 Thank you. It concludes the debate on Scotland's population meeting our political foster Regina of our community's economy about public services. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is an urgent question. I call Graeme Simソgdyn. Thank you to ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the claim in the BBC report today that the process for awarding the contract for ferries 801 and 802 maen nhw'n chi'n ei dweud. The allegations by the BBC were first put to me in advance of an interview that I conducted last week as a part of the programme to be broadcast this evening. The Scottish ministers are not aware of any impropriety in the procurement process, but take the claims made extremely seriously. It is important that they are carefully addressed. As I made clear in my interview, those issues are concerning. I know that the current y f liqu kuсти gyda'r Cyfath am Fongol. It has committed that ministers would explore what further steps the Government needs to take to ensure that all the questions about the fairness and appropriateness of the tendering process are properly independently investigated. I can confirm that the permanent secretary at the request of ministers has already pro actively been in contact with the Auditor General to discuss that matter. The Auditor General informed the permanent secretary that Audit Scotland will be looking at the substance the allegations raised around procurement by the programme before deciding if further audit work is required. I welcome this. Scottish Government, CML and Ferguson's all commit to fully supporting that exercise. Graham Simpson. Can I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer? We found out today that the disastrous Ferries contract does appear to have been rigged in Ferguson's favour. The new documents appear to show that Ferguson's received a 424-page report to help their bid. Nobody else did. Ferguson's was allowed to change its design at the halfway mark nobody else was, Ferguson's was able to change its price after the deadline nobody else could, Ferguson's received a confidential yn llawer o heddiw ddechrau i bwysig oherwydd dyma. Fy meddwl, mae Ffyrguson bydd glik a unigol ar y gwirion iawn. Rwyf wedi ôl amddangos iawn. A oedd gwybodiaeth'r gwirion iawn oherwydd amddangos iawn, oedd yr sgandl yn ysgandl iawn, a dweud i'n gwybodiaeth'u grwpun wedi'i gwirion iawn. Rydym ni'n cael ei wneud yma y gallai hefydau i'n gwybodiaeth hwnnw, mae'n hiwgaf yn ysgandlu. Dwyhaid am gweithio i amddangos, y Debiton y Acroedden ni wefwyd eich ddau i'r newid. Ydych yn ddadill hwn. Mae'r ddaf i'r ddim yn gondol i'r ddestuniau gyda'r perfforddol yn yma i ddim yn ymgwedol yn y BBC News, ac yn ddiddordeb angen i'r ddiddorol, ac yn y newid i'r dsinharau am I have indicated that there are issues of concern that are required to be explored and I welcome the comments made by the Auditor General this afternoon that he is to consider what further audit work is required in the light of the points raised by the BBC report. There are issues of concern, because I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the level of specific information that the BBC documentary believes was available to Ferguson's to have been available to them. It is important that I place on the parliamentary record that CMAL has made clear to the BBC that they can find no trace of that document going from CMAL to Ferguson's. It is important that those points of factual accuracy are put on the record. In relation to the wider questions that are raised, that is why I gave the commitment that those new points of detail and information that have been raised by the BBC documentary need to be explored further. I welcome what the Auditor General has said in that respect today. Graham Simpson. It is no use, the Deputy First Minister, hiding behind the Auditor General. These claims were put to him last week. I cannot believe that he has just been sitting there doing nothing, not finding out what has gone on. So, if the Government accepts this is wrong and they appear to do that, they don't know how it's happened or who's responsible, then surely they must now call in the police to investigate. Because if Ferguson receives special treatment for whatever reason, it's beyond the scandal, it's a crime in my view. This alleged rigging of the contract and its potential fraud has cost the country £250 million and it's rising. So will the Government now call in the police so that we can finally find out the truth of what has happened? Mr Simpson asks what I've been doing since those points were put to me. What I've been doing is asking the permanent secretary of the Scottish Government to raise with Audit Scotland the issues that have been put to us to enable Audit Scotland to consider who, of course, have undertaken audit work already in relation to the Ferguson's procurement process to establish any further inquiry that is required to be undertaken. What that would enable is independent scrutiny of the procurement process to be undertaken, as Audit Scotland do on countless other issues and have done on the Ferguson's contract already. That is what I've been doing because I thought Parliament would want there to be a process of independent assessment of these issues which can be properly considered and any appropriate action taken as a consequence. The reports from the BBC today regarding historic allegations of potential and propriety between Seymal and Ferguson's during the procurement process are clearly concerning. Will the Deputy First Minister provide assurances about the timescale involved in the full investigation of this matter? Obviously, we do not want matters of this nature taking an inordinate amount of time to be investigated. If there are concerns raised, they should be properly looked into. That is the steps that the permanent secretary has taken on ministers behalf in raising this issue with Audit Scotland. I welcome, as I say, what the Auditor General has said this afternoon to enable us to undertake or for there to be independent investigation of the claims that have been made to determine what further action is required to be taken. Rhoda Grant, what is being trailed by the BBC is very worrying, as is the Deputy First Minister's answer about being unable to find any exchange of documents. The Auditor General struggled to investigate the procurement process previously. What changes has he made and what information will he make available to allow the Auditor General to investigate thoroughly? In the interests of full transparency, will he now agree to an independent public inquiry into the whole fiasco and, indeed, to call in the police if corruption is suspected? In relation to the point that Rhoda Grant puts to me in connection with any further investigation, I have set out to Parliament the steps that we have taken to enable there to be what were to raise with Audit Scotland the issues that have been put to us and Audit Scotland have made their own judgment as they should do as the independent auditing body within Scotland. In relation to documentation, I remind Rhoda Grant that the Government published a huge volume of material in December 2019, if my memory serves me correctly, which went through all of the detail around the information that was available on the procurement process and the development of the contract with Ferguson's. As I have indicated in my answer today, the Scottish Government, CMAL and Ferguson's all commit to fully supporting any investigation that is properly undertaken under the auspices of the Auditor General. We were told by ministers that everything was out in the open and that the Government had nothing to hide, so why is it that we are only finding out about this now and what does it say about the oversight function within the Scottish Government? As I set out in my answer to Rhoda Grant, the Government published a huge volume of material in 2019, which covered all aspects of the procurement process. Obviously, there are specific points raised with us about the information to which Ferguson's had access, which was information that ministers did not previously know was the case. That is why we have taken the steps that we have taken in raising these issues with Audit Scotland today, to enable Audit Scotland to be able to make a judgment about the issues that are raised in the BBC documentary. The Government wants to make sure that any question that is raised in that respect is properly and fully considered as part of the analysis that should properly be undertaken on the awarding of a contract, if concerns of this type are raised. Thank you. That concludes the urgent question. There are three questions to be put as a point of order, Douglas Ross. I wonder if you could outline to those of us who represent Murray and the Highlands how we could encourage the Scottish Government to provide a statement or, hopefully, a full debate on the future of maternity services in Murray. You will be aware, Presiding Officer, that SMP members are saying to raise it. We will hear Mr Ross. We have the public health minister laughing that this is not a point of order. I really hope that she comes back with more than laughter, because no-one in Murray and no-one in the Highlands and Islands is laughing about this issue. I am sure that all members of this Parliament are firmly committed to the idea that all voices are heard in this chamber, but I would prefer to hear one voice at a time. If we could hear Mr Ross, thank you. I am grateful, Presiding Officer, because you will be aware that the Scottish Conservatives proposed at the Bureau this morning that the Scottish Government do dedicate time this week to debate this issue. This follows an amendment to the business that I tried to make on 28 June this year, because we know that NHS Grampian announced their plans for model 4 on 1 July. At the time, the business minister, Mr Adam, assured us that there would be opportunities for this Parliament to debate and scrutinise plans for model 4. Indeed, the health secretary said to the BBC at the time, I intend updating the Scottish Parliament as soon as it is practical at the beginning of the next session. We are now just a couple of weeks away from the end of this session, and the Scottish Government confirmed this morning that they would not include time this week to discuss this issue. It continues to cause great concern for mothers to be and families in Murray, but today NHS Highland looked at the proposal to transfer more Murray women through to Rhaigmoor and to give birth in Inverness, and keep mum, the group who have campaigned so hard for the restoration of maternity services in Murray, called that meeting tone deaf. They said what they heard at the meeting of NHS Highland does not encourage them that anything is going to happen any time soon. Can you advise us how we can get some statements, some answers, some response from the Scottish Government on this issue? Please remember to the SNP members who do not want this to be debated. We were promised over four years ago that the downgrading of maternity services in Murray would be temporary for a year. It is now more than four years later. We need answers, we need a response, we need to hear from the SNP Scottish Government what they are going to do to ensure that we can get maternity services back at Dr Gray's to deliver for the women and families of Murray. Thank you, Mr Ross. For advance notice, it is the case that whether a ministerial statement is to be proposed is a matter for the Scottish Government, rather than a point of order for me to rule on. However, your comments are now on the record. I am minded at this point that there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business, but I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders to bring decision time forward to now. Minister, the question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The first question is that amendment 6063.3 in the name of Donald Cameron, which seeks to amend motion 6063 in the name of Angus Robertson on Scotland's population, meeting the needs of our communities, economy and public services, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.