Chamber and committees

Christine Grahame is absolutely 100 per cent right: we cannot use powers that we do not hold in this Parliament. Where we do hold powers, we are using them, so we are taking game-changing action to lift children out of poverty.

We do not have control over pensions. We tend to talk about the invidious choices that, in these circumstances, people face between eating or heating their homes. In the face of this cost of living crisis, there will be some people who cannot afford to do either. That is the reality.

This Government will do everything that we can with the powers and resources that we have, but as long as so many of those levers lie with a Conservative Government at Westminster, we are going to see more of what we saw in the spring statement yesterday. Anybody who really cares about these issues would be not just arguing for those powers to be taken away from Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson and put into the hands of this Parliament as quickly as possible, but demanding that it happen.

Domestic abuse is an insidious and dreadful crime. It has a devastating impact on victims, and it is vital that perpetrators are fully held to account. In partnership with key stakeholders, we are implementing equally safe, which is Scotland’s strategy to tackle all forms of violence against women and girls. It aims to prevent violence from occurring in the first place, to build the capability and capacity of mainstream and specialist services to support survivors and those at risk, and to strengthen the justice response to victims and perpetrators.

As a tangible example of that, we have committed to expanding the availability of the accredited Caledonian system, to ensure that more male perpetrators of domestic abuse are directed to services that challenge harmful behaviours, to reduce reoffending and to improve the lives of women and children.

We all continue to be horrified by the illegal war in Ukraine, and we are ready to extend the warmest of Scottish welcomes to those who are fleeing the war. We have been working rapidly with a range of partners to ensure that displaced Ukrainians arrive to a place of safety and security. We have established welcome hubs at key entry points, to support people with what they need immediately on arrival and to assess their medium to longer-term needs.

We are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to provide accommodation, as well as exploring all viable public and private sector housing options and, of course, offers from members of the public who have generously offered to open their own homes.

The welcome hubs are a really important initial part of what we want to offer. They will assess immediate needs, take a multi-agency approach and provide wraparound support. That will include having trained staff on call to support people who are experiencing trauma. The welcome hubs will also be able to begin the assessment of longer-term needs, including accommodation requirements.

We now have the supersponsor route in place. That is in addition to the homes for Ukraine route and, of course, the family route. We have the support ready to be provided here. The bit in the middle is getting the visa applications granted so that people can start to arrive in numbers.

I will get an update later today, but the update that I had yesterday was that more than 1,000 applications had been made through the supersponsor scheme, and there had been just under 1,000 individual matching applications, I think. Obviously, we are still improving data flows, so there will be some uncertainty around those figures. However, we need to see a significant speeding up of the granting of those applications in order that people can come here and start to access the support that we have ready for them on that multi-agency basis.

We will consider everything that we can reasonably do to help. Anas Sarwar said that the doubling of the Scottish child payment predated the cost of living crisis. That is, of course, one reason why, this very afternoon in the Parliament, Shona Robison will deliver a statement accompanying our updated tackling child poverty delivery plan, setting out the further action that the Government will take to lift children out of poverty, rather than putting more children into poverty, as the United Kingdom Government is doing. I am surprised that Anas Sarwar did not know that.

Yes, my party has been in government for some time, which is why people in Scotland do not pay for prescriptions or eye tests, or to go to university. It is why we have, on average, lower council tax than England and Labour-run Wales have. It is why more people pay no council tax at all, because we retained the council tax reduction scheme. We are using our powers, and the doubling of the Scottish child payment is the principal example of that.

We will continue to look at what more we can do. Anas Sarwar is right to continue to press us to do more, but he would have more credibility if he did not also back the retention of the powers over welfare and public spending that are in the hands of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak. Until he changes that position, I do not know whether many people in Scotland will take him seriously.

First, I take this opportunity to express my shock and distress at the untimely and tragic passing of David Hill. It is a mark of the man he was that he had such good friends right across the political spectrum in Parliament.

When David died, he was, obviously, doing what he loved most. I hope that, in time, that will be of some comfort to his loved ones. I had contact with David’s dad on Sunday, when I offered all possible help that the Scottish Government could provide. My thoughts are with Rodger, Sharon and David’s wider family and friends, and, of course, with all his Conservative Party colleagues.

Before I turn directly to the substance of the question, I say candidly that the problems with the procurement—or rather, with the construction; the procurement was not the issue—of the ferries have resulted in delay, cost overruns and a very negative impact on island communities. That is far from satisfactory, which is putting it mildly.

The report that Audit Scotland published yesterday is entirely fair and justified. There are a number of complexities, but the contracts in question are public contracts, so the buck stops with the Scottish Government. Pre-2019, there were issues with the quality of work and the progress of work when the yard was in private ownership. Since nationalisation of the yard at the end of 2019, more problems have been identified, with the cabling problem being the most significant. On top of that, of course, there has been additional delay because of Covid.

However, we remain focused on delivery of the ferries. The actions that the Scottish Government has taken have helped to secure jobs at the last remaining commercial shipbuilder on the Clyde. I think that that is important.

To turn briefly to Douglas Ross’s specific question about who was transport minister at the time, I note that that is, of course, a matter of public record. It was Derek Mackay, but our Government—I understand that the idea might be alien to the Conservatives—operates under collective responsibility. Ultimately, as with any decisions, whether I am personally involved in them or not, responsibility stops with me.

Many of the documents that relate to the decision have been in the public domain for some time. They clearly narrate the issue of the lack of a full-refund guarantee. They also clearly narrate the mitigations that were put in place to reduce that risk. Those documents are in the public domain and are available for anyone to review.

Nobody who had read Audit Scotland’s report could reach that particular conclusion, but I will come back to that.

I will say, first, that if Douglas Ross thinks that it is unimportant who the individual minister was and that—as I agree—the buck stops with me, why was his first question to ask me who the individual minister was? Clearly, he must have thought that it was important. I did not intend to come here and do anything but accept full responsibility.

I come to the questions—let me answer them one by one. I have already run through the decision to proceed and the lack of the full builder’s refund guarantee. That decision was clearly taken based on the balance of risks. CMAL had concerns about the matter, but a range of actions had been taken—I have set out exactly what they were—to mitigate the risks. The conclusion, which is in the documentation that is publicly available, was that the deal that was negotiated was the best one that could have been achieved in the circumstances.

I think that the second question that Douglas Ross asked me was why was the contract awarded to FMEL when it was the most expensive bid. That question, too, is answered in the Audit Scotland report. The review found that it was the most expensive bid—if memory serves me correctly, that was known at the time—but CMAL had

“also assessed it as being the highest quality”,

so

“Overall, it achieved the highest combined cost and quality score of the seven bids”.

That was the decision that was taken at the time. Of course, ministers are not involved in procurement decisions.

Lastly, on the question of a public inquiry, we have had a parliamentary committee look into the issue and we have now had a major Audit Scotland review. Audit Scotland itself recommends, at page 7 of its report, that on completion of the vessels, there should be

“a formal review of what went wrong ... with a view to learning lessons”.

The Scottish Government will consider what form that further review should take. We will consider the matter carefully and will, of course, report to Parliament in due course.

What Douglas Ross has demonstrated is that he has not spent much time reading the hundreds of pages of documents that are in the public domain. There is one issue in relation to which Audit Scotland refers to a lack of documentation. That is a matter that the Government needs to reflect on seriously and well. However, there are hundreds of pages of documents. I have referred to many of them already, and I think that they would bear some attention being paid to them by Douglas Ross.

I said candidly at the outset that I think that the situation is deeply regrettable.

When I visited the yard it was, of course, in private ownership, and assurances were given about the completion of work. The problems that have led to cost overruns, delays and—worst of all—a negative impact on our island communities, are deeply regrettable. At every step, the motivation of the Government has been to secure employment and the shipyard, and to get the ferries completed. That is what we will continue to focus on. We will learn the lessons in the Audit Scotland report and we will make sure that all its recommendations are taken forward.

Douglas Ross might think that it is unimportant that we have saved 300 jobs and a shipyard, but I think that those things matter, which is why we will now focus on making sure that the yard has a positive future.

It is absolutely right to point out the impact of the chancellor’s statement yesterday on the poorest in our society. This morning, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published analysis that I recommend every member of the Parliament look at carefully. Those in the richest decile will see their incomes fall by less than 2 per cent, while those in the poorest decile will see their incomes fall by almost 6 per cent. That is principally down to the failure to properly uprate benefits. Given the fact that the chancellor had access to more money, the decision not to do that is disgusting and completely indefensible.

I have already set out the actions that the Scottish Government is taking, and we will continue to look at further actions that we can take. Indeed, as I said earlier, in the statement on the tackling child poverty delivery plan that she will deliver later, Shona Robison will set out further actions that the Scottish Government will take.

Those are very serious issues, and where lessons need to be learned, they are learned by health boards and, where necessary, by the Government. I am not aware of the detail of the case reported in The Courier today. I will ensure that I become aware of that detail and, when I have had the opportunity to do so, I am happy to write to Murdo Fraser.