 I remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the Holyrood campus, and I ask that members take care to observe those measures, including when entering and exiting the chamber. Please only use the aisles and walkways to access your seat and when moving around the chamber. The first item of business is general questions. In order to get in as many people as possible, I prefer short, answer-synced questions and answers to match, and I call Mark Griffin. When will the next meeting with the Scottish Government meet COSLA to discuss local authority funding? I most recently met the COSLA resources spokesperson, councillor Gail MacGregor, yesterday, on 8 September to discuss the forthcoming resource spending review, and we will continue to meet with COSLA on local authority funding on a regular basis to cover a range of topics, including funding, up to and beyond the publication of the Scottish Government budget. Mark Griffin, I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The cabinet secretary knows that school catering, cleaning and janitorial staff are balloting on strike action all of local government pay. Those are the heroic staff who have reopened their schools, cleaned them and fed pupils who would have gone hungry. Last week, the cabinet secretary for France stated that government are not direct employers of local government staff and have no role in paying negotiations, ignoring the Government interventions on teachers' pay. It is vital that the Government avert strike action so that schools and universities can stay open. Can the cabinet secretary say when she will get round the table and make a commitment to fund the pay award that those key workers deserve? I agree with Mark Griffin that those workers are heroic. They have gone to heroic lengths over the pandemic, and day in and day out they serve our citizens, not least our children, in our schools. We are hugely grateful for their efforts, but, as I have said in the past, I will repeat today, pay for local government staff except for teachers is negotiated between the trade unions and COSLA through the Scottish Joint Committee. We have not been a member of the SGC. We have never taken part in those negotiations, and we do not intend to start getting involved now. Both I and the First Minister have met COSLA to discuss this matter, and on each occasion we have been explicitly clear that the budget has been fully deployed and that negotiating as an employer is for COSLA. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Orkney Islands Council regarding the procurement of low-emissions ferries to replace the current internal fleet. I met Orkney Islands Council in Kirkwall last month, and I heard about their plans to reduce low-emissions ferries. I welcomed those plans, but I made clear that, as Mr MacArthur knows, the responsibility for their inter-island ferry services, including the procurement of replacement vessels, sits with the local authority. However, we recognise the pressures that that brings, which is why the Scottish Government's 2122 budget includes £19.2 million for local authorities operating ferries and an increase of £7.7 million in the past year. As the cabinet secretary will know from his recent visit, Orkney's internal ferry service relies on ageing vessels that are costly to run, damaging to the environment and no longer fit for purpose. The service already falls below the minimum standard set in the Government's own ferries plan. What people in Orkney want to know is how and when new ferries will actually be delivered. Can the cabinet secretary clarify how the welcome commitment in the programme for government to carbon neutral islands by 2040 and low-emissions ferries by 2032 will pave the way to island communities in my constituency getting the ferry services that we deserve? I appreciate the promotion as well. We have a record of where it is possible to assist in our island authorities with issues such as the number that we will remember in 2019. We helped to fund the replacement of the MV Golden Mariana. As he knows, replacement of vessels is the responsibility of the Alliance for Orkney Islands Council. However, I recognise that, like ourselves, they face budget repressions and we have a shared decarbonisation agenda. Therefore, I am willing to explore what could be done to assist them in the form of removing or at least substantially reducing costs at the design phase by virtually humming a small number of standardised designs created and available to them. We have had initial conversations with Orkney in that regard. The situation in Orkney is very little different to that elsewhere in Scotland. The minister is well aware of that. When are we going to see a meaningful plan to start replacing Scotland's ageing ferry fleet on the west coast and in Orkney? With the greatest respect, Mr Simpson is not paying attention. There is a ferry plan for the Government-responsible ferries that is in place. It involves, for example, the placement of freight vessels to the Northern Isles, as well as ferries in the western part of the country. If he has not spotted that, I will write to him with the detail. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its consideration of removing the not-proven verdict. As we set out in the programme for government earlier this week, during this year, the Government will launch a public consultation on the three verdict system. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. This is so important for my constituents, the family of Scott French, who died horrifically last year. The person accused of his murder was effectively acquitted with a not-proven verdict, and the family believed, given the substantial evidence available, that the not-proven verdict left them in limbo and appeared to be in acceptance that there was merit in the charges without the consequences. Can the minister therefore confirm that the views of victims of crime, particularly those where not-proven was returned, will inform the consultation and ensure it is scrapped as quickly as possible? I thank the member for his question. As he will know, it is not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, although, of course, I am sorry to hear that his constituents felt that the not-proven verdict left them in limbo in the way that he describes. I have said before in his chamber that I recognise that there is a strong case that has been made for the abolition of the not-proven verdict, but those are complex issues, and many stakeholders believe that the third verdict should be retained or that they highlight the interconnectedness of the system. It is right that we consider the consultation responses carefully before we weigh all the evidence and reach a decision on these important matters, but I am happy to confirm that, just as a broad range of stakeholders, including victims and survivors, played an important role in last year's engagement events on the findings of the independent jury research, we will continue to take an open and consultative approach going forward. As part of the wider public consultation, we will seek to capture the views of a broad range of stakeholders, including legal professionals, the third sector and those with lived experience of the system. Jamie Greene A consultation is all well and good, but the Justice Committee of the Parliament back in 2016 said that the not-proven verdict was on borrowed time. That was five years ago, so what comfort can you offer those who feel that the not-proven verdict is intrinsically unfair? Some comfort that this session of Parliament will finally deal with it through legislation and not kick it into the long grass. It is time to resolve the centuries-old controversy over the Scottish legal system. I suppose that Jamie Greene highlights the difference between opposition and Government. Opposition can demand those things, of course it can, but the Government has a responsibility to take on board the views of stakeholders and to make sure that, if there is legislation that follows from that, it is sustainable and well-founded legislation. It is right that we take in the views of the legal profession. Indeed, many of the people in his own backbenches and across the chamber have reservations about the abolition of the verdict, and it is right that we hear those views. That is a sensible way to proceed. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its position on new oil and gas licences in the North Sea. The Scottish Government's position remains the same. Recognising that offshore licensing is reserved, we are calling on the UK Government to commit to reassessing licences already issued, but where field development has not yet commenced. The future of the North Sea must be a positive part of our just transition to net zero through offshore energy integration, including renewable energy generation, hydrogen production and carbon capture utilisation and storage. Our just transition plan for energy will involve working closely with the sector to seize the economic opportunities that these technologies present while playing our part in the global energy challenge and making sure that we have a just transition. The hard fact is that early closure of domestic production before we are able to meet all demand from zero carbon sources would be likely to increase emissions. A significant proportion of the oil that would then require to be imported has a higher carbon intensity than UK production. Not my words, cabinet secretary, but those of the First Minister do you agree? A member needs to recognise that the Scottish Government is not suggesting that oil and gas production should stop, but it cannot be business as usual given the climate emergency that we face, which is why we need an emergency response to those issues. It is key to helping to support the industry in making that transition, to assist it in being able to move towards technologies that reduce the carbon output of the oil and gas sector. A very good example of that is carbon capture, utilisation and storage. A project Peterhead acorn, which has been under stocks for years now, which the UK Government has continually refused to approve to, will have a leading role in helping to decarbonise the sector. That is why I would hope that all those MSPs from the north-east would get behind the acorn project and call upon the UK Government to take action and to give it approval to allow it to go ahead and to help to decarbonise the sector. Sorry, on a point of order, Tess White, just thank you, Ms White. Point of order, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary pointed directly at me. I think that that is inappropriate. Members will be aware of the importance of treating one another at all times with courtesy and respect. We move on to question number six, Liam Kerr. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to mitigate coastal erosion. We are making available a new £12 million capital budget over the four years from 2022-23 for coastal change adaptation and resilience. I recently launched the dynamic coast 2 project in Montrose. That project helps to identify where the greatest risks from coastal erosion and sea level rise are, this decade and in the future, and also the global climate challenge that we face. We are producing guidance to help local authorities to respond to those risks and prepare coastal change adaptation plans at a local level. In 2016, a major flood study said that there was a clear and present danger to Montrose roads, properties and the railway between Aberdeen and Dundee. That was endorsed by the cabinet secretary's predecessor, Roseanna Cunningham. At the cabinet secretary's photo op in Montrose last week, one of his local councillors stated that action needs to be taken in the next five years. What has changed since 2016 that pushed action back to 2026? Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the people of the Angus coast will be an urgent priority for the next round of flood risk management funding in the next 12 months? I am very well aware of the concerns and issues that are around Montrose because it has been raised with me on a regular basis by the local constituency member, Mary Gougeon. The impact that has directly on her constituents, as it does on the member's constituents, is directly why we commissioned the dynamic study, not to identify the nature and scale of the challenges that we face around coastal erosion in different parts of the country, including in Montrose. The funding that we are making available is a project that we are helping to support to look at how we can take forward direct action in areas where there is need for measures to be implemented to reduce the risk of coastal erosion. The impact that that has on local flooding in local areas, such as the risk that it poses in Montrose, is that we will continue to work with local authorities to make sure that that funding is used in such a way that it maximises the impact that it has and also helps to reduce the risk of local flooding in local areas. Does the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to increase capacity on ferries on the west coast routes? As the member is aware, passenger capacity has increased with the removal of physical distancing on August 9. We have also actively explored opportunities for chartering additional vessels and secured the MVRO to enhance the existing fleet, providing lifeline ferry services. We are of course also continuing on the procurement of a new vessel for the Isle of service, as well as seven new ships under the small vessel replacement programme, and we will work on new vessels for the group to denune and kill cregan services. Our island communities in the west have suffered for a number of years due to lack of capacity and reliable ferries. This year, the addition of Covid-19 has taken the service to breaking point with many people unable to travel. It is unacceptable that it damages the economy and blights lives. The Scottish Government would have so far failed to increase capacity. I would like to ask what steps it is now taking to procure additional capacity over and above that, provided by the MVRO, in the short term, to alleviate those communities' issues. Presiding Officer, as I indicated during the member's debate on Tuesday night, work on securing additional second-hand tonnage to alleviate some of the pressures that we face on the network is constant. I can share with the chamber the fact that, as we speak, senior representatives of Seamall and CalMac are out of the country actively assessing a vessel with a view to purchase. If we get that over the line, it will have a degree of positive cascade effect across the network and, additionally, create the potential for us to be heading into the next summer season with a backup vessel standing by to cover any issues that arise. I am sure that the member will welcome that news. Emma Roddick Can I ask the minister how much the Scottish Government has invested in ferry operations and infrastructure since 2007? The Scottish Government has invested in excess of £2.2 billion in the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services, Northern Isles ferry services and ferry infrastructure since 2007. We have also delivered a number of new routes as well, but I do not hide from the fact that we need to do more. Hence the reason why we have the £580 million funding stream to deliver new ferries and harbour infrastructure, and we are in the process of delivering on that. To ask the Scottish Government how it monitors the impacts of riverbank erosion and what support it provides for those who are affected by it. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is responsible for monitoring rivers to assess their ecological status, including physical habitat conditions. Local authorities also monitor rivers in relation to flood risk and work with relevant transport agencies as regards riverbank erosion on transport infrastructure. We are all responsible for protecting our land and property from the impacts of riverbank erosion, and the Scottish Government and SIPA provide helpful advice and guidance on how to minimise riverbank erosion and how to best protect our land. Willie Coffey. I thank the minister for that answer. The impact of this for some residents in Fennick in my constituency is pretty severe and getting steadily worse over recent years with climate change impacts. Their property and gardens are literally sliding into the adjoining river bit by bit, and the engineering solution is required to shore up the riverbanks as substantial and beyond their ability to afford it. Is the Government aware of the issue across Scotland and would be considered a scheme to help many people who find themselves in this situation, which is not what they are making? I entirely understand the member's concerns about the difficulties faced by his constituents and the risks to their homes and gardens from riverbank erosion, particularly given recent distress caused by flooding in Kilmarnock. The current position, as I said, is that homeowners are responsible for protecting their property. However, if the member wishes to write to me with more details of the situation, I will give it further consideration, given the wider implications of the issue across Scotland. I will also seek an update from SIPA on its interactions with local authorities to gauge the impact of riverbank erosion on homeowners in Scotland. Thank you. That concludes general questions.