Chamber and committees

I will make three points.

First, in Government, finance secretaries are often briefed on decisions that involve the spending of money. In this case, of course, the budget had already been approved by John Swinney.

Secondly—and interestingly, because he has to do this to sustain the case that he is trying to make—Douglas Ross has selectively quoted from the email from the official who briefed John Swinney. That email starts:

“Just finished my call with DFM”—

the Deputy First Minister, who was finance secretary at the time. Douglas Ross read out:

“He now understands the background and ... the way is clear to award.”

I will read out the bit that Douglas Ross did not read out. After

“He now understands the background”,

the email goes on to say:

“and that Mr McKay has cleared the proposal.”

Had Douglas Ross read out that bit, his entire argument would have fallen to pieces—that was a bit misleading, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.]

I am not sure that Douglas Ross should be speaking to any other leader about their back benchers. I suspect that he might have issues rather closer to home.

Finally, the reasons for the decision are clear. The basis for the decision, and, in particular, the mitigations that had been put in place to address the risk of having no full refund guarantee, are set out in the paperwork of 8 October. Without the email that we now have from Derek Mackay, we could have assumed that that was the case, but I accept that we did not know for sure. However, now that we have that email, it is clear that the decision was taken on the basis of all the information and mitigations that are set out in the paperwork of 8 October 2015. That paperwork was not copied to John Swinney; it went to Derek Mackay as transport minister, and Derek Mackay took the decision. That is clear to anybody who reads the emails that are now published.

The people of Scotland have had two opportunities in just a year to decide whether they think that my party has been in government for too long, and their answer on both occasions has been pretty clear.

These issues are important. First, on Queen Elizabeth university hospital issues, I am so opposed to transparency there that, with my Government, I have established a full independent statutory public inquiry into those issues.

Secondly, I stand to be corrected if somebody can challenge me on this, but I have probably answered more questions from journalists over the past couple of years than any other political leader anywhere on these islands has.

Thirdly, in my view, I have ended up being the subject of investigations over the past couple of years because I was not prepared to cover up accusations against a former minister. The fact is that I have to abide by the law. Whether I like it or not, all parties have rights under data protection law that protect their personal data. That includes the fact or the detail of complaints. The processing of that data can, under the law, occur only if there is a lawful basis to do so. That is the legal position.

Governments have a duty of transparency and I take that duty very seriously. However, Governments also have a duty to abide by the law on privacy and data protection. If we breached that law, Anas Sarwar would be among the first standing up in the Parliament to accuse us of doing so.

Yes, I very much agree with those sentiments. From what I have read about what occurred at that particular awards dinner, it was unacceptable. I pay tribute to Eilidh Barbour and others, who courageously took a stand against it and spoke out. It is never easy for any woman to speak out in that way, particularly in what is traditionally a man’s world, and Eilidh Barbour and her colleagues deserve credit for doing so.

What we have seen over the past week—that is one example; I think that another has been reported—is that sexism and misogyny still run far too deep in our society and it is a reminder that they must be tackled. It is also a reminder that that starts with male behaviour and that it is male behaviour that we must see changed.

Scottish Government officials met representatives of ambition 1140 recently to discuss their specific concerns. A commitment has been given to hold a further meeting in the near future to continue those discussions and, of course, there will be ministerial engagement as required.

It is important to recognise that the funding agreement between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to support the expansion that has been delivered so far allows local authorities to pay sustainable rates to private and third sector nurseries that provide free early learning and childcare places, as well as to childminders. However, I know that there are concerns, and we want to address them.

The financial sustainability health check that was published in August 2021 found that 88 per cent of private and third sector providers that delivered funded ELC planned to pay all staff in their setting the real living wage from August last year. That can be compared with the position before the expansion in 2016, when around 80 per cent of practitioners were paid less than the living wage.

Of course, public funding accounts for around 33 to 45 per cent of overall income for private childcare services, the majority of which also provide private services, so there are bigger issues that need to be addressed. We will continue to engage with those in the sector, and we have a determination to do so.

Mental health is and will continue to be a priority, as I have said many times in the chamber. The fact that more people feel able to come forward with mental health problems is something that we should continue to support, but we must make sure that services are there for them when they need them. The focus of mental health awareness week is loneliness and isolation, and the Scottish Government supports a range of work in that area.

Last year, we provided more than £20 million to local communities through the communities mental health and wellbeing fund, which supports adults. Earlier this month, we announced that a further £15 million would be available in this financial year. That fund is supporting almost 2,000 local community projects, many of which address loneliness and isolation. We are investing £10 million over the course of the parliamentary session to tackle social isolation and loneliness specifically. We will continue to make investments and to do everything that we can to support the many organisations across the country that do such good work.

I know that there is a lot of anger right across Scotland right now, although I am not sure that it is for the reason that Douglas Ross has raised today, and I suspect that he is going to feel the full force of it tomorrow.

On the issue of ferries, I have made it very clear that the delays and cost overruns are deeply regrettable. I believe that, when things do not go right in Government, it is important that leaders say so. If only other Governments followed the same principle, perhaps things might be a bit different. However, I will not—I am afraid that I am not going to be moved from this—apologise for decisions that allowed the last commercial shipbuilder on the Clyde to continue in business and that have allowed 400 workers to be employed there today, earning a wage and supporting their families.

I also will not apologise for investment in new ferries. The yard and the Government are focused on ensuring that the ferries are completed as part of our overall investment in Scotland’s ferry network. I will always take responsibility when things do not go right, and I will continue to act in a way that is in the interests of the country overall. Of course, tomorrow, people have the opportunity to cast their verdict on all of that.

I thank Sarah Boyack for raising this case. I do not know all of the details of Calum’s case, although I am certainly happy to look into it. Shona Robison is indicating to me that she is aware of the case and is already looking into it. She will write to Sarah Boyack with further details when she has the opportunity to do so. I am upset to hear about Calum’s situation, and I want us to do anything that we can to help.

More generally, we are working with councils to ensure a continued supply of affordable housing. We have a very good record on that, and we want to build on it. We look forward to renewing that constructive partnership once the councils are elected tomorrow.

I agree very much. The key aims of deaf awareness week are to recognise and highlight the barriers that deaf people face in their daily lives and to promote discussion about how we improve the lives of deaf people. I agree whole-heartedly that deaf awareness week will increase visibility and promote inclusion for everyone in the deaf community.

The British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 is in place and we continue to take forward a range of actions to promote equality and inclusion for deaf and hearing-impaired people and BSL signers, including investing in support services, hearing dog projects and the Scottish sensory hub.

We will continue to do everything that we can to provide support. I take the opportunity to congratulate everyone who is involved in deaf awareness week, which I am sure will do a lot of good.

Jim Fairlie is absolutely right. In so many ways, the cost of living crisis has been created by the Conservatives. Brexit has exacerbated that crisis, and it is exacerbating it each and every day. The Scottish Government, alongside many others, repeatedly warned that Brexit would be damaging to businesses and to trade, and that it would put food prices up, and we are seeing all of that right now.

Of course, had Scotland been independent, we could not have been dragged out of the European Union against our will. When Scotland is independent, we can again become part of the European family of nations, and I think that more and more people across Scotland want that to happen.