 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 3732 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out revisions to this week's business. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Minister. No member has asked to speak on the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 3732 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is topical questions. In order to get in as many people as possible, I'd be grateful for short and succinct questions and answers to match. At question number one, I call Russell Findlay. To begin by, I thank Jamie Greene for his words about our friend and colleague, David Hill. To ask the Scottish Government whether there are any measures in place to prevent serious violent offenders from changing their names. First of all, on behalf of the entire SNP group, I ask Jamie Greene to accept our sincere condolences for the tragic and untimely death of David Hill, not least as a fellow Dundee university graduate. Registered sex offenders are already obliged by law to notify the police of any change of name. Sex offender notification requirements apply to an individual irrespective of what name they use. Multiagency public protection arrangements, MAPA, provide a robust statutory framework for the management of high-risk offenders in the community. Under those arrangements, the responsible authorities—the police, health boards, the Scottish Prison Service and local authorities—work together to assess and manage the risks posed by those individuals. Agencies can use a range of safeguards, including surveillance, electronic tagging, curfews, sexual offence prevention orders and other civil orders that are intended to reduce the risk of sexual harm. MAPA documentation includes a recording of any aliases. Police Scotland's domestic abuse disclosure scheme has helped safeguard those who have been suffering from or at risk of domestic abuse. By the fifth anniversary of the operation of the scheme in 2020, more than 8,400 requests have been made to the scheme, and 4,536 people have been told that their current partner had a violent or abusive past. We know that at least 36 registered sex offenders have legally changed their names and told the police, but there will also be others that we do not know about. At every single one of those poses a potential public danger, not least two women and children. Does the cabinet secretary think that it is right that predators can deceive the public by hiding their identities in this way? I would just repeat the point that registered sex offenders are already obliged by law to notify the police of any change of name and that sex offender notification requirements apply to an individual irrespective of what name they use. There are quite a number of other checks that have been mentioned, the one that they are obliged to follow. There are checks that can be attached to a sexual offence prevention order that limits somebody's ability to use social media, for example. It is also true that the disclosure scheme that is used by the police has been used for five years, helping over 4,000 people in the last year, as I have mentioned. It is also true that disclosure Scotland carries out checks as well. There are quite a series of checks that are made across the piece in relation to that. I am sure that the member will be pleased, or at least to some extent reassured to know that sexual offences are the ones that of the main crime groups have the lowest reconviction rates. However, if there are any potential improvements to the system, I am more than happy to discuss that with any member. Russell Findlay Of this loophole are catastrophic. Rapist Jason Graham changed his name to Jason Evans. He then raped and murdered Esther Brown. ScotStory murdered his partner, changed his name to Scott Stewart and then attacked another woman. Allowing violent criminals to change names enables them to hide in their communities and put people at risk. Will the cabinet secretary give a clear commitment to close this loophole? As I said, that requires some serious thought in terms of the provisions that are already in place, not all of which the member will be aware of. I have mentioned a number of them so far. There are substantial checks that are made on people. Of course, it is always the case that somebody could refuse to follow those checks, but it is the case that the police monitor, as do social workers and others in the area, and monitor the activities of sex offenders. There are quite a range of checks that are currently undertaken. If it is the case that the member is able to identify a loophole or some improvement to the system, I would say whether it is the member himself or any other member who wishes to discuss that. It is quite a complex landscape. I am more than happy to discuss that because we should all want to improve the safety of our communities. To ask the Scottish Government what steps are being taken within the new vision for justice to protect victims from serious crime. The member will know, of course, as a convener of the criminal justice committee, that the justice vision is clear that violence in any form has no place in our vision for a just, safe, resilient Scotland. We take the public health approach, which again is the member who is aware of that vision, which seeks to tackle violence through prevention and early intervention to reduce the number of victims and people who are re-offending to help to build safer communities. We have invested more than £24 million in violence prevention activities since 2008, and that includes the work of the violence reduction unit, medicine against violence and delivery of programmes such as mentors in violence prevention, no knives better lives and our hospital navigator service. The member's question helps me to point out the fact that, of course, we want to try to ensure that we do not have victims in the first place, and that is why violence prevention is the way in which we should try to tackle those, although, of course, making sure that, if somebody is convicted of such a crime, we have the maximum possible protection in place for our communities. The example of Scott's story out on licence after committing murder and changing his name is a prime example of the need to constantly review our law. The First Law, as the cabinet secretary, has already mentioned that the domestic violence disclosure scheme requires women to make the inquiry. I wonder if the cabinet secretary could clarify today, or in writing to me, if it is in fact an offence not to disclose a new relationship. I know that there is a requirement to tell your social worker, but I want to know if it is an offence. Should that be reviewed? Does the cabinet secretary believe that perhaps the review of Claire's law to allow police officers to directly inform women if they find themselves in a relationship with an ex-offender is something that we could consider? Just on the last point that the member has made, I think that I have already said in response to the initial question that I am happy to discuss these and see what improvements can be made in relation to this. In response to the earlier part of her question, I think that she will appreciate that it is the case that it is a breach of conditions very often. Whether that equates to a legal or criminal act, I would have to check and I am happy to write to the member to confirm that, but it would certainly be in many cases a breach of the conditions that may result in somebody being taken back into custody if that was the case. I am happy to write to the member with more information. Question 2, Katie Clark. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with DP World and P&O ferries regarding the loss of jobs for ferry staff working out of Cairnryan. The First Minister and I met the P&O CEO Peter Heboeth last Thursday, 17 March. The First Minister spoke in the strongest of terms about the appalling manner in which decisions had been taken by P&O, including the method used in communicating the redundancies to staff. P&O's behaviour last week reflected industrial practices that have no place in the modern workplace, and the reputational damage that such action will have may well have lasting consequences for the company. The Scottish Government believes that there must be meaningful dialogue between employers and employees in trade unions to ensure that employees are treated fairly. That has clearly not been the case with P&O. While employment law is a reserved matter, we will use our fair work policy to promote fairer work practices across the labour market in Scotland, and we are already providing support to employees affected by redundancy through our PACE programme, which is the partnership action for continuing employment initiative. Separately, the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise is representing the Scottish Government at the World Expo to buy this week, and we are endeavouring to organise a discussion with DP World at a senior level in order that Mr McKee can record the Scottish Government's serious concerns about P&O's course of action and its conduct in confirming those redundancies. I want to be absolutely clear on behalf of every part of the Scottish Government that there is no place for companies such as P&O treating their employees in the fairer Scotland that we are committed to creating. Until and unless they change how they behave towards their employees, they will find it very hard to get any support in any form from the Scottish Government now or in the future. Is the Minister aware that there have previously been safety concerns raised in relation to seafarer fatigue on P&O ferries in a report by Professor Andy Smith of Cardiff University? In the new crew, we will be doing even longer shifts and as much as a seven-day week for a continuous eight weeks. Will she ask for an urgent meeting with the safety regulator, the Maritime Coast Guard Agency? I thank Ms Clark for her supplementary question. With regard to the specific report that she highlights, I am not cited on that, but I am absolutely committed to raising some of the safety concerns that she has raised today. She will recognise some of the challenges that we face here as a Government in terms of employment law being reserved. Nonetheless, it is important that we work with the UK Government on that moving forward. P&O workers absolutely deserve to know that the UK Government is leaving no stone unturned. Equally, it is important that ministers have an open dialogue that has not yet happened. I know that officials have been in discussions since last Thursday and I appreciate that this is quite a fast moving situation. We do not yet have clarity, for example, on the numbers of jobs that will be impacted in Scotland. When we get that granular detail, we will be able to provide more support but to our specific question with regard to safety concerns. Any undercutting, for example, of staff's terms and conditions, is something that I would seek to take forward to ensure that fair work practices were adopted by P&O. The new crew will be employed by international fleet management, which was only incorporated in Malta last month. Given the concerns about whether the ships are safe to sail, I ask that the trade unions attend any meeting with the maritime coast guard agency. I am happy to work with the trade unions on that suggestion from Ms Clark. I wrote to the general secretary of the RMT on Friday of last week following the announcement on Thursday and I responded yesterday to a request from the STUC to meet with them and the unions. I will be meeting after topical questions with the RMT and not always later today who will be understanding that the lead union is so happy to continue that further trade union engagement, which has been a real concern throughout the process. Not only were employees ignored in the consultation that did not happen regarding the redundancies, the trade unions were entirely frozen out of the process. I will endeavour to take that forward with the trade unions later today. I am happy to update Ms Clark on the outcome of those meetings. At both the P&O ferry service and neighbouring Stenline service to Northern Ireland, not only provide many jobs locally, but make a significant contribution to the economy of Scotland. Regardless of the poor actions of this operator, does the cabinet secretary recognise the importance of that link and what options will the Scottish Government commit to exploring, especially in connectivity to this port, to ensure its long-term viability? I thank Brian Whittle for his question, and I recognise the vital importance of that link to the region that he represents. I am aware that normal capacity on both Stenline and P&O services has been running around 55 to 56 per cent, which increases to 80 per cent on a Friday. I know that Stenline has put on an extra sailing that was on Friday, and there does not appear to be any immediate issue on capacity, although that is being monitored. I am aware, too, that supermarkets are understandably pressing for prioritisation in relation to fresh and frozen produce. I know that yesterday, the Secretary of State referenced a third vessel deployment, which will benefit supermarkets, and that came into effect from today. I recognise the strategic importance of that route. We will continue to work with P&O to ensure that the route is up and running again. I recognise, too, that, going forward, P&O needs to engage better with the Scottish Government, but I also recognise the importance of that route to the local communities in Cairnryan, and I also learn additionally going forward. I am so happy to take that forward with P&O. Emma Harper. I thank the minister for taking questions on this, as she says, very fast moving situation. Cairnryan is indeed a busy port, providing connectivity not just to Northern Ireland, but also now serving as Scotland's gateway to the EU and Ireland. The route providers P&O and Stenline carry a lot of freight, especially for supermarkets, but also includes the passage of livestock. Can the cabinet secretary further outline what the Scottish Government is doing to address and minimise further disruption? As Emma Harper knows, the Irish Sea route is a strategic importance to Scotland, as we have heard from Mr Whittle, in relation to vital supply to supermarkets, but also to other businesses. We are determined to do all that we can to protect those routes, as well as the jobs and conditions of everyone employed on those ferries. We have been in daily contact with the local Stenna and P&O teams at Cairnryan since the situation began last Thursday to monitor capacity and those developing issues. That has assisted our UK Government counterparts, for example, in agreeing with Stenna that third vessel that I mentioned in response to Mr Whittle will enter service. That was yesterday evening. Additionally, transport officials are liaising with the local resilience partnerships and working with the ports teams to ensure that the road network around about the ports remains fully operational. We will continue to monitor the position and hold open the potential to introduce operation stack and the use of the Castle Kennedy facility as a contingency measure. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Tomorrow, along with the local community and trade unionists from across Scotland, I'll be protesting outside P&O ferries in Cairnryan, standing shoulder to shoulder with those workers treated with such contempt by P&O. I urge colleagues if they can to join those workers in Cairnryan at 12 o'clock tomorrow, fighting any job cuts, but also sending a clear signal that we need to end fire and rehire once and for all, because if that can happen at P&O, it can happen anywhere. There's no justification for P&O's actions, but when there are job losses in Wigtonshire, too often people have to leave the area to find alternative work because the poor transport infrastructure does mean that there are limited opportunities locally. Can I ask the transport minister if she'll meet the neighbouring ferry operator, Stena, and the local action groups to discuss their concerns over the transport infrastructure and the urgent need to make improvements to the A75 and A77 and to attract more jobs into that often-forgotten part of Scotland? I thank Cosbyth for his supplementary question. He raised at the end of his questions a specific point about meeting with Stena and local action groups. I'm meeting with Stena later this week, so I'm happy to take that action forward. He also raised a specific point with regard to the A75 and A77. He will know that there are a number of recommendations contained in SEPR 2, which relate to both of those roads. SEPR 2 is open to public consultation until later this month. Specifically, he raised a point regarding trade union engagement, and I have alluded to some of the engagement that I have undertaken on that. Again, as in my response to Ms Clark, I will be meeting with the trade union's after-topical questions, and I'm happy to give Mr Smith an undertaking of any action arising from those meetings. I think that it's hugely important that our trade union partners are engaged in that process, but I recognise some of the wider transport infrastructure challenges that he spoke to with regard to his region, and I'll be more than happy to meet with Stena on this, as I'm doing later this week, and again to update Mr Smith on the outcome of those meetings. How Pee and Oal has treated its employees is shocking, not just those based on Cairn Ryan, but also at English ports too. As that is a UK-wide matter with a mix of reserved and devolved interests, can you assure us that UK ministers are involving devolved ministers fully in discussions and handling? I thank Evelyn Tweed for her question. I know that DEFRA ministers discussed the situation with the Rural Affairs Secretary, Mary Gougeon and other devolved ministers on Monday, but there hasn't yet been contact from UK transport ministers since the situation began to develop last week, although appreciating it is a very fast-moving situation. There has been, though, useful communication at official level with Scottish officials involved in daily four nations calls, for example, and we are being kept updated on UK Government considerations and actions through that channel. However, as the member alluded to, because that involves a pretty complex mix of reserved and devolved powers and interests, I would welcome such engagement, and I will be writing to Grantchamps seeking an urgent meeting to that effect. I did write, as I alluded to, previously to the trade unions confirming our support last week, and I will be meeting them later today. More broadly, it doesn't seem accessible that, when we have a situation involving a business with interests and employees all over the UK, that devolved ministers would not be invited to be actively involved and engaged. I am aware that ministers in Northern Ireland have assurances on that, additionally. I am keen to work with the UK Government very much so on that, and that solidarity in itself would send an important message to the workers. As we have heard, that port provided a lot to the local community. Can we be clear what assessment has the Government made or will make in terms of the impact of the decision that might have locally and be clear about what support will be provided to those workers and communities in light of that absolutely appalling decision? I thank the member for the question. With regard to the analysis of the situation in front of us, we do not yet have clarity on the number of jobs that we are talking about in Scotland. Until we have that detail, we will not be able to analyse the impact on the local community. However, she raised an important point in that regard, and that is something that officials will absolutely be taking forward. Primarily, the support that we have been able to provide thus far is through pace and redundancy support for employees who have been affected. However, looking to the longer term, I am absolutely committed to working, for example, with local authority partners, to see what more might be able to be done in that endeavour. However, until we get that granular detail from P&O, we will not be able to provide the analysis that she is seeking, but we will continue to work with P&O on establishing that. However, I think that that goes back to the original point about the way in which this has come about. P&O should not have behaved in that matter. It should have engaged with the trade unions, it should have engaged with its employees, and then we would not have arrived in the situation that we find ourselves in today, and the employees themselves would not have found themselves in such a difficult circumstance. It should not have been like that. However, to give the member an assurance that that analysis will be undertaken as soon as we have that granular detail from P&O. That concludes topical questions. The next item of business is a statement by Kevin Stewart on complex care, out of our placements and discharge. I will allow a moment for people to move positions.