Chamber and committees

What builds homes is the combination of private investment—and the Government has made changes to the Housing (Scotland) Bill to enable that to be sustainable—and public expenditure. The public expenditure for housing in the Government’s budget in 2025-26 is £808 million, which is £251 million more than it was last year. Meghan Gallacher was one of the Conservative members who, like the Labour Party, did not vote for that provision. This is another example of members of Parliament not being prepared to vote for the provisions that will solve the problems that they are raising with me at First Minister’s questions. That is not a way to solve the housing crisis—[Interruption.]

Mr Findlay omitted to say in his question that the data about the United Kingdom system shows that a substantial proportion of the cases that he mentions are overturned on appeal. Therefore, the point that he advances is not a valid one to put to me.

As I have indicated to Mr Findlay, the Scottish Government has put in place a system that is designed to meet the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I think that that is the right purpose for our social security system, which the Government is proud to have in place in Scotland and which is delivering support to almost 350,000 of our most vulnerable citizens.

As a matter of fact, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy is in Japan this week. She is at the Osaka expo, at which she is promoting the tremendous strengths of Scotland in renewable energy. That is exactly the type of work that ministers should be doing to promote the interests of Scotland to an international audience. I welcome all that the energy secretary is doing.

Mr Lumsden invites me to consider issues that will become the subject of live planning consideration by ministers. He knows the rules as well as I do: I cannot engage on issues of this nature that will be determined by ministers. The proper process will be followed.

As Mr Findlay knows, the Scottish Government is obliged to balance its budget annually. We have done so on every single occasion since we were elected to serve the people of Scotland in 2007. The issue that Mr Findlay raises essentially comes down to whether we are prepared to follow the benefit policies of the United Kingdom Government, which include making cuts to support for people with disabilities, who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. My Government will do no such thing.

One of the facts that Mr Findlay omitted in putting his question was that the Scottish Government, through the establishment of Social Security Scotland, has presided over the safe and effective transfer of personal independence payments to adult disability payments for 350,000 disabled people in Scotland. I take this opportunity to thank the staff of Social Security Scotland for doing such an excellent job in supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

If errors are made in the system, or if there is evidence of fraud, those issues are already addressed by the systems that Social Security Scotland has in place. Those mechanisms are there to ensure that the public purse is protected and that support reaches those who need it.

One of the undertones of Mr Findlay’s question, which he never gets round to answering, is: whose benefits does he want to take away? We hear all his rhetoric, but when it comes down to the hard, specific realities of whose benefits are getting withdrawn, Mr Findlay has no answers.

I am pleased that Mr Sarwar welcomes the progress that the Scottish Government has made in collaboration with Alexander Dennis and its workforce. I take the opportunity to thank the company and its workforce for engaging substantively with the Deputy First Minister on all these issues to get to a position in which the Scottish Government has been able to support the company to retain hundreds of manufacturing jobs in Scotland, which is very welcome.

The Government has engaged with the company, and we have put in place the offer of a furlough scheme. The furlough scheme can be activated only if the company demonstrates success in securing orders. There is growing confidence that satisfactory orders will be secured.

In relation to ScotZEB 2, there is a procurement process that must be pursued, and the Government will report to the Parliament on the conclusions of that exercise.

I think that Mr Sarwar was in the chamber to hear the Cabinet Secretary for Transport give a detailed response to Katy Clark’s question on exactly that: a potential direct award to Ferguson Marine for the contract for the successor to the MV Lord of the Isles. I said on Monday that it is complicated but that the Government is doing the detailed work to enable that to be considered. I give Mr Sarwar the absolute assurance that the Government is strongly engaged in exploring that as a possibility. The transport secretary gave comprehensive details of the work that is under way.

Mr Sarwar will understand that I cannot disclose the legal advice that is available to the Government on this question, because we need to consider all those elements. However, I give him the fundamental assurance that the Government is actively considering such a proposition, along with other propositions, as the transport secretary has set out.

Our work on the contract and continued support for Ferguson Marine is part of a comprehensive industrial strategy for Scotland, which is essential. We are now getting into territory in which more progress is being made on manufacturing opportunities in Scotland. I welcome that, and the Government is committed to making that happen. Our agencies, whether that is Scottish Enterprise, Transport Scotland or any other bodies, are actively engaged in that work.

He will have to check up on the history of the performance of the Labour Government. If people want to know what a Labour Government might be like, they need only look at the shambles that was in here before us and the shambles that is in place in the United Kingdom at present.

I am all for buses being built in Scotland. I am all for ferries being built in Scotland—

First, I accept that there has been disruption to ferry services in Scotland. We are working hard to replace the fleet. As Mr Cole-Hamilton will know, one of the large vessels is now in service, another is being finished at the Ferguson Marine yard, and four further vessels are coming from the Cemre yard in Turkey. That will give us six new vessels for the fleet in the current period—those contracts are taking their course—which will strengthen the ferry network.

The Government has put in place a compensation scheme that examines the degree of disruption in different island communities and considers where that disruption has been acute and where the delivery of payments is merited. In the islands that Mr Cole-Hamilton has cited, the level of disruption has not been comparable with the level in areas with more significant disruption. That is the judgment that has been applied by ministers in putting in place a compensation scheme, and we discuss and consider such schemes with the relevant island communities.

I will take the example that Mr Cole-Hamilton puts to me about the ferry service to Arran. The Government has put in place a two-vessel service between Troon and Brodick. I accept the disruption to Ardrossan. That is why Mr Gibson has been given the solemn commitment of the Government on the acquisition of Ardrossan harbour, so that we can take it into public ownership and ensure that it gets the enhancements that it requires.

I have demonstrated that there has been a two-vessel service between the mainland and Arran on a constant basis. There are, of course, other ferry links from the mainland to Arran, at Lochranza. A variety of other opportunities are available. Where the service has, unfortunately, not been satisfactory, we have provided compensation. That has come about by examining and exploring the disruption that has taken place and providing the support that our islanders deserve.