Chamber and committees

The issues that I raised last week have now been endorsed by the democratic national Parliament of Scotland, and a process that the corporate body will lead is now under way to address the issues and restore, in the words of the parliamentary motion,

“integrity and confidence in the Parliament and its procedures”,

which matter deeply to me as a member of this Parliament. For the fifth time, I indicate that I accept the conclusions that the Parliament came to yesterday.

The last thing that I am going to say to Mr Ross is this. I think that—this is pretty instructive—when Mr Ross goes through his sequence of questions and then eventually gets to the pouring out of the volume of personal abuse that he pours out, it tells us that Mr Ross has lost the argument, just as he has lost the argument throughout all of this, because he cannot do anything other than resort to nasty personal abuse. That is what Mr Ross contributes to this Parliament.

I am the first to acknowledge that we face challenges in the national health service as a consequence—the issues have been well rehearsed in Parliament—of the aftermath of Covid and the implications that that has had in terms of the amount of time for which people are having to wait for treatment.

I am sorry for the amount of time for which people are having to wait. We are reducing the longest waits and making headway on that. With regard to the volume of activity in the national health service, the statistics this week indicate an increase in the level of activity in the NHS to begin to eat into those long waiting times, which I accept are far too long for too many people.

The Government is taking steps including investment of £30 million in the waiting times programme and the establishment of the national treatment centres, which are already making an impact and producing some of that welcome level of increased activity, combined with the focus in the national health service on tackling the longest waits. Those are the measures that the Government is taking forward to ensure that we tackle the legitimate issue that Mr Sarwar raises with me.

I reiterate that my primary concern is to make sure that people such as Natalie receive the treatment that they want at the earliest possible opportunity, to address their anxiety and acute health requirements. If Mr Sarwar gives me the details, I will attend to that after First Minister’s questions.

However, some of the rest of what Mr Sarwar went on to say is just a little bit hollow. On Wednesday morning, the Labour shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, said:

“The NHS is in crisis in every part of the United Kingdom because decisions that are taken in Westminster don’t just affect England, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”

Earlier in the month, he said that

“all roads do lead back to Westminster”

because of the austerity that we have suffered for 14 years.

In relation to that austerity programme, Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, has indicated that the Labour Party, if it is elected to office, will not increase income tax, national insurance, corporation tax or VAT, and that it has accepted very strict borrowing limits within very strict fiscal and tax rules, and squeezed spending budgets. That amounts to austerity on stilts from any incoming Labour Government.

If that was not bad enough, Wes Streeting said yesterday that he will

“hold the door wide open”

for the private sector in the national health service. He went on to say:

“We will go further than New Labour ever did. I want the NHS to form partnerships with the private sector that goes beyond just hospitals.”

Mr Sarwar should not give me that stuff about the anniversary of the national health service, because Labour is preparing to sell us out on austerity and the national health service, and cannot be trusted to deliver for the people of Scotland.

I acknowledge the seriousness of the issues that Mr Harvie raises with me. The other day, I indicated that there should be an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, that the hostages who have been taken should be returned to their loved ones—to whom they should have been returned a long time ago—and that arms sales to Israel should stop. As Mr Harvie correctly said, I went on to say that I believe that the United Kingdom should recognise the state of Palestine as an independent state. That is long overdue, and it would be a contribution towards trying to stabilise the situation in the middle east. I hope that Mr Harvie takes from that the direction of my thinking on the matter and my desire to do as much as I can to help to resolve the situation from our position.

I will consider carefully the points that Mr Harvie has raised about any support for companies that are involved in this activity. Our enterprise agencies have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that any funding provided is used only for the specific purpose for which it is intended. From Mr Harvie’s question, I suspect that he wants me to extend beyond that protection. On that matter, I would have to take great care to ensure that we had a legal justification for so doing. If Mr Harvie and Mr Greer would care to provide me with the material about which they are concerned, I will investigate and determine whether the Government can do more. I will, of course, update Parliament on those investigations.

Obviously, those are matters for individual local authorities to take forward. That is the constitutional arrangement in this country, which ensures that the delivery of education is a matter within the competence of local authorities.

Pam Duncan-Glancy asked me what the Government is doing to help with that situation: the Government is offering £145.5 million to local authorities to protect teacher numbers. That is what the Government is doing.

I have to say that I find Pam Duncan-Glancy’s concerns about this rather difficult to accept. If the Labour Party had its budget proposals accepted in the city of Glasgow—£30 million cuts in education on Glasgow City Council—that could have meant the loss of up to 650 teachers. The Labour Party’s proposition to people in this election is to prolong austerity—that is what Labour will carry on with. There will be no new money coming along the track, there will be prolonged austerity and Labour will continue where the Tories have left off. When the Labour Party is in council chambers around the country, it wants to reduce teacher numbers by 650. That is just unacceptable. The Scottish Government is doing what it can to support local authorities to protect teacher numbers, and we will engage with local authorities to enable that.

I take very seriously what the chief entrepreneur says, and I understand that Mark Logan has been working on the implementation of the recommendations and trying to make progress. If he needs a bit more assistance from the First Minister, I will certainly offer it.

I know that the Deputy First Minister will be keen to support him in his efforts, because pupils accessing computer science education is vital as an investment in the future of Scotland. Work is being delivered to establish new courses with the University of Aberdeen, if my memory serves me right, to take forward those priorities. I am very happy, as will be the Deputy First Minister, to engage with Mark Logan on that important question.

I have touched on some of the implications of Brexit already today in response to Clare Haughey’s question about the availability of people.

Michelle Thomson is absolutely correct. I cannot speak to a business in the country that is not suffering from the effects of Brexit, whether that is about the availability of staff, the cost of doing business or the loss of opportunity, because it is just so much more difficult to advance some of those questions.

The most recent information that I have is that the National Audit Office undertook a report that estimated that UK traders were facing additional costs of £469 million per year. That is on top of annual costs of £7.5 billion since 2019 for completing customs declarations on UK-European Union trade. That is the scale of the competitive disadvantage that has been inflicted by the folly of Brexit, which, unfortunately, is supported by both the Conservative and Labour parties and which the Scottish National Party would want to address by establishing Scotland’s independent membership of the European Union.

In an answer to a parliamentary question that I gave on Tuesday, I included the guidance that has been given to me by the permanent secretary. Regrettably, from my perspective, that means that a significant amount of the explanation of the Government’s programme will have to wait until after the United Kingdom election has been concluded.

We do not anticipate that an announcement on the small vessel replacement programme will be made before the end of the pre-election period, as consideration of the business case by ministers remains on-going, but if there is any alteration to that view, I will share that with Parliament.

The issues relating to the case of Michael Matheson have been well exercised within Parliament, and Parliament came to its conclusions yesterday. I accept the conclusions that Parliament arrived at last night.

—because the process was tainted.

I make it clear now, for a third time, that I accept the decision that was made by Parliament yesterday.