Chamber and committees

As I have made clear on a number of occasions, there are individuals who are waiting too long for treatment. There are many people who are treated timeously in the NHS, but there are also many people who are waiting too long. I regret and apologise for the fact that people are waiting too long.

We are trying to recover services as quickly as possible following the Covid pandemic—that work has the focus of the Government.

Mr Choudhury specifically raises the issue of dermatology services. The Government is rolling out a digital dermatology service, which involves all general practices in the country. As part of the reforms that we are undertaking, the service aims to reduce the times for which individuals are waiting for dermatology processes by improving the flow and handling of cases. I assure Mr Choudhury that those measures are being progressed by the Government with the aim of addressing the issue that he puts to me.

The Alexander Dennis workforce will not be surprised that what I am doing is focusing on the situation that it faces. Let me tell Mr Sarwar what the Government has done—what it has done over many years—to support Alexander Dennis. We have provided £58 million of funding for zero-emission buses since 2020, through the Scottish ultra-low emission bus scheme. Scottish Enterprise has also supported Alexander Dennis with £30.3 million in research and development support as a contribution to its research and development activity. That has been part of the partnership between the Scottish Government and Alexander Dennis.

In his comments the other day—this is material to the answer that I just gave Mr Sarwar—Paul Davies, the president and managing director of Alexander Dennis, said this about bus orders:

“The stark reality is that current UK policy does not allow for the incentivisation or reward of local content, job retention and creation, nor does it encourage any domestic economic benefit.”

That is the implication of the 2022 act. What I and the Deputy First Minister are doing—this is what is commanding my attention and my focus—is considering how we can find a way in which we can remain legally compliant with the 2022 act and overcome these obstacles. In that endeavour, we are engaging very closely with the United Kingdom Government.

I welcome the fact that we have engaged with the UK Government. Indeed, in a joint letter to the company, the secretary of state and the Deputy First Minister say:

“Our governments continue to work closely together on a range of shared issues to support domestic industries in Scotland, and we are keen to work closely with Alexander Dennis at this challenging time.”

That is us indicating that we will do everything that we can to find a way through the 2022 act provisions so that the Government can continue to both operate within the law—as we must do—and support manufacturing in Scotland, which is my priority.

The Alexander Dennis workforce will not be surprised that what I am doing is focusing on the situation that it faces. Let me tell Mr Sarwar what the Government has done—what it has done over many years—to support Alexander Dennis. We have provided £58 million of funding for zero-emission buses since 2020, through the Scottish ultra-low emission bus scheme. Scottish Enterprise has also supported Alexander Dennis with £30.3 million in research and development support as a contribution to its research and development activity. That has been part of the partnership between the Scottish Government and Alexander Dennis.

In his comments the other day—this is material to the answer that I just gave Mr Sarwar—Paul Davies, the president and managing director of Alexander Dennis, said this about bus orders:

“The stark reality is that current UK policy does not allow for the incentivisation or reward of local content, job retention and creation, nor does it encourage any domestic economic benefit.”

That is the implication of the 2022 act. What I and the Deputy First Minister are doing—this is what is commanding my attention and my focus—is considering how we can find a way in which we can remain legally compliant with the 2022 act and overcome these obstacles. In that endeavour, we are engaging very closely with the United Kingdom Government.

I welcome the fact that we have engaged with the UK Government. Indeed, in a joint letter to the company, the secretary of state and the Deputy First Minister say:

“Our Governments continue to work closely together on a range of shared issues to support domestic industries in Scotland, and we are keen to work closely with Alexander Dennis at this challenging time.”

That is us indicating that we will do everything that we can to find a way through the 2022 act provisions so that the Government can continue to both operate within the law—as we must do—and support manufacturing in Scotland, which is my priority.

As my answers today have shown, I am trying to handle the issue without making any party-political remarks. However, I must point out to Mr Simpson that the Subsidy Control Act 2022 was legislated for by the Conservative United Kingdom Government. It is UK legislation that we are obliged by law to follow. I cannot act in a fashion that is outwith the provisions of the law, because I will not be enabled to do so—I will not have a legal basis for acting in such a fashion.

There are ways in which we can work with the UK Government to address the issue. That is the spirit in which we have entered discussions on the issue. The Deputy First Minister has discussed it with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I have discussed it with the company. We will do everything that we can to address the situation.

As I indicated in my answer to Mr Kerr’s first question, management and decisions relating to home leave are an operational matter for the Scottish Prison Service, which has to make careful judgments about each individual case.

Mr Kerr has put information into the parliamentary discussion just now. I understand that the individual in question has not been granted home leave; he has had unescorted day release, which is a different concept in the process.

As I have indicated before in the Parliament, Demi Hannaway’s case is tragic, and I express my sympathies to her family. I will explore the details of the issues that Mr Kerr has put on the record today to determine whether any further action or intervention can be taken, subject to respecting the operational independence of the Scottish Prison Service to arrive at its judgments. I note that the Lord Advocate has instructed an investigation into the circumstances of Demi’s death, and that is under way.

I suppose that there is one minor element of that question that I can find common ground with, and that is the damage that has been done to the economy by the decision to increase employer national insurance contributions. Statistics that were published this morning show that, in April, GDP in the United Kingdom contracted by 0.3 per cent.

That could reasonably have been predicted, given the increase in employer national insurance contributions—indeed, I warned about it. If we are to have an agenda that is focused on growth, I do not understand why the UK Labour Government decided to support a growth-reducing measure such as raising employer national insurance contributions, which the evidence now tells us is suppressing growth in the United Kingdom. That is the context in which we are operating.

I say to Mr Findlay that this Government will do what it always does. We will focus on the needs of the people of Scotland. We will focus on lifting children out of poverty, on improving our public services, on the journey to net zero and on improving the economic performance of Scotland, just as we have done in the past.

Listen, Mr Sarwar can conjure up all the stuff that he wants—he can go through his press cuttings and practise them in the mirror in the morning to see how they sound—but I will be focused on delivering answers and solutions for workers who face difficulty in the country. While Mr Sarwar postures, I will deliver for the workers of Scotland.

I agree with Lorna Slater about the importance of Scotland becoming an independent country. I think that it is democratically unacceptable—[Interruption.]

I think that it is democratically unacceptable for the will of the Scottish Parliament, which has demanded the power to hold a referendum on independence, to be ignored by the United Kingdom Government. I agree entirely with Lorna Slater on that point.

If anyone needs an explanation of why Scotland would benefit from being an independent country, it comes in the fact that, as was confirmed yesterday, the spending review is predicated on an attack on the poorest and the most vulnerable in our society by a Labour Government. Anyone who was thinking that attacks on the poor and the vulnerable in our society were the exclusive preserve of the Conservative Party got a rude awakening yesterday, because they are the preserve of the Labour Party into the bargain. The answer to the seesaw politics of Westminster attacking the poor and the vulnerable is for Scotland to be an independent country. The sooner that happens, the better.

The processes are distinct; the examination and exploration that the Lord Advocate has requested will be undertaken independently of any other processes. I cannot prejudge where the investigation and scrutiny might lead, and Claire Baker will understand that I cannot intervene in the actions of the Lord Advocate in that respect.

I will take away the issue that Claire Baker raises with me about any connection between the two different processes, one of which is undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service and one of which is undertaken independently of ministers under the supervision of the Lord Advocate.

I acknowledge Claire Baker’s long-standing interest in the case and, if there is anything further that I can advise Claire Baker about, I will do so. The most that I can say at the moment is that these are two independent processes that are being undertaken. If there is any appropriate connection to be established, I will make sure that that happens.