Chamber and committees

That is a proposition that Parliament can consider. The Government is perfectly open to considering that proposal. I believe that recall arrangements are appropriate and that Parliament needs to scrutinise the basis on which it puts them forward.

I honestly say to Parliament that it has to be very careful about what it is doing here. The example that Chris Bryant set, whereby an individual who had prejudged a case judged that they could not take part in the process, is one of which we should all be mindful. Natural justice is at stake here. I would be concerned about that wherever that person sat in the chamber, because I want Parliament to exercise its responsibilities fairly and openly in relation to all members.

Mr Sarwar said that there are other issues that I have not raised concerns about. I said earlier that, when Oliver Mundell replaced Stephen Kerr on the committee and Mr Kerr withdrew from it because he had prejudiced his position, I raised no issues about Oliver Mundell, because he had not made any comments about the case.

I am simply saying that, with the way in which it is handling this matter, Parliament is setting a very dangerous precedent.

I have made it pretty clear over the past couple of weeks that I will positively and enthusiastically set out the record of this SNP Government, because it has enhanced the lives of people in Scotland.

When Anas Sarwar’s party left office, people in this country got 412 hours of funded early learning and childcare provision. That was what Labour thought was enough for families who are on a low income. Now, it is more than double that, because of the choices that have been made by this Government to look after the interests of children in our country. The Labour Party wants to keep the two-child limit, which is keeping 10,000 children in Scotland in poverty, when this Government has put a child payment in place that is protecting 100,000 children from going into poverty.

When Anas Sarwar comes to the Parliament and wants to challenge me about the record of the SNP Government, I will defend it, because it is delivering a higher quality of life than the Labour Government did in Scotland in 2007, and I am proud of what we have achieved.

—that I have raised is not addressed properly, as I invited the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to do. I will not support calls for Michael Matheson to resign. Michael Matheson has suffered significant reputational damage and impact on his family as a consequence of losing office and the difficulties that have been created here. He has paid all the roaming costs in question; there is no cost to the public purse.

This Parliament needs to consider seriously the reputational issues that will arise from presiding over an unfair process.

The Scottish Government gives significant financial support to the university sector, but, of course, the Scottish Government has to live within the resources that are made available to us through the Barnett formula and the funding of the public purse.

People such as Liam Kerr have to wake up and realise that there is a consequence of 14 years of austerity. That has put insufferable pressure on our public finances, and the people who are responsible for those 14 years of austerity are Liam Kerr and his Conservative colleagues. As a Government, we will do all that we can to support the university sector, but people such as Liam Kerr need to face up to the implications of the damaging decisions of the United Kingdom Conservative Government.

I take seriously the point that Mr Rennie raises, but it relates directly to the public finances, on which the Government has taken a stance. We have been prepared to increase tax to increase the resources that we have available to invest in key sectors such as the university sector and the college sector.

The Scottish Funding Council engages directly with institutions to support them with the challenges that they face, but I make the point that the continuation of austerity, which is now having such a punishing effect on our public finances, is a material factor that we have to address. The opportunity to do that is in front of the country in the forthcoming election.

The Scottish Government is committed to continuous improvement in maternity safety across Scotland to deliver the best and safest care for mothers and babies. We expect all NHS boards to ensure that the Scottish Health Technologies Group’s recommendations on placental growth factor-based testing are implemented effectively and consistently. NHS boards are currently in the initial phases of implementing PLGF testing, and we have written again to NHS boards to secure an update on their current position and to determine whether further support is necessary to progress implementation plans.

I welcome this opportunity to set out the approach that I intend to take in leading the Scottish Government. I want to take forward measures that will help people and their families to get on in life and to enable the people of Scotland to live happier, healthier lives.

One of the benefits of long service in the Parliament is that I have witnessed it when it is functioning at its very best. That happens when we work constructively together. At the beginning of my period as First Minister, let me make it clear to Parliament that I will work with any party that comes forward with ideas about how we can make our country a better place to live in. A good idea is a good idea. I make it clear to all parties and to all members that the Government will engage positively in considering ideas from all sources.

I may have been out of ministerial office for the past year, but I am no stranger to government. I therefore want to build on the record of the Scottish National Party Government over the past 17 years, which has changed Scotland for the better. Our task today is to look to the future. That future should be built on the foundations of working day in, day out for the people whom we serve.

Since the Government took office, economic growth per head and productivity have been stronger in Scotland than they have been in the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland has had the best-performing accident and emergency core units in the UK for nine years. National health service funding has more than doubled, and we have the highest number of general practitioners per head in the United Kingdom.

On housing, since we were elected, Scotland has seen more than 40 per cent more affordable homes delivered per head of population than England has, and more than 70 per cent more than Wales has.

When we took office, renewable technologies generated the equivalent of 20.2 per cent of Scotland’s gross electricity consumption. Since then, that has soared to an astonishing 113 per cent.

The number of schools in “good” or “satisfactory” condition has increased from just over 60 per cent to more than 90 per cent, and we are seeing record levels of literacy and numeracy at primary school level.

Since we took office, the amount of free childcare that is available to parents has increased from 412.5 hours to 1,140 hours, and we have extended that to eligible two-year-olds.

Recorded crime has fallen by around 40 per cent to one of its lowest levels in half a century.

This year, using our limited social security powers, measures such as the Scottish child payment are helping to keep an estimated 100,000 children in Scotland out of relative poverty.

I would be the first to accept that there are challenges to overcome for the Government, but a substantial discussion about how we take forward the agenda to improve the lives of people in Scotland must start with an acknowledgement of the improvements that have already been made.

In setting out my approach to government, I am acutely aware of the economic and fiscal realities that we face. If we are to make progress, I hope and believe that we can find consensus on that.

In that spirit of consensus, let me put on record my strong agreement with recent statements made by members of the Labour Party. Earlier this year, the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Cabinet Office, Rebecca Evans, described the decisions taken in this year’s budget in Wales as the “starkest and most painful” since devolution. I absolutely sympathise with that situation.

There is a developing consensus on where responsibility for those funding decisions ultimately lies. In a broadcast interview on Sunday, the shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, was asked to explain the performance of the NHS in Wales. He replied:

“All roads do lead to Westminster, because, even though this is devolved, decisions taken in Westminster have an impact on the NHS across the whole country.”

That comment from Wes Streeting demonstrates the source of the significant financial challenges that we face. The prolonged era of austerity that has been delivered by the UK Government over the past 14 years is having a profound effect on the fiscal context in which we operate.

An additional factor that shapes the economic and fiscal context that we have to navigate is Brexit. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that the UK economy was 2.5 per cent smaller in 2023 than it would have been if the United Kingdom had retained European Union membership. On that basis, £69 billion could have been wiped from national income in 2023. That equates to £28 billion of tax revenue across the United Kingdom. With the same level of borrowing and taxation, that means that, without Brexit, devolved spending power for vital public services such as the NHS could have been £1.6 billion higher than it is today.

I recognise that it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to deliver public services in Scotland, and I recognise the importance of Parliament in scrutinising our record and our plans. However, as we wrestle with those challenges, I hope that we will also see some recognition from across the chamber that the context in which we work is significantly affected by Westminster austerity and the damage of Brexit.

In my view, there is a very simple answer to that challenge, and that is Scotland being able to chart her own course economically and to make the best decisions on our own terms. For me, that would involve rejoining the European Union as an independent country and making our own economic decisions. Making that argument will be at the heart of my Government’s agenda. [Interruption.]

I am not sure whether Pam Duncan-Glancy picked up all that I said in my statement, but I made clear the importance that the Government attaches to education as part of my priority on public services. I spent five years as education secretary, when I was immersed in discussions with educationists the length and breadth of the country. One of the points that were strongly made to me was that the corrosive nature of poverty among children was the most significant factor that eroded educational performance and engagement.

I am not quite sure how Pam Duncan-Glancy does not accept that the steps that the Government is taking through, for example, the Scottish child payment—one of the factors that are contributing to keeping 100,000 children in Scotland out of poverty—are not beneficial to our education system. That is an essential investment that the Government is making. It does not happen in any other part of the United Kingdom, and it is a measure that has been described as one that has had the biggest impact on reducing child poverty in Europe in 40 years. Why can we not accept that we are on the right course to tackle child poverty and improve educational attainment?

The issue that Rona Mackay raises is very important, because it affects the amount of money that is going into low-income households that are living in poverty. It is a deadly serious issue with significant human consequences. The child payment is so effective because it puts money directly into the hands of families who are struggling.

The analysis that has been undertaken suggests that, should the two-child limit be lifted, around 10,000 children would be lifted out of poverty overnight—10,000 children. The two-child limit was a deliberate policy decision of the United Kingdom Government, and maintaining it appears to be a deliberate policy decision of the aspiring Labour Government. It is absolutely indefensible, because it is subjecting children in our country to poverty and it should be removed right away.

I represent a diverse parliamentary constituency, which includes part of the great city of Perth, but the overwhelming majority of it is country area in rural Perthshire. I understand and am closely connected with the farming community that I have represented for more than a quarter of a century. What that community says to me is that it has been hung out to dry by the Tories over Brexit, and I will never let them forget that.