Seòmar agus comataidhean

My point is that we should be focusing on the issues that matter to the people of Scotland and for which we are responsible. Our position is in line with the mandate that we received at the general election, and we will be progressing that in the months and years ahead.

We accept that Brexit has been costly and damaging, and we know—because Kemi Badenoch has told us—that the Conservatives left the European Union without a plan for growth. That and the Liz Truss budget have significantly damaged our relationship with the European Union, economic growth and living standards. People now expect us to fix that mess, and that is exactly what they gave the new United Kingdom Labour Government a mandate to do.

I am afraid that I do not know, Mr Kerr. What I do know, though, is that the UK Labour Government will be working to progress our national interests. We are also seeking co-operation with the EU where we can and where that is appropriate, in line with our manifesto. That is the position that we have set out.

I welcome the fact that the new UK Labour Government is seeking to enter a strategic partnership between the UK and the EU on trade, security and defence. The situation with the EU requires work, and we are focused on that. Next week, the UK Government and the EU will hold a summit that is part of a wider plan to reset relations. The EU provides a fantastic opportunity to support and strengthen Scottish businesses and industries, and the UK Government is hoping to agree a veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, as we put forward in our manifesto last year. That would allow agricultural products—

Our amendment welcomes the UK resetting relations with the EU, welcomes the summit that is to be held, welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to create a strategic partnership between the UK and the EU, welcomes the UK Government’s specific commitment to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement and welcomes the Prime Minister’s commitment to improve security co-operation with the EU. Does Emma Roddick welcome those things, too?

If we want more people to work in the care sector, we need to start paying care workers more money. The trade unions in the care sector have been demanding £15 an hour from the SNP Government, and the Government has come nowhere near meeting that demand. If we are serious about investing in and retaining staff in the care sector, we need to pay our workers more.

To protect Scotland’s interests, we want to ensure that we have a veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that will boost support for agricultural products and allow food and drink to be traded more cheaply between the UK and the EU. Removing those barriers would also improve exports. A study by Aston University estimates that an agreement could increase agri-food exports from the UK to the EU by at least 22.5 per cent. Other issues will be discussed, including youth mobility, energy co-operation, defence and security and, in particular, our support for Ukraine. The UK and the EU will have different priorities, as we have heard, but I welcome the UK Labour Government’s statement that it will work in the national interest as well as seek co-operation with our European friends and neighbours on key issues, in line with the manifesto on which Labour was elected.

This is a serious approach from a UK Government that is serious about rebuilding our economy and our relations with the EU. As I said at the start, the SNP Government should focus on its responsibility for improving living standards and economic growth, using its powers and the record funding settlement that it has had from the UK Government. However, the SNP Government’s ultimate policy position—for as long as that lasts—will run counter to that objective.

I move amendment S6M-17539.1, to leave out from “agrees” to end and insert:

“welcomes the UK Government resetting the UK’s relationship with the EU following the chaotic and damaging approach of the previous UK Conservative administration; further welcomes the summit to be held on 19 May 2025; welcomes the commitment by the UK Government to create a strategic partnership between the UK and the EU to agree a path forward on trade, security and defence; believes that economic growth, raising living standards and defence and security must be the highest of priorities for the Scottish and UK governments; welcomes the UK Government’s specific commitment to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement so that agricultural products, food and drink can be traded more cheaply between the EU and the UK, which could boost agri-food exports to the EU by up to 22.5%; further welcomes the commitment by the Prime Minister to improve security co-operation with the EU and to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027, which will benefit jobs and industries in Scotland; welcomes the UK Government’s newly negotiated trade deals with the United States and India, noting the importance of the latter for Scotland’s whisky industry; calls on the Scottish Government to support the UK Government’s efforts to rebuild the relationship with European friends and neighbours, and further calls on the Scottish Government to set out what actions it will take to improve economic growth and living standards in Scotland, including whether its public procurement processes will emulate those in other European countries in driving place-based industrial development, using the powers that it has and the record funding settlement that it has received from the UK Government of £47.7 billion this financial year.”

Although the new US Administration appears to have rolled back slightly on its threat of film industry tariffs, the situation shows the importance of supporting a home-grown film and television sector and young creative talent. The cabinet secretary will be aware that, last week, the Scottish Institute of Theatre, Dance, Film and TV collapsed into administration. In the light of that situation and the impact of any US tariffs, will the cabinet secretary set out how the Scottish Government can help to ensure that young Scots have opportunities and a pathway into working in the arts, whether that is in Scotland, the US or other global markets?

I feel that I have gone back in time to three years ago, when the cabinet secretary said the exact same thing about unacceptable delays. The whole ferries fiasco has been the result of a lack of leadership and inconsistent management from owners, agencies and Government ministers. Not one of those supposed leaders has taken responsibility; meanwhile, islanders and workers have been subjected to buck passing and a merry-go-round of ministers and turnaround directors.

What leadership is the Scottish Government finally going to show to get the ferries finished and secure a future for the yard? On that point, when will the investment to improve efficiencies at the yard that was promised by the Scottish Government be delivered?

When does the cabinet secretary expect the prevalence of violence in our schools to be reduced? Why has the number of exclusions fallen on this Government’s watch while levels of violence have increased?

GMB Scotland has been clear that future work for the Ferguson Marine shipyard is vital for its future. However, we have recently seen the offshoring of Scottish Government contracts to Poland, despite the Port Glasgow yard having a strong track record of delivering smaller vessels. Now it has lost out on the Western Ferries contract, too. The workforce should not have to pay for the Scottish National Party’s incompetence—it is the Government’s job to clear up the mess that it has presided over.

What is the Scottish Government’s plan to secure future work for the yard? Why do the Scottish Government and CMAL not insert minimum social value weighting into their ferry contracts, as is done in other parts of the United Kingdom?

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd and what issues were discussed. (S6O-04605)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. As you will be aware, on Thursday 24 April, I and other members of this Parliament were in attendance for portfolio questions on education. Members were there to ask questions on school violence, vaping in schools, parents being unable to access childcare, job losses at universities, teacher recruitment and care-experienced children. Those are all important and serious matters for our children and young people, parents and those who work in our schools, colleges and universities.

While I and many other members were in attendance, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills was unfortunately not here to address those important questions. For context, Presiding Officer, I note that that question time took place hours after a serious incident at an Aberdeen school and in the week before pupils start their Scottish Qualifications Authority exams.

A spokesperson for the cabinet secretary told the press that she

“had a mix of government and party meetings and events in the course of the day”.

A source later confirmed that the non-attendance here was

“not due to government business”.

No extenuating circumstances, justifiable reasons or apologies have been given for the no-show. Not only does it set a bad example to Scotland’s schoolchildren for the cabinet secretary to skip education questions, which were presumably in the ministerial diary for weeks if not months but, worse than that, it appears that Jenny Gilruth may have prioritised party interests over her responsibilities to Parliament and, by extension, the country.

I make this point of order because it is important that the cabinet secretary is afforded an opportunity to clarify her reasons for not attending her portfolio question time, alongside making available her diary and any changes to it, so that we can ascertain when Government and party business took place and where. Failure to do that can only create the impression that the cabinet secretary has been discourteous and disrespectful to this Parliament.

The Nolan principles of public life are clear. They underpin our standing orders and the ministerial code, which states, at subparagraph 1.4(d), under the “Accountability” principle:

“Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny necessary to ensure this.”

Presiding Officer, can you confirm that, under rules 13.1 and 13.2 of our standing orders, the cabinet secretary can be afforded an opportunity to make a statement in order to issue a clarification—alongside the publication of her diary—or make an apology to you and the Parliament, because the Parliament cannot and should not simply accept the situation of ministers putting party interests before those of the country?