should come from. Is it the NHS? Is it the police budget? Those are legitimate debates. Is it social security? Those are legitimate debates, but if you want to be credible in those debates, you can only argue one side of it. You have to do both of the bits. That is what governing is all about. We can only have an honest debate if we get an honest answer from the First Minister. This is a real terms cut to local government budgets. The First Minister is out of touch with reality. Let's look at what is on the table, and the options councils are being forced to consider. Aberdeen is outsourcing all social work and children's services. Falkirk is selling off more than 100 council buildings, including swimming pools and theatres. Glasgow is slashing care placements for children that officials warn will compromise children's safety and increase the risk of abuse and neglect. Enough is enough. Get off your backs and speak out against this, First Minister, because across the country we are facing a future where children's music lessons are cut, libraries are closed and rebins will only be collected once a month, and the blame for all of this lies with Nicola Sturgeon and her Government. Wherever you look, this Government is losing its grip. People used to say that the First Minister was competent. Now they are saying that she is out of control, and that she is people in her own political party. After 15 years of the SNP Government, local government in crisis, teachers on strike, the NHS on its knees, so will she finally admit that this is an SNP budget for cuts, for closures and for strikes? No matter how much Anna Sarwar raises his voice in shouts, it doesn't cover up the fact that he has not brought forward a single proposal within a budget that is fully allocated for putting a single extra penny into local government budgets. That is why he shouts, because there is absolutely zero substance in anything that he is saying. All sound and fury and no substance is a good summary of Anna Sarwar, but let me take some of the points. Anna Sarwar is talking about real terms. The £570 million increase that I have spoken about is a real terms increase of £160.6 million, 1.3 per cent. Secondly, in terms of the proposals that councils are looking at, at this time every year councils look at a range of proposals. I have seen proposals from Glasgow City Council this morning and the point is made, those are options that no decisions have been taken. I remember a few years ago claims at this time of year that there were going to be 15,000 job cuts across local government since then. Jobs have actually increased by 19,000. Yes, those are difficult times for local government, but if you want to propose more money for local government within a draft budget that is fully allocated, then to have any credibility you also have to say where that resource should come from. In the absence of Anna Sarwar being clear about that, I can only assume that he wants us to take money from the national health service or from police budgets and give it to local government or social security, perhaps it is the Scottish child payment. So if Anna Sarwar wants to be taken seriously, he really has to bring some substance to what is a very difficult debate and a very difficult situation for local councils across the country. To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the potential impact on the hospitality and tourism sectors of a ban on advertising alcohol products. The consultation on alcohol advertising and promotion is on-going. It is open until 9 March, so let me be very clear that no decisions have been taken on scope or type of any restrictions that might be taken forward in future. The point of the consultation is to get a range of views on the most appropriate next steps in reducing alcohol-related harm, which I hope we can all recognise is one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face. Considering restriction in promotion of alcohol is not unique to Scotland, for example Ireland passed legislation to bring in a number of restrictions five years ago. Restrictions that were focused on reducing the exposure of children to alcohol promotion, and I think that that is key, reducing the exposure of children. Ministers have met a range of stakeholders, including representatives from the alcohol and advertising industries, during the consultation period to hear directly from them, and of course will take seriously and consider properly all representations made. I thank the First Minister for her response. She will know that the whisky tourism sector is worth some £84 million annually to the Scottish economy and supports jobs in rural and remote communities where there are a few other opportunities. Yet this sector, as its leaders have been very clear about, is concerned at the threat from a ban on all alcohol advertising. I agree with the First Minister that we need to look at sensible measures to tackle alcohol abuse, but does she agree with me that it would be absurd if whisky distilleries, which are so important to our economy, had to cover up all their signage, close their shops, stop promoting tours and the likes of the Johnny Walker experience in Edinburgh, which is a tremendous tourism draw, had to rebrand itself and board up its windows, which is what people are concerned about. I do agree with that and I will come back to that perhaps in a moment. The whisky tourism sector is extremely important to Scotland's reputation as well as to Scotland's economy. The Johnny Walker experience centre here in Edinburgh is a prime example of that. Some of the suggestions that we have heard in recent weeks, let me be clear that the target would be painted signs on distilleries or visitor centres, are not in our current thinking, and let me be very clear about that. There is also a world of difference—remember what I said in my initial answer about exposure of children to alcohol advertising? There is a world of difference between a billboard outside or in the vicinity of a school and, for example, a Johnny Walker baseball cap. We have to look pragmatically and seriously at this. I am glad that Murdo Fraser recognised that we have an issue, a problem, a public health issue with alcohol misuse. Like countries such as Ireland have done, we need to look at promotion and advertising and how we sensibly restrict that to try to deal with that problem. However, we need to do that properly and pragmatically. I hope that that answer will give some reassurance to those in the whisky tourism sector about some of the supposed things that we have heard in recent days and weeks. Is there still a live consultation on the restriction of alcohol advertising as no final proposals have been lodged? Would the First Minister agree with me that any potential harm is still hypothetical at this stage, whereas the real harms being experienced by hospitality and tourism sectors caused by Brexit are being felt right now? The Tories should be pushing their Westminster leaders to address that. Natalie Dawn is so right to talk—the Conservatives do not like it—about the difference between hypothetical harm. I understand the concerns that have been expressed. I hope that what I have said today will allay those concerns on the part of the whisky tourism sector, for example. However, there is very real harm being done today, right now, by Brexit. The loss of free movement is causing harm, for example, specifically to our hospitality and tourism sectors as well as to the wider economy. We will continue to listen to the hospitality sector, the tourism sector and the whisky tourism sector in particular in relation to the issue and take on board reasonable points that they make. If only the UK Government would adopt a similar posture when it came to these industries expressing concern about the very real impacts and the very real harm that Brexit is doing to them right now. Will the First Minister join me in congratulating East Lothian public in Patrick Kearney, who has recently stepped in to prevent two local pubs, the Preston Grange Gothenburg and Preston Pans and the Tower in a Trinent from permanent closure? However, does she also recognise that hundreds of pubs are likely to close their doors for good this winter around Scotland? To prevent last orders being called across Scotland's hospitality sector, will she remove pubs in restaurants and cafes from the chaotic DRS scheme, replicate the UK Government's 75 per cent rates relief for hospitality businesses and halt the alcohol and advertising and sponsorship review, which will inevitably put further pressure on Scotland's hard-pressed publicans? First Minister, let me echo the congratulations extended by the member in his question. Of course, pubs like many businesses are struggling with high inflation right now. High energy costs in particular will come on to a question shortly about DRS, so I will save my substantial comments on that until that question. Of course, businesses such as those will also benefit from this Government's approach to business rates. We have the most competitive business rates regime, including reliefs for businesses to business rates of any country in the UK, so we will continue to do everything we can to support businesses in these very difficult times. Much of those difficult times are down to the economic mismanagement of the Conservative Government at Westminster. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's responses to reports that 600 drinks producers are concerned about the impact on their businesses and the survival of them in relation to the deposit return scheme. First Minister, we will continue to listen to and where possible address concerns that have been raised. In direct response to industry feedback, of course, the Scottish Government has already worked with Circularity Scotland, the scheme administrator, to reduce costs to producers. That includes a reduction in producer fees of up to 40 per cent and a two thirds reduction in day one payments for producers using UK-wide barcodes. We continue to work with industry to ensure that there are pragmatic approaches to implementation and we will do so right up to the point of implementation. Many of those 600 businesses are in a state of fear and even despair. Some will close, some will fail and others will no longer sell their own produce in their own country of Scotland. Unless halted now, this scheme, which most businesses believe to be fatally flawed, will damage the reputation of Scotland as a place to do business. Will you instruct a pause of this disaster of a scheme before it becomes a catastrophe? And will you order a thorough and independent review of how better to achieve its aims and exclude glass from the scope, as the top six nations in the world on glass recycling have done? We will continue to listen to and engage with businesses, the steps that we have already taken as I sit out already demonstrate that and I think it is important to say that. In fact, Scotland Food and Drink recognised this approach when they said in recent weeks that these changes mean that some of our key respects have been accommodated, which is positive and means that our collective effort has materially improved the implications for many businesses. In terms of glass, there are 44 countries and territories operating deposit return schemes. Only four of them do not include glass. Of course, it is the case that there are strong environmental reasons for including glass, but, of course, on all those issues, we will continue to listen. One of the issues that I am particularly concerned to consider further, if there is yet more that we can do to reduce any impact on small producers, because I think that some of the concerns that are being raised there are not unreasonable. We will continue to take a responsible approach listening to the concerns of business and responding responsibly in the face of them. Drinks producers have until the end of this month to sign up for the deposit return scheme. Those who do will be financially liable for any delays, having to fork out up to £1.5 million per month. Making matters worse, they are being asked to sign up with key information still missing. However, if they do not sign up, they cannot sell their products. One leading Scottish Brewer described it as, and I quote, extortion tactics. Does the First Minister agree that the deadline for such registration should be extended until the full operational, commercial and financial implications of the scheme are provided? We announced an extension to the go live date for the scheme back in December 2021, giving industry additional time to prepare. That was criticised at the time by the Conservatives among others in the chamber. The regulations that require producers to register ahead of the launch registration are now open. However, we continue to work, and this is important with Circularity Scotland and with businesses as they finalise their operational delivery plans. This is an industry-led scheme, and the industry needs to work with the scheme administrator on a joined-up approach to delivering it. We have already made changes. I have set those out, and we will continue to engage with businesses on any further changes that can sensibly be made to take account of some of the issues that they are raising. To ask the First Minister, in light of reports of people being forced onto prepayment metres, what steps the Scottish Government is taking to support vulnerable people in Scotland with rising energy costs? First of all, the Scottish Government opposes the forced installation of prepayment metres because it is only more likely to increase debt or leave people unable to heat their homes. We continue to call on the UK Government to provide the necessary additional support for those struggling with energy bills, but also doing everything we can with the powers available to us. That includes doubling the fuel and security fund to £20 million and providing an additional £1.2 million to help advice services meet the increasing demand that they are dealing with. I chaired two energy summits last year. As a result of those, we continue to work with partners to see what more we can do by working together to support and protect Scottish consumers in those times. Oil and gas giants BP and Shell are reporting record profits on the sale of energy while millions are struggling to heat their homes. The extortion does not stop there. I have received reports from Dundee Pensioners Forum that their elderly members are receiving alarming letters demanding payment from their energy suppliers. Payments to accounts that are not only not in arrears but are actually in significant credit. When these vulnerable people are unable to pay to pay what they do not even owe, they are being threatened with forced prepayment installation. I appreciate that much of energy policy is reserved. The First Minister does meet regularly with the energy providers and she does have their ear, so will the First Minister condemn any use of such bullying and strong-arm tactics? Will she commit to ending the granting of warrants by courts in Scotland for the forced installation of prepayment metres? I have not seen the letters that the member refers to, but I would condemn any behaviour that seeks to bully consumers or individuals in any way. Two issues were raised in the course of that question. Both important issues—firstly taxation of oil and gas companies and secondly energy regulation. Both of those things are reserved to the UK Government. I wish that that was not the case. I wish that we had powers here in the Scottish Parliament and perhaps the member will support our calls for such powers in future. As First Minister, I cannot instruct courts. I think that every member understands that, but we have powers available to us. On energy, as the member recognises, those powers are very limited. Of course, the Parliament and the Government will and should look to see what more we can do to help. However, as on so many other issues, if we did not always have to look to the UK Government and if we held those powers here in the Scottish Parliament, we would be able to do much more than we are right now. Fiona Hyslop. We also know from this Parliament's net zero energy and transport committee report into energy price rises that customers moving into properties with expensive prepayment meters also have to pay for the privilege of having them removed. As recommended in last summer's committee report, can the First Minister confirm if her Government has raised with the UK Government the issue of a legal right under appropriate circumstances to have a prepayment meter removed free of charge? This is an important issue that Fiona Hyslop also raises. I absolutely agree that consumers should be entitled to have a prepayment meter removed from their homes and at no cost to them. The energy secretary wrote to the UK Government last autumn on a number of issues, including protections and flexibility for consumers on prepayment meters. Given recent developments surrounding prepayment meters, I can confirm that that is one of a number of issues that we will be raising urgently with both the UK Government and the regulator. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on whether oil and gas companies are investing enough of their profits to support a just transition in Scotland. I certainly think that more could be done. The energy profit levy's investment allowance doesn't do enough to future-proof energy supplies and promote green energy. Energy companies should reinvest their profits right now, their very significant profits in industries of the future. The draft energy strategy and just transition plan that was published last month sets out a clear vision to capitalise on the enormous opportunities that a net zero energy system offers. The industry, our economy and our climate highlights the importance of accelerating the transition to renewable energy sources. We have clearly and repeatedly set out the actions that the UK Government should and must now take to ensure a fair and just transition for our energy sector and what will be a decisive decade for action. Can I thank the First Minister for that response? Despite the utterly obscene profits of the oil and gas companies, investment in transition is not happening at anything like the pace needed to keep 1.5 alive. Over the last week, I've met with both Shell and ExxonMobil, who operate the Mossmorran complex in Fife, the third-largest climate polluter in Scotland. Does the First Minister agree that we cannot meet Scotland's climate targets without slashing Mossmorran's emissions? Will she call on both the operators and the UK Government to commit to investment in a just transition plan for the Mossmorran complex? Firstly, let me reiterate the Scottish Government's commitment to a just transition plan that both meet our climate targets but also supports good green jobs for our highly skilled workforce and that allows industry to retain international competitiveness. Mark Ruskell is right to say that the decarbonisation of industry plays a vitally important role in achieving all that, and operators, including those at Mossmorran, have much to gain from being at the forefront of a just transition. I would urge them to make sure that that is exactly where they are. We are currently developing a just transition plan for Scotland's largest industrial site at Grangemouth, and on completion of that, we will evaluate and consider what learnings can be replicated across other sites like Mossmorran. The draft energy strategy and just transition plan makes clear that the UK Government must also take action across a number of areas, and we continue to urge them to commit to a concrete timeline and processes to ensure that that is the case. We move to general and constituency supplementaries, I call Jackie Baillie. The First Minister has been sent a letter from the STUC in common wheel, setting out their serious concerns about the national care service bill, asking that the bill is paused. They are joined by the GMB, Unison, Unite, the Scottish pensioners forum, Who Cares Scotland, Parkinson's UK, respected professor of public policy, James Mitchell, the SNP trade union group and more besides. This follows significant criticism of the bill by no less than four committees of this Parliament, COSLA, a host of care providers and those receiving care themselves. There is nothing to stop the SNP from delivering improvements to social care now, like fair pay and ending non-residential care charges, but the sector is concerned that the SNP are not listening to their concerns and are intent on bulldozing this bill through. Will the First Minister pause the bill and take the time required to get it right? Of course, we will take the time required to get it right. There was a line in the letter that Jackie Baillie referred to that she did not read out, of course, so I will. We want to emphasise that we share the Scottish Government's desire to create a national care service. There are several committees of this Parliament scrutinising the bill at stage 1. When we have all the reports and all the feedback, we will take time to consider all the issues that have been raised. At that stage, we will set out the timescale for the rest of the legislative process. In the interim, we are taking steps to improve social care. Let us remember what a national care service is about. It is about ending the postcode lottery in care provision and it is about better rewarding those who work within the sector. In the year ahead, we are taking action to boost social care workers' pay and, of course, getting the initial organisational arrangements in place. We will continue to proceed in that responsible way. As we do so, we will listen to the views of all of the organisations that are signatories to the letter and I am sure that many others will be sited. The First Minister, along with the Minister for Public Health, convened a further summit on abortion services earlier this week, which was hugely useful in exploring further themes from my member's bill and I am very grateful for the Scottish Government's support. Could the First Minister update the chamber on next steps and what she says is the most important steps that we can take to protect and further abortion rights in Scotland? I was very pleased to convene with Marie Todd the second abortion summit on Tuesday and thank those members from across the parties who attended that. We had a very constructive discussion on the outcomes of the recent UK Supreme Court judgment on Northern Ireland's 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 this matter and let me reiterate the Government's commitment to that. Of course, it provided useful insights as the Government continues to work with Gillian Mackay to develop a bill that is robust and effective and I know that we want to see that introduced to the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible. In addition, we were all clear that the commitment to progressing abortion care and ensuring that women have access to high-quality abortion care in Scotland that are outlined in the women's health plan are a priority and will be taken forward. Russell Finlay. Thank you. The BBC documentary beneath the magic circle affair cast light on a very dark and distressing subject. Senior members of Scotland's legal establishment sexually abused children for decades. Susie Henderson's childhood was destroyed at the hands of her untouchable QC father and his vile associates. Yet the Government's child abuse inquiry will not hear evidence about this. Other survivors, including young footballers, have called for the inquiry to broaden its scope, so I would like to ask Nicola Sturgeon if that will happen. Firstly, the content of the BBC documentary where it was extremely distressing and disturbing and I think all of us want to ensure that these matters in the appropriate way are properly investigated. Obviously, any criminal investigations are for the crown and it would be deeply inappropriate for me or anybody else to comment on that. In terms of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, I am absolutely here at the points that the member is making, but, as he is aware under the Inquiries Act, the remit and the conduct of a public inquiry is entirely for the inquiry and for the chair of the inquiry. Ministers cannot intervene in that, but it is really important that all of the matters raised in whatever way is necessary are properly scrutinised, probed and investigated. I think that that is something that all of us want to ensure is the case. A new report from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research warns that households in my constituency and right across the UK could face a £4,000 financial crisis hit from the cost-loving crisis this year. What can the Scottish Government do to urge the UK Government to reverse its plans to allow energy bills to rise again this spring, which will only heap more misery on those already suffering? Paul McLeanon is right to raise the impact on households in his constituency and across Scotland. We have consistently called on the UK Government to provide additional support for vulnerable households with their energy costs. Prior to the introduction of the energy price guarantee last October, we called for the energy price cap to be frozen, and now we need the UK Government to urgently consider cancelling its proposed rise, along with the reduction in support for domestic consumers. We continue to take action that we can to support households, including, as I said earlier, doubling of the fuel insecurity fund. The key levers here do lie with the UK Government, and we must press them to use those levers in the interests of households and businesses across the country. The First Minister has betrayed communities in the north of Scotland with her broken promise to dual A9. It is clear that the work required to fulfil that promise has never been done. Her Government seeks to blame events that should never have impacted on the timetable. Will the First Minister now give us a date for completion of the dualling of the A9, or is she really telling us that the Greens are running her Government? First, let me be very clear that the Scottish Government is firmly committed to completing the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Cumberness. That is a £3 billion investment. There has already been over £430 million invested in it. Road users are already benefiting from some stretches that have already been dualled. On the issue that was covered in Parliament yesterday, we have carefully reviewed the submitted tender for that stretch and concluded, after a very difficult and complex procurement procedure, that award of that contract at this time would not represent best value for the taxpayer. The price of that tender was significantly higher than expected, even allowing for the impacts of inflation and a volatile economy. Had we gone ahead with that, down the line, I am sure that Opposition members would have criticised this for doing so because it was not best value for the taxpayer. As the transport secretary set out yesterday, steps will now be taken by Transport Scotland on the necessary preparatory steps for the urgent re-tendering, with the aim of achieving a contract award before the end of this year, and a new timetable will be set out as quickly as possible. It is also important to point out, finally, that design work is progressing on the rest of the programme with ministerial decisions to complete the statutory process confirmed for sieving of the remaining eight schemes. The next item of business is a member's debate in the name of Emma Roddick. There will be a short suspension now to allow those leaving the chamber and public gallery to do so.