Chamber and committees

For the fourth time, I accept the decision that Parliament arrived at yesterday. That includes an acknowledgement by Parliament that the process that was undertaken by the committee risks bringing the Parliament into disrepute, and Mr Ross cannot escape what he voted for last night.

That means that Parliament has to consider how it exercises its responsibilities in accordance with the principles of natural justice. That is why I am glad that Parliament agreed last night that the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body should

“initiate an independent review of the Parliament’s complaints process to restore integrity and confidence in the Parliament and its procedures.”

That is what Parliament has decided to do.

I will continue to engage directly with my constituents, who have returned me to this Parliament on six occasions, on a regular basis and to serve them as faithfully as I have always done, and I will extend that to faithfully serving the country of which I have the privilege of being First Minister.

I remind Douglas Ross that, in 2018, the Conservative group in this Parliament—I appreciate that Mr Ross was not a member of the group at that time, as he had left the Scottish Parliament—voted against sanctions that were applied by the standards committee to one of Mr Ross’s members. So, Mr Ross has absolutely no credibility whatsoever in coming here and suggesting that my conduct or my actions have been in any way inappropriate. [Interruption.]

First, I say to Natalie that I understand entirely the anxiety that she faces, and I am sorry that she has not heard anything since December. If Mr Sarwar, in the aftermath of today’s exchanges, would like to advise me of the details, I will take the issue up, as he will understand I would do.

I say also that patients like Natalie are my focus. I am spending huge amounts of my time as First Minister focusing on the real and legitimate concerns of people in Scotland about our public services. I said to Parliament last week that my priorities would address the challenges in our public services, and that that would be one of the four major themes, along with eradicating child poverty, the transition to net zero and the stimulation of economic growth.

Those reforms and developments, and progression in our public services will be, and are, at the heart of my priorities. That is what the Cabinet was talking about in our meeting this week, and we will continue to do that. I assure Mr Sarwar, and l assure Natalie, that the concerns of people in Scotland about getting access to healthcare treatment when they need it, at the earliest possible opportunity, will be fundamental to the priorities that I take forward on behalf of the people of Scotland.

Since 2021, two significant factors have undermined the public finances in the United Kingdom. The first has been the rampant inflation that has eroded the value of public sector budgets. Although inflation is lower today than it was a year ago, prices are still very much higher because of the effect of double-digit inflation—the first time that we have that in the United Kingdom for over 40 years.

The second thing that has happened is that the cost of investing in and supporting our public services has gone through the roof, because of the mistakes that were made by Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng in that ridiculous statement to the House of Commons. [Interruption.]

I was delighted to have the opportunity yesterday, with local members Mr Torrance and my colleague Jenny Gilruth, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, to be present at the opening of Levenmouth rail link. It is a wonderful project, which has come about because of tenacious campaigning by the Levenmouth rail campaign, which garnered support on a cross-party basis for a new rail link. It will connect the communities around Leven to the rail network, opening up educational, social and economic opportunities for that community and also opening up that community as a place to visit and a destination on the rail network. It is a superb investment, and I congratulate everyone involved in the Levenmouth rail link.

I would certainly want the investment and resources to be available to ensure that we can undertake other projects of that character around the country, but that will only come if there is a stimulation to capital investment, which is absolutely and desperately required after 14 years of austerity.

I am absolutely delighted to do so and to pay tribute to the astonishing achievements of all the individuals whom Mr Whittle has mentioned, because they are utterly and totally inspiring.

I have to say to Mr Whittle that they will be a great deal faster than both him and me, if I may say so. They are certainly a great deal faster than I was when running through the centre of Edinburgh at the ungodly hour at which I was running this morning.

I pay warm tribute to them. They are an encouragement to us all to exercise—perhaps not as fast as they are able to exercise and compete—and to take due care of ourselves to ensure our own physical fitness. I am happy to associate myself with Brian Whittle’s comments and to encourage all the athletes in the forthcoming competitions.

There will be essential projects that have to be undertaken to ensure public safety and to guarantee that we have the appropriate level of connectivity in our communities. Obviously, there is a debate to be had about the merits of individual projects, but the Government has an obligation to work with local authorities in a spirit of partnership to agree the infrastructure improvements that are necessary to ensure that we have connectivity in our country.

At the outset, I have to make it clear to the Parliament that Michael Matheson is a friend and colleague of mine. He has made mistakes, he has resigned from the Cabinet, and he has paid the roaming costs in question—there has been no cost to the public purse.

However, as I consider the findings from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I have a significant concern. I believe that the process has been prejudiced. Let me explain why.

Both Stephen Kerr and Annie Wells made comments about the case, long before it came to the committee, which prejudged it. Stephen Kerr had the good grace to admit that he

“couldn’t meet the committee requirement to be unbiased”,

so he removed himself from the committee. He was replaced by Oliver Mundell, who has made no public comment on the case. I have no issue with Mr Mundell’s participation in the inquiry.

However, Annie Wells has made public comments. On 27 November, Annie Wells said that Michael Matheson’s

“desperate efforts to justify his outrageous expenses claim have been riddled with lies, cover-ups and the need for us all to suspend our disbelief.”

If a constituent came to me and said that they were about to face a disciplinary panel at work, and one of the panel members had made prejudicial comments about them, I would come down on that employer like a ton of bricks. That is the situation that Michael Matheson faces here, and that is why I will not support the sanction.

In answer to Mr Ross’s last specific question, before I became First Minister, I drew the issues about the comments from Stephen Kerr and Annie Wells to the attention of the convener of the Standards, Public Appointments and Procedures Committee, which I thought was important for me to do as a senior, long-serving member of Parliament, because I am interested in the integrity of this Parliament.

Unfortunately, the integrity of the Parliament has been brought into question—[Interruption.]

I do not think that anybody could look at me and think that I am not an individual who cares deeply about the reputation and integrity of this Parliament. I have been in this Parliament—[Interruption.] I have been in this Parliament for 25 years, since its foundation, and it has been the privilege of my life to serve here. I am the only member of this Parliament who voted for its establishment when the Scotland Act 1998 was put to the House of Commons. I care deeply about the reputation, integrity and identity of this Parliament, which is why I think that there is the risk that deep damage will be done to its reputation if the issue—[Interruption.]