Seòmar agus comataidhean

The member makes a valid point. If we are to create that kind of environment, we must ensure that other yards can fulfil orders and provide capacity within the system.

As I said, that investment will support thousands of jobs and will lead to more opportunities. It will cost about £250 million to build a frigate—which is about the same as what it costs the SNP to build a car ferry.

Such investment does not just happen by itself or by chance. There is a real opportunity here to work with the UK Government. In the past, the Conservative UK Government was very much involved, through its national shipbuilding strategy. I pay tribute to what it did. That strategy, with its focus on creating new technology and new jobs, needs to continue. I hope that the current Labour UK Government will continue to support Babcock and other firms to ensure that that remains the case.

The SNP Government needs to take a more positive approach when it comes to the realities of the defence sector. As we know, it takes an ideological stance, and that can make waves within the sector. We do not want to see that, and we need to ensure that the Scottish Government is adopting a more positive approach.

The investments that have been made are putting Scotland firmly at the centre of the global defence industry, securing thousands of jobs for the future. We have arrived at this point through proactive, bold and ambitious investment by Governments that recognise the importance of the industry. The onus is now on both the Scottish and UK Governments to show the same recognition into the future. If that happens, this success will continue.

The minister claims to be focused on international trade, yet Scottish exports to the rest of the United Kingdom are worth three times more than exports to the EU and the rest of the world. Why is the Scottish National Party so obsessed with grandstanding abroad, instead of strengthening the most important trading relations, which are right here with the rest of the UK?

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of whether its current above-inflation public sector pay deals have appropriate contingencies in place, in light of the recent rise in the consumer price index and reported concerns regarding inflation. (S6O-04976)

Does the cabinet secretary accept that prioritising above-inflation pay rises can fuel further inflation while, at the same time, draining funds from vital areas such as social care and capital expenditure? Consistently going above pay policy makes unions more likely to push for even higher settlements. Is it not time that the Scottish Government was honest about trade-offs instead of pretending that there is a limitless supply of money from the taxpayer?

State funding has gone down by 5 per cent since 2021, at a cost of about £177 million. The rise in employer national insurance contributions has cost the sector £78 million. At a time when demand for support from the voluntary sector is rising, it is unsustainable to expect the voluntary sector to fund the shortfall.

Taking this essential sector for granted will be devastating for families and communities across Scotland. Will the Government commit to providing the funding that is necessary to support those charities, which are lifelines for families and communities across the whole of Scotland?

On amendments 165 and 167 to 170, in the name of Maggie Chapman, Scottish Land & Estates has advised that linking rent caps with wages and earnings is not suitable for Scotland’s diverse private rented sector, and I fully agree. The sector has a wide range of property types, tenancy arrangements and landlord profiles, and rents are usually determined by factors such as location and the condition of the property. That is especially important in rural areas.

Tying the rent increase to median earnings, as set out in amendment 168, risks creating distorted assessments of the market and penalising landlords who let below the market value. I hope that Maggie Chapman does not wish to increase regional inconsistencies and that she seeks to create a system that, at the very least, reflects conditions that are not based on income. Therefore, I pose the question to Maggie Chapman whether she wishes supply, in particular in rural areas, to reduce further—because amendment 168 would do exactly that.

Amendment 72, in the name of Maggie Chapman, refers to the situation in which a tenant receives written notice of a rent increase from their landlord. The amendment would change the notice period from 21 to 30 days.

Amendment 73 refers to situations in which a tenant receives a rent increase and may apply to the tribunal for determination of whether the previous rent increase took place less than 12 months previously. However, they must first notify their landlord in writing of the reasons why they consider the rent increase to be unfair within 30 days of receiving the increase notice, rather than within 21 days. My question is this: how did Maggie Chapman arrive at 21 days as opposed to 30? What discussion took place between private rented sector stakeholders and tenant rights groups to ensure that such a period was proportionate and reasonable?

Amendments 34, 35 and 36, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would introduce increased penalties for landlords, which risk driving good landlords out of the sector. The continued cumulative burden of regulations and financial risks on the sector would lead to property sales and a reduction in the number of available rented homes. The impact would be felt most acutely by tenants, because their housing options would shrink and competition for remaining properties would increase. Rather than focusing on penal measures that would lead to a reduction in the number of rental properties, we should support enforcement for compliance and uphold standards without undermining supply.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that more than 1,000 Scottish charities are closing every year. (S6T-02674)

A joint letter from 240 charities, including the Scottish Huntington’s Association, not only highlights why there are so many alarming closures but sets out some solutions—an immediate cash injection, a medium-term recovery plan and a commitment for multiyear funding, with uplifts that reflect inflation.

Will the cabinet secretary commit to implementing those measures? Does she accept that those organisations will otherwise face an uncertain future?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure freedom of expression is respected at cultural venues. (S6O-04932)

Recent campaigns by external groups to censor events run by Scottish cultural organisations have made it difficult to secure corporate sponsorship. The National Museum of Scotland, for example, has suggested that on-going activism is threatening to cut corporate sponsorship and has created an ever more challenging environment in which to operate. Does the cabinet secretary agree that such attempts to censor different opinions are unacceptable? What guarantees will he give the sector to ensure that potential corporate sponsors will invest in Scottish culture in the future?