Chamber and committees

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.

I think that Douglas Ross’s last question to me reveals what this is all about. I have set out that Michael Matheson made mistakes, that he has resigned from the Cabinet and that he paid in full the costs of the roaming charges, so that there has been no cost to the public purse.

My job as First Minister, as I promised Parliament, is to improve the lives of people in Scotland. My challenge in doing that is that I am having to lead a Government that is having to face up to 14 years of punishing austerity from the United Kingdom Government. I am having to lead a Government that is having to face up to the consequences in Scotland of Brexit. I am having to lead a Government that is facing the hard realities of the cost of living crisis that has been inflicted on our country by the mismanagement of the economy by the Conservative Government.

I look forward to setting out to the people of Scotland in this election the difficulties that have been created by the folly of Douglas Ross and his colleagues—[Interruption.]—and I know that the people of Scotland will support the SNP in that process.

The integrity of the Parliament has been brought into question because a member of the committee has not done what Mr Kerr did, which was accept that they should recuse themselves from the committee.

I have no issue with the participation of the Conservative member on the corporate body, because Jackson Carlaw has made no public comments about the case. However, I have an issue with people prejudging the case, because that brings the Parliament into disrepute.

I come back to the point that I made in my earlier remarks, which is that, if a constituent came to me to say 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.

In my earlier answer, I said that Michael Matheson had made mistakes. He resigned and lost his job as a member of the Cabinet and he paid the roaming costs in question. There was no cost to the public purse. As a consequence of the issues that have been raised here about the conduct of the process, I do not believe that the sanction can be applied.

I take seriously the point that Monica Lennon has made. I will be happy to meet the health secretary and the relevant campaigners to address the issue. Perhaps it might be appropriate if we had a meeting with Tess White and Monica Lennon on the issue.

We recognise the significance and the benefits of the testing arrangements. We must ensure that health boards are actively responding to that call. We will put in place measures to ensure that members of this Parliament are updated about that, and we will arrange that discussion.

When the Ferguson Marine shipyard was threatened with closure in 2019, this Government stepped forward and saved it. Taking the yard into public ownership preserved commercial shipbuilding on the Clyde, rescued more than 300 jobs and ensured that the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa vessels, which are vital for our island communities, will be delivered.

We want to see the yard prosper, be competitive and continue the proud shipbuilding traditions of the Clyde. The Deputy First Minister recently met unions and workers at the shipyard, as well as parliamentary colleagues. As she said on that occasion, the Government will leave no stone unturned in pursuing a successful, sustainable future for the yard and for the workers who are employed there.

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.]

I am interested in putting Parliament first. That is why, before any of this kicked off, I wrote on two occasions to the convener of the Standards, Public Appointments and Procedures Committee, because I was concerned about the danger to the reputation of Parliament because of the fact that a process was going to be undertaken where members had prejudged it. That is an issue, and Mr Sarwar will share my perspective on the issue of employees’ rights. We have to have fair processes in our Parliament. I set out why I thought that those processes were at risk of being unfair.

Mr Sarwar asked about the raising of those concerns and the appropriate course of action to be taken. I remind Mr Sarwar that, in the Boris Johnson case to which he referred, Chris Bryant, one of Mr Sarwar’s colleagues in the House of Commons, recused himself from the parliamentary standards process because he had expressed public remarks about the case. Mr Bryant took the appropriate action to protect the process. The process has not been protected here.

I come at this issue using the fundamental Christian maxim of doing unto others what you would have done unto yourself. It worries me that what is being proposed is something that none of us would like to have done to us, because of its unfairness. That is the issue that Parliament has to confront.

I am deeply concerned at reports that the United Kingdom Government is considering introducing further measures to restrict the graduate visa route. I have written to the Prime Minister to emphasise that there is no economic or educational argument for such a proposal. Any restrictions to international students’ ability to stay and work in Scotland after graduation would damage the higher education sector and our wider economy.

Sixty per cent of the Scottish public support a graduate visa, while the UK Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee has recommended retaining the graduate route “in its current form”. Scotland’s distinct demographic challenge means that it is crucial that we have the tools to attract people to, and retain them in, Scotland. That should be our focus, not turning people away.