Chamber and committees

In relation to what Anas Sarwar said about my having been in government for 15 years, let us look at benefits. It is this Government that supports the welfare fund; it is this Government that has established the Scottish child payment and increased it; it is this Government that has created new benefits—the carers allowance supplement and the young carers grant do not exist anywhere else in the United Kingdom, including where Labour is in government; it is this Government that has increased welfare payments by 6 per cent, not 3 per cent, as the UK Government has done; and it is this Government that has introduced the baby box and trebled early years education and childcare. All of that has been delivered by this Government.

People will have the opportunity to cast their verdict on all that tomorrow, but it speaks volumes that Labour, after working hand in glove with the Conservatives in council administrations for five years in parts of the country, is in a scrap for second place with the Conservatives. That is the summit of Labour’s ambition.

My ambition is to win the election, so that the SNP can go on delivering real improvements for people right across Scotland, and I am happy to let the people of Scotland be the judge of that.

First, I take the opportunity to thank Amanda for her campaigning, as I have thanked her personally previously; as she is in the chamber today, I do so again.

I do not consider that Amanda was misled in any way, and I would be happy to speak directly to her about it. Frank’s law is being—will be—implemented in full. The funding has been made available; more important than that, there is a statutory entitlement to it. It is the law that Frank’s law—that is why it is called that—has to be met by councils.

I consider the matter to be really important, as I know Amanda does, for obvious reasons, and I reiterate the commitment to her today that Frank’s law will be implemented, and implemented in full.

Through sportscotland, we are providing almost £600,000 this year to help to deliver the new plan of Scottish Disability Sport, which is the sports body for people of all ages and abilities who have a physical, sensory or learning disability. The plan launched in April 2021 and sets a clear vision that sport and physical activity in Scotland are welcoming and inclusive for participants with disabilities.

That comes in addition to last year’s get into summer programme, which included targeted sessions at the grass-roots level for children and young people with disabilities.

We remain deeply concerned about the dispute over the Northern Ireland protocol. The protocol is part of the European Union-United Kingdom withdrawal agreement. When Boris Johnson signed it, he described it as a “fantastic moment”. The Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development and Minister with special responsibility for Refugees from Ukraine, Neil Gray, has written to the UK Government making it clear that invoking article 16 of the protocol or, indeed, unilaterally introducing legislation to breach international law would be deeply irresponsible and would probably trigger severe trade and economic impacts for the whole UK, including Scotland.

In light of the serious implications of such action, we would certainly expect the Scottish Government to be involved in discussions in advance. However, despite our repeated requests, the UK Government has, to date, shown no willingness to engage on the issues.

More than 200 documents, amounting to more than 1,500 pages, relating to the decisions are already in the public domain. They were published by the Scottish Government and they have been there for quite some time for anyone to read and scrutinise. One piece of documentation is not there, which is the formal record of the decision to proceed with the final contract award. That is, absolutely, a key decision.

There are two further points that it is important to make. First, there is no evidence that the paperwork has been withheld. [Interruption.] Well, let me quote the Auditor General, who said at last week’s committee meeting:

“our judgment is not that evidence has been withheld from us during the course of our audit work but, rather, that an important piece of documentary evidence was not prepared in relation to the judgment that ministers arrived at”.—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 21 April 2022; c 31.]

That is the first point.

Secondly, what is missing is a note confirming that ministers have considered the issues and have decided to proceed. However, that decision is clear in all the surrounding documentation. There was advice to ministers on 8 October, which said—I am summarising—

“We would welcome the Minister’s confirmation that he has ... considered the CMAL note,”

is

“aware of the ... procurement and financial risks”

and is

“content to give approval to CMAL to proceed.”

The day after that, on 9 October, Transport Scotland wrote to CMAL and said:

“The Scottish Ministers have also seen and understood that”

CMAL risks

“paper and have noted and accepted the various technical and commercial risks identified and assessed by CMAL and have indicated that they are content for CMAL to proceed with the award of the Contracts.”

So, the minister’s decision is narrated in the letter that Transport Scotland wrote.

There is one link in the chain that is missing, but one can still very clearly follow the chain of events—something that Douglas Ross clearly has not tried to do.

The Tory leadership is in some difficulty, but this really is desperate stuff. I have quoted from the advice that was given to ministers and from the Transport Scotland letter that went to CMAL, narrating the decision that ministers took.

Let me go back to the issue of non-disclosure agreements. I will say this very clearly: nobody in the employment of Ferguson’s shipyard will be prevented in any way, shape or form from speaking in full to Audit Scotland. [Interruption.] I point again to the fact that it was the Scottish Government that negotiated with FMEL’s administrators to release employees from the confidentiality obligations that they had back then. Therefore, everybody will be fully free and enabled to speak to Audit Scotland.

On my views on island communities, I think—I will be corrected if I am wrong—that the Official Report will show the regret that I expressed about the impact on those communities.

In terms of a fuller review, in the first exchange that we had on the issue after the Audit Scotland report was published, I pointed to the recommendation about having a fuller review and said that we would consider the terms of that. However, I think—and I think that the Auditor General said this last week—that the focus and priority now must be on completing the ferries. A key milestone in that vein was delivered yesterday.

I take full responsibility for everything that this Government does, and I always will. Perhaps that is the difference between me and some other leaders across these islands.

Yes, I share that view. The UK Government’s response has been woefully inadequate. Most of the resources and levers to tackle the crisis lie with the UK Government. Some—not all, I accept—of the factors that are driving the crisis have happened at the hand of the UK Government, not least the impact and implications of Brexit and the removal of universal credit from the most vulnerable families. It is time that the UK Government stepped up and responded properly.

The chancellor’s comment that it would be “silly” to provide help for people is deeply offensive to those across Scotland and all other parts of the UK who, right now, are struggling to heat their homes and feed their children. It is time for Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson and the UK Government to step up and to act.

We do take it seriously. Let me put on the record my sympathies to the young woman for her experience. Every woman in the country understands how serious such offences are and the consequences of the impact that they have on people’s lives.

How the police conduct criminal investigations is a matter for the police and, rightly, not for ministers. I am willing to correspond with the chief constable on this case to seek any explanation that he is able to give for the situation that has been narrated in the chamber, and to ask the justice secretary to write to the member in due course. These are serious crimes and I know that the police take them seriously, as does the Government.

Yes. I am glad to hear the support from across the chamber for Angela Rayner. I certainly stand in solidarity with her and condemn unreservedly the comments that were reported on Sunday. Like everybody else—or most other people—I was absolutely appalled both by the male Conservative MP who thought that it was okay to make those pathetic and derogatory comments and by the fact that we still live in a society in which it is deemed acceptable for such a story to be published in a major newspaper. A lot of reflection is needed on both of those points.

Unfortunately, I am all too familiar with—in my case—the Daily Mail’s tactics of attempting to reduce women politicians to their legs. To the best of my knowledge, such tactics are never used to dismiss and degrade male politicians in the way that that happens to female politicians.

Sadly and depressingly, the story highlighted what women already know and what many women already experience daily, which is deep-seated sexism and misogyny in society. That needs to be addressed.

We will continue to take the actions that I set out in my earlier answer, but I am also pleased that in our response to the work of Baroness Kennedy’s misogyny and criminal justice in Scotland working group, we committed to consult on draft legislation in advance of introducing a bill to specifically tackle misogyny.

This is something for all of us—but for men, in particular—to reflect on. We will rue the day that we make it more difficult and less attractive for women to come forward for election to public office. It is time to draw a line in the sand, and it is time for men—not all men are misogynists, but misogyny comes from men—to change.

I take the opportunity to welcome Louise’s mum to the chamber, although I am sure that she does not want to be here in these circumstances. I absolutely understand her desire for a fatal accident inquiry and for that fatal accident inquiry to be taken forward as quickly as possible.

It is the case—I know that members across the chamber understand this—that the Lord Advocate is constitutionally responsible for the investigation of deaths in Scotland and conducts that responsibility independently of Government. Decisions on whether a fatal accident inquiry is held and the timing of the initiation of such an inquiry are also matters for the Lord Advocate. I will ensure that the detail of this exchange is brought to the attention of the Lord Advocate later today.

The other parts of the question are entirely reasonable. On the proposal for a domestic abuse offender register, we keep the law under continual review and are always open to exploring options to reduce crime, particularly crime of this nature. We will look carefully at the detail of any measure that is put forward and I know that the justice secretary would be happy to engage on that.

A domestic abuse disclosure scheme is already in place in Scotland. The purpose of that scheme is to allow people to make informed decisions about their situation when they may be at risk in a relationship. The scheme also allows Police Scotland to tell people that they may be at risk. That information can be given even if it has not been asked for.

Finally, I think that we always have to be open to improvements here. There is a real need for us to do everything possible to protect women and children in particular—because they are most often the victims of domestic abuse—as much as possible. The Government will remain open to any suggestions and proposals that are brought forward.

On this particular case, it is, of course, right that any issues are properly scrutinised in the course of the fatal accident inquiry process which is, as I said, a matter for the Lord Advocate.