Chamber and committees

I will reassure taxpayers, as they have—[Interruption.]

As I indicated in my earlier answer, we have already invested more than £110 million through the whole family wellbeing fund programme. The funding transforms how families are supported so that they can get the right help at the right time for as long as they need it.

The additional £6 million of funding that Rona Mackay referred to is for children’s services planning partnerships and will be used to improve local support in a way that best meets the needs of the families and communities and that ensures that Scotland can keep the Promise. Examples of that work include the provision of community-based family support hubs, services to support pregnant women, holistic support for parents with mental health or substance issues, and welfare rights advice.

I understand entirely the concerns of Michelle Thomson, who has tenaciously spoken on behalf of her constituents in Grangemouth. I pay tribute to her for what she has contributed to the debate on their behalf. I understand her frustration at the lack of an immediate solution, which the Labour Party promised at the election. Indeed, Anas Sarwar stood beside me in an STV debate and made that very promise, and it has not been fulfilled.

When I last met the Prime Minister, I was clear with him on the need to support and retain the highly skilled workforce at Grangemouth. I am becoming increasingly impatient about the fact that no decision has been taken to award the Acorn carbon capture and storage project to Grangemouth. I was assured by the most recent Conservative Government that it would be the case that such a decision would be taken. The matter has not been taken forward by the Labour Government.

If there is an interest in trying to fulfil the United Kingdom Government’s commitment that it would intervene to act in Grangemouth, I urge the UK Government, as a matter of priority, to authorise the Acorn carbon capture project and to give certainty to the workers in Grangemouth.

I do not think that that is in any way, shape or form correct. The Deputy First Minister and I spent the evening yesterday with a number of investors who are investing in the renewables energy revolution in Scotland with the support of the Scottish National Investment Bank.

In my friend Mr Gibson’s constituency in North Ayrshire—Mr Sarwar mentioned North Ayrshire—we have just secured significant investment by XLCC in cable manufacturing, which will be absolutely critical for offshore renewables. That activity will be assisted by the investment by Sumitomo at Nigg that we have landed.

I encourage Mr Sarwar to go away and look at the cost issues in relation to nuclear power. If he thinks that the increase in costs in relation to HMP Barlinnie is one thing, his eyes will water when he sees the increase in costs in relation to nuclear plants that are taking their course in England.

Given the question that Mr Sarwar has put to me and the primacy that I attach to policy certainty, let me use this opportunity to make it absolutely crystal clear that the Scottish Government will continue with our support for the development of green renewables and that we will not give the green light to nuclear power stations in Scotland.

Again, it is turning out to be my obligation to try to put some of Jackie Baillie’s comments into their proper context. We are treating more patients with cancer on time, within both standards, compared with the same quarter 10 years ago—12 per cent more within the 31-day standard and 6 per cent more within the 62-day standard.

Jackie Baillie talked about the fact that the 31-day standard had been missed. The target is 95 per cent and the performance was 94.3 per cent. I accept that that is a missed target—[Interruption.]

I am not familiar with the case, but I understand that Shirley-Anne Somerville, as the local member, has met the responsible minister, Mairi Gougeon, to discuss the issue.

Let me take away the point that Mr Rowley has put to me. I understand the community’s aspiration to acquire the asset and to be able to utilise it for community benefit. I know from my constituents’ experience that such things sometimes take longer than they should. Indeed, I have just been wrestling with the issue of things sometimes taking too long.

Let me do what I can to help Mr Rowley, because I understand the significance of the point that he has raised. I will write to him with an update as a consequence of my inquiries.

Everyone who goes to school, whether they are a member of staff or a pupil, should be safe, and it is incumbent on every local authority in the country to ensure that our schools are safe. For some children, school will be the safest place they can go to because of the challenges that they face elsewhere in society.

This is a vital priority. As Pam Gosal will know, I hosted a cross-party summit on 13 January, which involved her colleague Sharon Dowey, to explore some of the issues around youth violence. I will always take such questions seriously, but I do not want the impression to be created that our schools are anything other than safe. I also do not want any impression to be created other than that the vast majority of young people across Scotland do not engage in violence and that they attend safe and stable schools.

If there is an issue in a particular school, let us address that, but let us not characterise every single school in the country in the fashion that Pam Gosal has done, because that does not serve anyone’s interests, and it certainly does not serve the young people of our country.

Most private tenants still have a right to seek a review of a rent increase if they consider it too high. I would, of course, encourage tenants who are concerned about a rent increase to apply for a review. In relation to other messages that I would share with tenants, I would indicate that the Government is investing more than £90 million in discretionary housing payments, which is an increase of £6 million on 2023-24 that has been facilitated by the welcome support from the Scottish Green Party—which I appreciate—for the Government’s budget. Those discretionary housing payments are in place to support tenants and to assist them in managing the costs that they face.

I assure Lorna Slater of the Government’s determination to make progress on the issue of rent controls. That is why we are legislating through the Housing (Scotland) Bill. With the welcome support of the Scottish Green Party for the budget, we are able to put in place the support through discretionary housing payments, which will be an essential part of our commitment to tenants.

I accept the importance of the point that Mr Whitfield puts to me. The Government is taking steps to reduce the number of children who are living in temporary accommodation. Indeed, in the statistics to which Mr Whitfield refers, across 20 local authority areas, councils have reduced the number of children in temporary accommodation.

However, it is not enough. That is why the Government has committed £768 million to invest in housing in Scotland in the forthcoming financial year. Increasingly, more of those resources are being applied to tackle void properties, for example, to make sure that those properties are available for families to occupy. In many local authority areas, that change in priority is already delivering better outcomes in which families have long-term accommodation.

There is a deadly serious point at the heart of Mr Whitfield’s question, which is that I can take the action that he wants me to take on housing only if the Parliament approves the budget. We all—every one of us—are committed, as a Parliament, to the Promise. Therefore, we have to take the necessary steps to make it happen, and we can take those steps only if we have the financial investment to do so.

I leave the point with Mr Whitfield to reflect on over the week-long recess that lies ahead that, if he wants to turn his rhetoric into reality, he should support the Government’s budget at stage 3 and ensure that the investment is made in housing. If he does not do that, it is just empty rhetoric from the Labour Party.

If Russell Findlay wants to have a dividing line in politics on this type of stuff, I will happily be on the other side of the argument from him and all the cohorts that he is courting with his question.

I want to make sure that there is a replacement prison so that those who are sentenced to prison can be held safely and securely and that staff are safe and secure in undertaking their responsibilities. That is my duty as First Minister, and that is what the Government will concentrate on delivering.