 Y Trefanydd y Blwysnys pwysoch yn fwrdd i gael chi eich cyllideb, rwy'n ei wneud fy modd o bwysig bod yn fwy o ddwyllwr sydd y mae'n mynd i gweithio'r ddefnyddiau. A rydym yn amser'n gwybod cyn ffelly dda wedi bod hynny o'r cymryd i gweithio'r cymryd o'r cymryd, ond i'n gallu y dyma, a'r darllwch yn ddal yn gweithio iawn o'r bwysig iawn. Addw instructions eisiau i bwysig iawn i'n ddyneud iawn o'r newb만. Felly we might expect to see natural fluctuations throughout the year, given the high levels of deaths noted in March, we do intend to investigate further. All NHS boards use the Perinatal Mortality Review Tool to support high-quality standardised review of each neonatal death. In addition, some may be subject to a more in-depth review as part of the maternity and neonatal perinatal adverse event review process for Scotland. In addition to those local reviews of each case, the Scottish Government jointly with Healthcare Improvement Scotland, the Scottish Perinatal Network and Public Health Scotland, will undertake further investigations into the potential causes of the increased neonatal deaths to understand and address any possible contributing factors so that we can continue to improve the care of the smallest and sickest babies in Scotland. Thank you for your answer, Minister, and I too wish to pass on my condolences to all those families affected. Although there is so little known about these deaths at the moment, it is important that health visits are running as normal, even despite the huge pressures facing our NHS. Do we have the right resources in place at the moment to deliver the three home visits, as outlined in the Health Visitor's home visiting pathway? Can the minister explain what mitigations are being put in place while we investigate the causal factors behind these tragic baby deaths? I certainly, throughout the pandemic, despite the moving around of staff that occurred at all times during the pandemic, maternity and neonatal care and family care were prioritised. People in roles such as Midwifery and health visitor were not moved to the same extent as some other roles in hospitals, because we knew just how important the work that they do is. There are undoubtedly—the number of deaths, although absolutely tragic, is thankfully small. That makes it particularly difficult to pick up on trends and what might be the underlying causes. We are looking very carefully at the rate of mid-death in March. We will absolutely learn any lessons that can possibly be learned and ensure that, if there are any particular institutional lessons that need to be learned, that that will be taken forward as well. Unfortunately, Presiding Officer, I will only have one supplementary question. I would like to add my condolences to anyone who has lost a baby. The Government has been right to make clear that there is no link to neonatal Covid or to the Covid-19 vaccine, but Dr Sarah Stock, who co-led the Covid-19 in pregnancy Scotland study, has said that further research is required to understand the effect of Covid-19 in pregnancy, because Covid-19 can cause pregnancy complications such as early birth. Dr Sarah Stock has also said that the wider impacts of Covid-19 on NHS workforce and services needs to look at. Can the minister confirm that the inquiry will look at those issues? Can she say when she anticipates updating Parliament further on those issues? I can certainly say that there are several surveillance programmes that are focusing on the direct impact of Covid-19 on pregnant women and babies. Those are under way, including the COPS and the BPSU study, both of which are looking in detail at population-level monitoring and analysis of the occurrence and outcomes of Covid-19 infection and pregnancy. Of course, worldwide, the vaccine has been used in millions of pregnant women. I know that there has been a lot of concern about using the vaccine in pregnancy. The evidence thus far suggests that the virus is significantly more dangerous to pregnant moms and to babies and that the vaccine improves the safety. At the moment, I would like to give reassurance on that front. It is an evolving situation, and it is really important that we think about all the factors that might have contributed to the current rise in neonatal deaths. The pressures on workforce occurred at that particular peak at a time when workforce were under the most immense stress that they have experienced throughout the pandemic, so we will be looking at those issues as well. It is important that we learn lessons and make changes going forward, as far as we can, to ensure that we are absolutely taking care of any preventable factors that might have contributed to these neonatal deaths. To ask the Scottish Government what its reaction is to the reported awarding of almost £1 million compensation from Police Scotland to an ex-officer following an employment tribunal ruling of victimisation. The Scottish Government takes extremely seriously any concerns raised about Police Scotland, whether that is by the public or by officers themselves. When things go wrong and mistakes are made, the police must be held to account and lessons must be learned and improvements must be made. The findings of the employment tribunal clearly demonstrate that Ms Malone's experiences were wholly unacceptable, and that has been fully recognised by the chief constable. He has apologised to the claimant, making clear that misogyny, sexism and discrimination of any kind are deplorable and have no place in society or in policing, emphasising his personal commitment to leading change in policing in Scotland. Daniel Johnson Minister for that answer is right that the police must be held to account, because the situation that Rona Malone faced was one of bullying, harassment and, ultimately, suppression of her complaint was all underpinned by a culture that was described at the tribunal as an old boys club. However, nobody should be under any illusion that this is isolated or that it was unavoidable. Dame Eilish Angelini's report into complaints handling highlighted the treatment of minority groups and officers leaving on account of the culture that they faced. It was unavoidable because I personally took the account of a whistleblower to the most senior levels of the police, including a meeting where I described it to the chief constable, and nothing took place. I acknowledge the chief constable's commitment to change, and indeed the report from the police service of Northern Ireland that is forthcoming. I have written to the chief constable to review the circumstances leading to Ms Malone's departure from the police force and to hold those to account, those who failed to examine her complaint and those who suppressed it. I would ask if the minister and the Scottish Government would join me in making that call to the chief constable. I think the member for raising his personal experience that he's had with Police Scotland in reporting incidents like this. I would expect the chief constable to reflect carefully on what Daniel Johnson has said in the chamber today. In terms of the substance of his question, in the days after the judgment was issued, the chief constable made that commitment to commission the external police service to carry out the independent review of this particular employment tribunal decision and make any recommendations that will require action by Police Scotland, whether they are related to performance, culture or conduct. Obviously, we know that the police service of Northern Ireland is finalising that work. I would say that the service has recognised that improvements are needed and Police Scotland has established a strategic oversight board to push forward progress that is needed on equality and diversity within policing. We must enhance complaints handling procedures for police when they make complaints about the service that they serve within. The Angelini review made some good points, but the last thematic progress report was at the end of 2021. Ultimately, in this circumstance, there's at least one other police officer who left directly because of making those complaints and other places that left armed policing. Will the minister commit to expediting the recommendations from the Angelini review, specifically with renewed focus on complaints handling and whistleblowing, including creation of a third party organisation to handle that? We must also enhance the powers of the perk around practice and policy review and the power to call in complaints when the perk no longer has confidence in the police forces handling of them. I would say to the member that many of the things that he has mentioned just there are things that are under consideration by the Government at the moment, but I will ask the Cabinet Secretary to respond in detail to some of the points that the member has raised there. On the Angelini review, that was action that was taken by the Scottish Government in 2018 to review police complaints handling, things like investigations and misconduct in Scotland, recognising that potentially there was an issue there. The Scottish Government accepted the majority of those recommendations, but we're shortly going to be consulting on legislative proposals with a view to delivering new laws to improve transparency and to further strengthen public confidence in the police. That will consult on areas such as duties of candour and co-operation, gross misconduct proceedings and adopting barred and advisory lists in Scotland to strengthen Police Scotland's vetting processes. Those measures will ensure that anyone who doesn't meet the high standards required are not able to continue working within policing. I note the comments that the member made about the recommendations of the Angelini review. I would gently say to him that it was only six months or less than six months, I would say, since the last thematic report. A significant amount of work has been under way to implement that, and currently 34 of those recommendations have been implemented to date. I've been investigating Scotland's police complaint system for years. It has broken and unjust with taxpayers' money being used to crush and silence officers and the public. Police Scotland tried to buy Rona Maron's silence with an NDA. Other officers signed gagging orders because they did not have the strength of the money to fight for justice. Given that safeguards already exist to protect victims and sense of information without the need for NDAs, will the minister commit to ending their use in policing? My understanding is that obviously an NDA was not used in the final settlement of the case that we are discussing today. I would also say that obviously NDA is part of UK employment law. I would say that there are some legitimate uses for NDAs, but they should not be used to cover up discriminatory behaviour, misconduct and things of that nature. I would say that the chief constable has responded to this particular case by apologising to the claimants, making clear that sexism and discrimination has no place in policing and also making a personal commitment to leading change in policing in Scotland. The majority of police officers, I think that we would all agree, work very hard to protect our communities. When things go wrong, as they have done in this case, the member is quite right. We must have robust, transparent mechanisms in place for investigating those complaints. A great deal of work has been done on this already. I have obviously responded to Daniel Johnson on the issue of the Angelini review, but there is more work that needs to be done on this, and the service has accepted that more work needs to be done on this. We will keep Parliament informed of the work and the progress that is being made. As the minister said, the Scottish Government has already taken steps to improve transparency by introducing the organisational duty of Canada in 2018. Can the minister outline what further steps the Scottish Government is taking to improve transparency and further strengthen public confidence in the police? As the minister has already alluded to, will the delivery of standards and public fit services for short individuals and their families should rightly be able to get answers and justice? In 2018, we took the action to commission Dame Angelini to review the police complaints handling investigations and misconduct in Scotland. Her recommendations provide a very strong platform with which to drive forward meaningful improvement in collaboration with our partners across the policing sector here in Scotland. We are shortly going to consult on some further legislative proposals with a view to delivering new laws, which will improve transparency and further strengthen confidence in the police. Those measures will aim to ensure that anyone who does not meet the high standards that are required are not able to continue working within policing. I refer the chamber to my register of interests. This is but the latest example of its type in Police Scotland. There are so many other cases of bullying and victimisation of whistleblowers in other public services as well as the NHS has been widely reported. Does the minister agree that those examples make the case for establishing by statute an independent office of the whistleblower for Scotland? I would have to give that proposal some consideration. I will come back to the member on that point. In general, we have a high-quality police service here in Scotland, but it is right that, when things go wrong, Police Scotland must be held to account and lessons must be learned. I would like to take this opportunity to assure the chamber that the chief constable in this case has taken responsibility for this. He has personally committed to driving and leading that change in policing in Scotland to ensure that those lessons are learned and that improvements are being made. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the anticipated delivery date of the ferries under construction at Ferguson Marine in light of recent reports that the number of faults in the two vessels has arisen. The letter sent from Ferguson to the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee at the end of March sets out the new timetable and costs for the vessels following the legacy cabling issue. Critically, that new schedule has been developed in partnership with CMAL, and CMAL has endorsed that timetable. 801 will be delivered between March and May 2023, and 802 will be delivered between October and December 2023. At the request of the NZ Committee, the Ferguson Marine chief executive updates the committee on a quarterly basis, and the next update is due at the end of June. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. It is also a very welcome shift in tone from the SNP benches after the disgraceful comments made by one of their MPs in Westminster, who asserted that we somehow need to change the record and stop talking about ferries. Well, let me say to the Government benches that islanders of Arran that I spoke to this morning are furious and they want us to do anything but change the record on the issue of ferries planning officer. Sadly, what I didn't hear in the answer other than repetition of what we heard months ago was not an answer to the question about the increased level of faults in the vessels. I want a cast iron guarantee. So do our islanders that vessel 801 will be in service by this time next year, and vessel 802 will be in service by the autumn of next year. We all wish the new chief executive at Ferguson the very best of luck in delivering these vessels, but our islanders want to know if their vessels will actually be in service. Let me ask the cabinet secretary on a confidence level of 1 to 10. How confident is she that the Glen Sanex will be sailing passengers to Brodic by this time next year, and in the spirit of taking responsibility will she put her job in the line if it doesn't? I remind the member that I represent a community that is set to benefit from one of these vessels, and I was in the sky as recently as Friday speaking to them, so he is not the only one that represents island communities. In terms of the faults that he has identified, I wonder if I could specifically address that. A senior member of the sea mal team has quite recently been seconded into the Ferguson marine senior management. Sea mal's owner's observation reports, which is what I think he is referring to, are now treating as the snagging and defect list, and that is typical of any large construction or ship building project. The list of OORs was 237 in March as engagement, and the relationship between sea mal and FMPG improved and between the respective teams. Good progress is being made in clearing those issues, so the list of OORs was assessed and 119 are assessed as category 1. The rest are assessed as minor snagging. Within 119, there are engineering solutions for 83, leaving 36 that are still being worked on. Solutions are expected progressively without delays or impacts on the programme. That work, Presiding Officer, briefly is being led by the FMPG compliance director, and until recently he was also employed by Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the classification society that surveys both GlenSanix and 802. The CEO is a naval architect and a classification surveyor by background. He is also personally engaged in the process, particularly with issues relating to stability and safety. Solving all those issues is critically important. It is part of the programme, and I think that we have the best people on the ground to do that. We do have good people, but we hope that we do not have them as an answer. No castarian guarantee. Once again, no one in the SNP is willing to take full responsibility for the delivery of those vessels. Of course, that stems back to the miraculous missing email that the First Minister gleefully attributes all the blame on this to Derek Mackay, an email that magically appeared in the opening minutes of an opposition debate. That email still does not answer key questions in the eyes of Audit Scotland. Why did the contract pass two rounds of due diligence, contrary to legal advice? Why was 80 per cent of the agreed price for the ships paid when the progress on the build of the ships was anything but that, and did the First Minister herself give the go-ahead for the contract to be awarded to her friend, Mr McCall? There clearly remains a very real risk that those ferries will not be delivered more than five years after their due date, and the cost is now spiralling to more than a quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers' money. The cabinet secretary cannot answer those questions that Audit Scotland wants answers to. Will she answer those two from me? Will the Government commit to the Deputy First Minister making a full statement to this Parliament on his role in all of this? Secondly, will the Government agree to fill public inquiry into their handling of the shambles? I am here once again another week answering questions on Ferguson marines. In terms of scrutiny, scrutiny for the last two months has probably not exceeded any other form of scrutiny. We have said when it comes to a public inquiry that we have accepted the recommendations of the Audit Scotland report. One of those recommendations is to persevere with getting the boats delivered and after they have been delivered to do more in-depth lessons learned. Obviously, the Audit Scotland report comes after the cross-party inquiry led by the WREC committee, and so there has been a comprehensive overview of the situation already with more than 200 documents having been published. In terms of the specific question, I have been absolutely crystal clear on what I expect from Ferguson marines in completing the vessels. It was not a document that resulted in delayed construction to the vessels. That is a question of construction, and he does not need to believe me on that. He just needs to read the Audit Scotland report on that. It is quite clear that the reason why they are overdue and over-budget is a question of construction. That is why my priority—I was at Ferguson marines as recently as last week—is to make sure that those boats are delivered, not just for his constituents but for my constituents too. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that the workforce of Ferguson marines is entitled to expect better than the constant attacks from the Tories, where Mr Greene's action was in the yard only last month and heard exactly what was said by the managing director? Mr Greene did hear that. The constant attacks from the Tories is also Labour on its treatment in the words of the GMB as a political football. The member is absolutely right. Again, it is not about what I say or what the Government says, it is about what the workers say. To hear the GMB blasting the Labour Party and to hear the Conservatives dismiss the concerns of workers is really problematic. I was at Ferguson marines last week. I spoke directly to union representatives and to the workers and their morale is being eroded. The future of the yard is being questioned as a result of elements of the discussion that is going on amongst politicians. I think that it is absolutely right that the Opposition holds the Government to account and I think that it is absolutely right that the Government ensure that there are plans in place to resolve the issues. That is why I am here again, answering questions why we have had several debates on the issue. It is one thing to criticise Government. It is quite another to constantly erode the morale of the workers who have a job to do and whose job is based on their skills and on their talent. The cabinet secretary will be aware of a report in the press today of an email sent from Derek Mackay to Stuart McMillan. She knows that one of the issues around all this has been the lack of refund guarantee. According to the email from Mr Mackay, he says, and this was sent in February 2015, while CML's board in line with standard industry practice has a preference for refund guarantees, it has on occasion taken alternative approaches to ensure that shipyards including Ferguson under its previous owners were not excluded from bidding for Government contracts. What does the cabinet secretary have to say to that? Can she explain why the Government has been taking such a cavalier approach to ferry procurement? The member will be aware, because I am sure that he has read the Audit Scotland report in great detail, that the Audit Scotland report identifies areas where Government has indeed made changes already. They have made changes when it comes to Government investment in private companies. We have also made changes to procurement. The example of that is very much to be seen in the most recent contract that has been awarded. The contract was awarded by CML in its capacity as procuring authority. That is well known and well documented. It is also well known and well documented because of documents that have been in the public domain now for almost two years. CML expressed concerns about a full refund guarantee and the documentation that has been in the public domain for two years, although it took the Opposition quite a while to find it. The critical email is 8 October, which shows that mitigations were put in place to combat the lack of a full refund guarantee, including CML taking ownership of all equipment and materials that were supplied to the yard. All suppliers having to ensure that they had a full refund guarantee and the schedule of payments being changed. The cabinet secretary says that she expects the vessels to be completed next year. It is clear that island communities expect a national ferry building programme to create a modern and resilient ferry fleet. The next stage of replacement of the ferry fleet will be to replace smaller ferries, work that could easily be done at Ferguson's, on the issue of supporting the workforce. Assuming that the current timescales are met, will she confirm that it is the Government's intention to award the contract for the replacement of CalMac ferries to the yard, or will that work be gone abroad to Turkey too? It is the first time that the cabinet secretary has asked me a question about the future of Ferguson marine. That is far more critical right now in ensuring that there is a pipeline of work at the yard. The yard is actively pursuing opportunities for future vessel contracts. I do not know if he joined the delegation of cross-party MSPs that went to the yard last month, but the chief executive will probably have outlined what they are doing in terms of securing future work. We will do all that we can to help the yard to secure those opportunities. He is right in identifying that there is a £580 million ferry investment programme that is under way right now. That will include the small vessels replacement programme. Those conversations are actively on-going. I think that this is the kind of territory that we should be on if we want to boost the morale of the workers. That concludes topical questions. I will allow a moment before we move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is a debate on motion 4 4 2 8 in the name of Mary Gougeon on supporting Scotland's islands on their journey to become carbon neutral. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate could press their request to speak buttons. I call on Mary Gougeon to speak to and move the motion up to 15 minutes, cabinet secretary. I am delighted to open the debate today in support of Scotland's islands on their journey to become carbon neutral. Today, I will outline the Scottish Government's progress in supporting our island communities in their climate change journey, not least our exciting carbon neutral islands project, which puts islands at the forefront of our climate change ambitions. First of all, I want to acknowledge and to thank the members for the proposed amendments to the motion today and to set out that I am happy to support the amendment from Rhoda Grant confirming that moving to net zero requires a just transition. The carbon neutral islands project will not only benefit the environment but will support local economies, green skills and general wellbeing. I am also pleased to support the amendment today from Rachael Hamilton. The Scottish Government remains committed to supporting our island communities and this innovative project that highlights islands as...