Chamber and committees

I unreservedly accept the point that Ruth Maguire puts to me. It is a joy to have her putting pressure on me after her return to the Parliament. [Applause.] I encourage her to continue to champion such issues and to put pressure on the Government to do more, and I very much welcome her contribution to that. I accept her points about the importance of the first year in a child’s life. The Government is actively exploring what more it can do.

In my earlier answer, I said that we are constantly looking to identify additional interventions that we can make. Obviously, I have to be mindful of the resources that are available, but the plea that is made by Ruth Maguire is heard loud and clear here on the Government bench. I will do everything that I can to ensure that the Government’s ambitions to eradicate child poverty and to make that difference in the first year of a child’s life are central to our thinking in the period to come.

As I said to Brian Whittle—there was so much shouting that I will say it again, so that members hear it this time—there are more staff working in our NHS now than there were when this Government took office. Through record levels of investment, we have delivered 13 consecutive years of workforce growth, general practitioner numbers are going up and our agenda for change staff, including our nurses and midwives, remain the best paid in the United Kingdom.

This Government is prepared to invest in the workforce of our national health service because they are doing an excellent job. I pay tribute to them. Despite the points made by the Labour and Conservative parties, this Government will take action to put the budget in place to pay for those staff, to deliver the health service’s performance and to deliver for the people of Scotland.

In the pay deals that the Government has presided over we have put much more emphasis on increases for people on lower levels of pay than for those on higher levels. Mr Greene shakes his head, but I invite him to look at the pay deals that the Government has presided over. If he does, he will see that that is exactly what has happened in countless cases.

I have a lot of sympathy with Mr Greene’s point that such arrangements should not be made in response to failure; they should not be. There should be proper accountability in the way in which they are exercised, which is why the Scottish public finance manual is constructed so that that point is central to decision making.

The figures vary from year to year, but it is important that it is recognised that we have rules on how such agreements can be put in place. Those rules must be rigorously applied in all circumstances, and in all the Government’s actions there must be a culture of delivering on the expectations of ministers and the public.

I do not want for one moment or in any way to signal to Parliament that I want to do anything in the bill that does not address the legitimate concerns of victims about our criminal justice system. That is why the Government has introduced the bill. I had the privilege of sitting and hearing evidence in the Criminal Justice Committee when I was on the back benches. As a result of listening to victims, when I came into office as First Minister, and working with the justice secretary, we revised the bill to make sure that the interests of victims are ever more central to it. I do not accept the characterisation of the bill that Mr Findlay has put to me.

Legitimate issues will be raised that members will want to press the Government on. That is entirely appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and I welcome it. However, I say to Parliament that the Government has introduced legislation to do exactly what is required in the criminal justice system just now, which is to put the voice of victims more centrally into that system. I am confident that the bill that Parliament will consider next week will do exactly that.

This is another example of Mr Sarwar coming into the chamber, ramping up the rhetoric and failing to deliver on the reality for the people of our country.

Mr Sarwar challenges me about the record of my Government. I am very proud of that record and defend it. On Thursday last week, I said to Parliament, in response to a question from Mr Greer, that if anyone wanted an idea of what a Labour Government would look like, they need only look at the chaos in London. That was on Thursday, before we got to Friday, with the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister and chaos added to chaos, and the beautiful and unjust moment of the sacking of Ian Murray as the Secretary of State for Scotland.

How on earth can Labour challenge me on my record when a Labour Government is presiding over a shambles in Westminster? The Labour Party has nothing to offer Scotland. This Government is delivering for the people and we are going to carry on doing exactly that.

The Government has committed to invest £14.2 million in Ferguson Marine over a two-year period, subject to due diligence and to commercial standards being met. That investment has already commenced with targeted early action to address essential repairs, health and safety improvements and upgrades to facilities and equipment that directly support the yard’s current projects. The Government will continue to support the business to secure new work and to deliver a sustainable future for the yard and its skilled workforce, which also involves a commitment to investing in the yard.

I will look into the question about the timing of delivery. If a commitment has been made, delivery should be put in place. I do not have the answer at the front of my mind just now, so I will take that away and explore it.

St Columba’s hospice is particularly precious to me because my dear and beloved late mother was a volunteer there for many years. That institution is close to my heart, so I will take that question away and find out what the situation is.

I do not approve of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. If the Government gave a commitment to the hospice sector that was merited and necessary—which it was—that should not be used by other organisations as an excuse to take away funding at local level. That really is just not on.

Let me take that issue away. I am very sympathetic to the point that Mr Briggs makes to me and I will try to establish what the situation is.

Although Mr Hoy is tacitly acknowledging the failure of the Conservative Government to properly manage the asylum regime over many years in office, he is bringing the debate to the Parliament to politically exploit the issue in a most disgusting fashion. It embodies where the Conservative Party has found itself these days.

Will the member give way?