Chamber and committees

I thank Liz Smith for giving way again.

The Conservatives can make that general comment, but they do not then go on to give a specific commitment on what elements of the social contract should be removed. Should it be the expansion of early learning and childcare? I think that that would be an absolutely foolhardy decision. Should it be the reintroduction of tuition fees? I think that that would be a foolhardy decision as well. We have made huge progress on access to higher education—

I put on the record that I will miss Liz Smith’s contributions to this Parliament and I welcome the contribution that she has made over the years.

On the point about issues such as the Scottish child payment, does Liz Smith recognise that the investment that is made in lifting family incomes, in and of itself, assists as an economic stimulus in communities because it boosts the spending power of individuals to spend locally on crucial investments in their family circumstances? Is that not part of the evidence that supports the cabinet secretary’s point that Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom that is demonstrating that child poverty is falling compared to other parts of the United Kingdom, where measures such as the child payment do not exist and child poverty is rising?

Therefore, the challenge for the Conservatives is, at what point will they spell out where the swingeing cuts will be made?

Will the member take an intervention?

Before I answer Russell Findlay’s question, I want to take the opportunity to place on record the fact that, on Monday, I will attend a commemoration service in Edinburgh to mark the third anniversary of the illegal invasion of Ukraine. I am certain that when I go to the service, I will go with the whole-hearted support of every member of the Parliament who is repulsed by the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and stands in solidarity with the people of Ukraine.

I have, of course, been paying very close attention to the issues that have been raised by Mr Findlay and by Conservative members of Parliament. The Government has taken the view that we cannot comment on the on-going proceedings that Mr Findlay raises. The reason for that is set out in section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. Section 1, titled “Guarantee of continued judicial independence”, says:

“The following persons must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary—

(a) the First Minister,

(b) the Lord Advocate,

(c) the Scottish Ministers,

(d) members of the Scottish Parliament”.

Section 1(2) goes on to say:

“In particular, the First Minister, the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers must not seek to influence ... judicial decisions through any special access to the judiciary”.

If I was to comment on this case, I would be in danger of breaking the law. I believe in the rule of law, and nobody will persuade me to break the rule of law in the Parliament. [Interruption.] No questioning from Mr Findlay, no barracking, no heckling—nothing will stop me from protecting the right to ensure that the law is upheld in this country. [Interruption.]

The guidance that is in place in relation to the issues that Mr Findlay raises on a general level explains:

“The Equality Act 2010 does allow the provision to exclude a trans person from single or separate sex facilities. These kinds of decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. Managers must balance the needs of the trans person to use this facility against the needs of other members of staff. They should also consider if other staff members will experience any disadvantage if the trans person is allowed to use the facilities.”

That is the position in guidance that is supported by law. I hope that that answers Mr Findlay’s question.

If Mr Sarwar followed the speech that I delivered a few weeks ago—I think that he did, because he has raised some of those issues with me before—he would know that I am absolutely focused on tackling the issue of waiting times, on improving access to the national health service and on making sure that the needs of the people of Scotland are met by the national health service. That is why my budget on Tuesday will include a record settlement for the national health service. As things stand, Mr Sarwar is not proposing to support the budget on Tuesday, but we have seen the rate at which he is flip-flopping on his positions on a daily basis.

I associate myself entirely with Kevin Stewart’s comments on the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Russian aggression needs to be repelled, and the territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine must be asserted. We as a country—through cross-party support—have done a lot to welcome Ukrainian refugees to Scotland. I express our solidarity with them and indicate that the Government will do all that it can to ensure their safety and security here in Scotland.

My Government follows an approach that is designed to support early intervention to address the important issues that Brian Whittle puts to me. I point out to the Parliament that Brian Whittle is arguing for more money to be spent on sport and on local government. [Interruption.]

Mr Whittle has just asked me a question in which he has asked for more money for sport and for local government. The Government is putting a budget before Parliament on Tuesday. Mr Whittle proposes to vote against it, and his party wants us to cut public spending by £1 billion. That is completely and utterly incoherent. If Mr Whittle wants to make sure that the Government puts forward a budget that increases local authority expenditure, and if he wants to carry those things through, why can he not vote for the Government’s budget and try to make things happen in Scotland?

I share the concerns that have been expressed by Emma Harper and by the Scotch Whisky Association, which I know understands the importance of the designation of Scotch whisky. The association promotes and engages substantively with Parliament on that designation, which enables Scotch whisky to have such a powerful position in the international marketplace.

I assure Emma Harper that the Government will make all necessary representations on the issue to protect the identity and the character of Scotch whisky.

First, the regulations that Pam Gosal has talked about were last updated in 1979. My recollection is that, in 1979, there was a Conservative Government. All the issues that are being raised in relation to that regulated environment are in age-old regulation that we need to review. That is what the question was about.

Secondly, local authorities are responsible for the design of their schools, and they take those designs forward through consultation and dialogue with the school community. I would expect them to do exactly that.

Thirdly, as a consequence of our investment programme, the Government has increased the proportion of schools that are in good or satisfactory condition from the 62.7 per cent that we inherited in 2007 from the Labour and Liberal Executive to 91.7 per cent in 2024, which is a tribute to the public sector investment that the Government has presided over.