Chamber and committees

If Mr Sarwar is concerned about business, he should be concerned about the impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions. He need only look at his UK Government’s data on that—the changes to employer national insurance contributions will not improve the standard of living of people in the United Kingdom over a five-year period. That is a rather gloomy outlook that Mr Sarwar has attached himself to.

I simply say to Mr Sarwar that I am interested in making progress for Scotland—it is what I have been about all my political life—and we have delivered big progress. I told Mr Findlay about the progress on early learning and childcare. Economic performance in Scotland has improved faster than it has in the rest of the United Kingdom. I want to build on that, but it will happen only if Mr Sarwar and his colleagues support the Scottish Government’s budget, which will repair the damage from the Labour Government’s winter fuel payment cuts and erase the two-child limit. Mr Sarwar should support the Government’s budget and deliver a good outcome for the people of Scotland.

The Government does not have enough support on its own to pass the budget, so we are doing our best to reach agreement with other parties. I encourage other parties, especially the Labour Party, which is making a call for increased expenditure on arts and culture, to recognise that as being one of the commitments that can be supported by the delivery of the Government’s budget.

I recognise that there is a lot to be done to ensure that we all play our part in tackling the climate emergency, which is why I am pleased that the Government has increased the amount of climate-positive expenditure in the budget from the planned £4.7 billion to £4.9 billion.

In addition, resources have been introduced into the budget for the nature restoration fund. We have delivered on our commitment to implement free bus travel for asylum seekers and we have put in place £188 million for active and sustainable travel. We have delivered on other measures that the Scottish Green Party put to us, such as a real-terms uplift to local government spending, and the investment in housing programmes, at a total of £768 million.

Of course, I would love to do more. Mr Greer and I agree very much on the aspirations of ensuring that Scotland succeeds in our journey to net zero. However, I can allocate only the resources that the Government has at its disposal, and we have done that formidably to support action on the climate. I look forward to further dialogue to address the issues that Mr Greer has raised with me today.

I acknowledge the importance of the issue that Mr Stewart raises with me. Domestic abuse is abhorrent. Mr Stewart represents the region of which my constituency is a part and, in Perth concert hall a week past Friday, I had the privilege of launching the 16 days of activism on gender-based violence against women and girls. It was an important event, and Mr Stewart will be familiar with it from his membership of Perth and Kinross Council.

We all have to take action. The Government has legislated to outlaw domestic abuse and, as a consequence, more cases are now being pursued through the courts. As I said in my response to Pam Gosal the other week, although there is an increase in the recording of domestic abuse, it is recognised that more women and girls are coming forward to report that horror, and those who are responsible should be brought to justice.

We all, particularly men, have to exercise leadership on this question. For that reason, I have decided that I will participate in this afternoon’s debate on violence against women and girls. I will close the debate for the Government in order to make it clear, from a leadership position, how intolerable I consider domestic abuse to be.

I will say it again, as it went down so well. Mr Coffey is 100 per cent correct.

Let me share an—[Interruption.] Let me share an observation with Parliament. If we want to spend the resources that the Government allocated yesterday on delivering outcomes such as 8,000 more affordable homes—I think that that constitutes an outcome in Mr Sarwar’s definition—Parliament has to be prepared to vote for the Government’s budget. The time for posturing will be over soon—[Interruption.]

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government. Carol Mochan, Paul O’Kane and Brian Whittle all made reference to my attendance at this debate as First Minister.

Somewhat more bluntly, Tess White said that it was time for the men of influence to show up. I hope that, by being here, I have ticked at least one box—if Tess White believes that I am a man of influence, which might be the most controversial thing that I say this afternoon. The question that I ask myself when I hear such comments is, “Where else should I be at this moment?” I should not be anywhere else, because it is important that the First Minister of Scotland makes clear the importance that the holder of this office attaches to tackling issues of violence against women and girls in our society and makes it abundantly clear that those matter at the very heart of Government and are taken deadly seriously by the leader of the Scottish Government.

This afternoon, an incredibly powerful expression of concern has been shared with members of Parliament, first of all by my colleague Elena Whitham. I can only say that her contribution makes me grieve even more the fact that she will not be a member of the next Scottish Parliament, which I dearly and deeply regret.

The most powerful comment that Elena Whitham made, in comparing her experience as a teenager with the experience of her teenage daughter now, was that it is much more difficult for teenage girls today than it was when she was growing up. I am seized of the seriousness of that comment, because it resonates with what the Cabinet heard a couple of weeks ago in the annual meeting of the Cabinet and children and young people in Scotland. Members of the Children’s Parliament and the Scottish Youth Parliament wanted us to talk about one of our themes: gender-based violence against women and girls. If that does not tell us about the gravity and seriousness of what girls and women in our society are facing, what else will?

My colleague Clare Haughey made reference to the outstanding work that has been done by Girlguiding Scotland to survey young girls in our society. The experiences that girls are having make for grim reading.

I certainly make that call. We have made that point to the United Kingdom Government, because Scotland’s care providers will face a significant increase in the cost of their operations as a consequence of that activity, and we depend on those individual organisations to contribute to the delivery of social care in Scotland.

The danger of the increase in employer national insurance contributions is that it is, essentially, ushering in austerity by the back door. Although there is a welcome increase in investment in public expenditure, there is also a commensurate increase in costs in the delivery of public services. I ask the United Kingdom Government to recognise that, so that we can take forward the effective investment in the care services on which our public depend.

Scotland’s peatlands are critical to mitigating and adapting to the climate and nature emergencies. They store carbon, support biodiversity, control flooding and improve river quality. Excavation of peat during development can increase emissions and damage nature. Our fourth national planning framework includes policies to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development.

I understand entirely the concern that Rhoda Grant puts to me. My understanding is that the decision has been arrived at in order to concentrate on the proposed spaceport development in Shetland.

Rhoda Grant raises two issues with me. The first is whether I will intervene to see whether there is an alternative; I give her an assurance that ministers will do so to see whether there is any other way in which the development can be taken forward.

Rhoda Grant also raises a completely reasonable question about the public investment that has been either spent or committed to the development, and how that stands. Contractual arrangements will have been put in place in the provision of grant funding. I will explore those issues and reply in writing to Rhoda Grant about what steps can be taken to address what I recognise to be a legitimate issue that she has raised with me today.

The development that Sharon Dowey raises with me is a live planning application, so I cannot make any specific comment about it. What I can say, however—[Interruption.] I am simply pointing out that I would be breaching the ministerial code if I commented on a live planning application. [Interruption.]