 Mae'r next item of business is topical questions in order to get in as many questions as possible, and there's a lot of interest this afternoon, and welcome to think questions and answers to match. Question number one is Daniel Johnson. Excuse me, Mr Johnson. I'll just wait for your mic to come on. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the potential impact on Scottish Government's standard due diligence of reports of lost documentation related to the Ferguson Marine ferry contract. We have been absolutely transparent about the decision making process and the information which informed those decisions. There's a clear audit trail of key decisions and the basis on which they were taken. In relation to the documents mentioned in the Audit Scotland report, a thorough search has been conducted and no ministerial response to the submission of 8 October 2015 has been located. In the Audit Scotland report, we have committed to a formal review following the completion of the vessels project. I don't quite know how to respond to that answer. On Thursday, the Auditor General expressed frustration at the lack of records of ministerial decisions regarding the waving of refund guarantees that would normally be expected in such a contract set for the ferries. Written authority from ministers should be required for this, yet no record could be obtained by Audit Scotland. The Auditor General describes this as frustrating. He's being charitable. It is at best negligent and incompetent. At worst, it could be unlawful, breaching the Finance and Public Administration Act and or the Freedom of Information Act. Will the minister commission an investigation into the matter to establish the facts and critically whether or not the law has been broken? The Scottish Government transports Scotland along with Seymah, Land Ffergus and the Marine Port Glasgow, all co-operated fully with Audit Scotland, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee enquiries. That included provision of documentation, provision of a detailed written statement, as well as interviews with key personnel and attendance at Wreck by both officials and Scottish ministers. We have also committed to undertake a review, as I said earlier, on completion of the two vessels. The problem is for transparency. The documents need to be there and they are not, and the law requires it. Sadly, that is not an isolated incident. Neither in the context of the sorry saga of the two ferries nor on other Scottish Government interventions. It follows a pattern of opaque decision making and roughshod process that can be seen elsewhere, such as the environmental indemnities for liberty steel, found to have breached state aid lots, the Loch Arbor smelter, where hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money were put at risk through secret guarantees. A decision that only emerged after a two-year battle over FOIs with the Scottish Government by journalists requests that the Scottish Government knew would be overturned on appeal. With the ferries, we saw them launched in time for the SNP conference, fake windows and all, before they were ready and on a timetable that cost taxpayers more. The pattern is of due process that is deficient, lacking transparency and deliberately distorted to suit political ends rather than public interests. You could call this many things, negligent and competent deficient, but when these decisions have all been willful and deliberate, the word that I would use is corrupt. Perhaps not for individual gain but a corruption of the process for party political gains contrary to the public interest. If that is not the word that the minister would use, what word would he use? As I have already indicated, a thorough search was taken for those documents and no ministerial response to that submission has been located. As I have already indicated, we have outlined an audit Scotland report that we have committed to a formal review following completions of the vessels project. However, what is important to recognise in Daniel Johnson and other members in the chamber failed to recognise is that Ferguson, seven years after those events, is still employing hundreds and hundreds of people, is still contributing to the local economy and is still keeping... I know that the members do not think that Scotland's industrial base is important, but they might want to be quiet for a minute and listen to that answer. That is important to the people of Scotland, the people of Inverclyde, that that yard is still employing hundreds of people and is keeping commercial ship building on the Clyde alive. As in Lochaber, where the site is employing increasing numbers of people and being successful in what is delivering the products into the Scottish and further afield markets. That is what is important to support in the Scottish industry. This Government makes no apology for being committed to supporting Scottish industry and for making sure that we develop hundreds and hundreds of people in those highly skilled, highly paid jobs, are still in employment, which would not be the case if either of those two parties had been making decisions on the future of Scottish industry. We have a number of supplementaries. I would hope that both the questions and the answers will be listened to respectfully. First of all, Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Tristaned by some of Daniel Johnson's comments, he probably would rather have the yard actually. There wasn't there in the jobs, we weren't there either, or the yard's future. There has already been a thorough parliamentary inquiry in the last term of this Parliament and also now the scrutiny by the Audit Scotland, both of which have generated significant reports and recommendations. Can the minister set out what the Scottish Government did to contribute to and to co-operate with both inquiries, including providing relevant information? Indeed. As we have already indicated, the member makes those points very well. The Scottish Government, Transport Scotland, along with Seymal and Ferguson's Marine Port, has all co-operated fully with Audit Scotland and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee inquiry. That includes provision of documentation and provision of a detailed written statement, as well as interviews with key personnel and attendance at Wreck by both officials and Scottish ministers. As we have already indicated, we have also committed to taking our review on completion of the two vessels. Mr Lumsden, if you have a question to ask, press your button and I may call you. Graham Simpson. Many thanks. This is institutional corruption on a grand scale. Ivan McKee is showing breathtaking arrogance if he thinks there's been any transparency over this. This is the SNP's secret Scotland at its worst. Let me quote you another law. The Public Records Scotland Act 2011, which requires the Scottish Government to have a records management plan. The act requires the plan to identify the individual responsible for the management of a department's public records. Who was the person in this case? I want the name. Why didn't they ensure that there was a record of the decision-making process? As we have already indicated, we have been transparent. We have published the documents that are available. We have complied with the inquiries that have taken place. We have committed to undertaking a review on completion of the vessels. I go back to the point that I made earlier. What is at the core of this is the Scottish Government's absolute commitment to supporting Scottish industry, Scottish jobs and making sure that there is a record of the public records. We have published the documents that are available. What is at the core of this is the Scottish Government's absolute commitment to supporting Scottish industry, Scottish jobs and making sure that we continue to do so, whereas the parties opposite clearly are not concerned at all about the people that work in those sites and supporting their employment. What is the point of members coming to this chamber asking straight questions when the minister completely ignores the question and answers something else? I think that you will know by this stage that that is not a point of order. The content of ministerial responses is not the responsibility of the Presiding Officer, Paul MacLennan. We can all agree that transparency and accountability are key in Government, but I do not think that the Scottish Government needs lessons in that for many members of the opposition to be quite frank. We should not lose sight of why this Government stepped in to save Scotland's last remaining commercial shipyard and the importance of the work that it is undertaking. Can the minister provide an update on progress in this regard? The Yard has to announce completion of a major milestone in the build of one of the dual fuel ferries. In a major engineering operation, hull 802 was fitted with its large bow unit, which at 100 tonnes is the largest single unit added to the ferries steel hull. It will also see the final units lifted into place, completing the main hull and steel working making way for the installation of the ferries aluminium superstructure, which is all the units above the main deck. Good progress has been made in progressing the construction of the ferries. Since that Government nationalised Ferguson's, it has already delivered three smaller vessels. By nationalising the shipyard, we have kept to open, kept people on work, rescued more than 300 jobs. Since October 2021, Ferguson's Marine has consistently employed more than 350 staff. There have been 42 apprentices working and learning there since August 2021, and a further 15 will be taking on this summer. The Yard has been in a period of turnaround since 2019, and the past two years have been challenging, exacerbated by the pandemic, but what is clear is that progress is being made. Three smaller vessels delivered, and new CEO appointed is already making a difference in implementing a transformation plan. Hundreds of people and families income maintained, including lots of independent small businesses as contractors and two new ferries for the islands being built with a real milestone in their construction being reached today. No wonder the opposition ever wants to talk about or welcome that, this Government's industrial strategy and how we're protecting jobs and industry across Scotland. It is clear that there have been multiple failings relating to this contract and that it is islanders, particularly islanders on Arran this week who are paying the price. Does the minister not accept that any review cannot be delayed and that it must be a full investigation conducted independent of ministers? What I have said is that we are making significant progress on delivery of those vessels, which just won't matter to the people on islands in Calmar, who are engaging on a daily basis with the community on Arran and elsewhere. The minister of transport has joined those calls to ensure that all possible actions are being undertaken with regard to ferry provision. As I have already said with regard to the Outland and Audit Scotland report, the Government has committed to a formal review of the following completions of the vessel project, and that is a commitment that we stick to. If the Government is so keen on promoting transparency, will it agree to lift the gagging orders in place at Ferguson Marine? As I have already made clear, the Scottish Government, Ferguson's Marine and Transport Scotland and CMAR have all co-operated fully with Audit Scotland and the Rec Committee inquiry. I have already said that they have all fully co-operated with those inquiries, and that is a fact of the matter. As I have said again, we have already committed to undertake a full review on completion of the two vessels. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the potential impact of its responses to the reported planned boycott of solicitors, taking on summary cases brought under section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018, from May 3, 2020. Section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018, which criminalises coercive and controlling behaviour, has been in operation for over three years. Last year, section 1 cases accounted for around 5 per cent of all domestic abuse cases. To avoid intimidation and further traumatisation of victims, Parliament explicitly barred accused persons in these cases from representing themselves. Legal aid funding is available for section 1 cases, as it is for other criminal cases. If a case is particularly time consuming, solicitors can apply to have additional costs met rather than the fixed fee through the exceptional case arrangements. Contrary to claims that legal aid funding overall has not increased in the past 20 years, the Scottish Government has increased legal aid funding by over 13 per cent over the past three years. In addition, a further substantial offer worth 7.5 per cent for criminal legal aid and 5 per cent for civil legal aid was made but rejected by the profession last week. An offer of mediation has also been made and remains on the table. Whilst we consider the legal profession's demand for 50 per cent increase to all fees to be unaffordable, we remain committed to engaging with the legal profession to seek a reasonable and affordable resolution to this matter. I thank the minister for that response. Just to remind everyone watching, the Domestic Abuse Act was this Parliament's flagship law designed to tackle the horrors of domestic abuse in Scotland. Nearly 1,600 charges were reported under section 1 of it last year alone. Those accused under section 1 cannot represent themselves in court. If they cannot afford a solicitor themselves, the trial will inevitably be postponed. More people will be held on demand for longer, which the Government says it wants to tackle. More victims of abuse will simply wait longer for justice. That is the reality of the situation. Given all that, can the minister tell us how many trials she thinks will now be postponed or delayed as a result of this action by solicitors? Given that Scottish courts were shortchanged by £12 million in this year's budget, does she now regret that decision? I have already said to the member that it is 5 per cent of domestic abuse cases. Obviously, domestic abuse cases, as the member has outlined, are a priority area for this Government. We fully understand the impact that long waits can have on victims. Prior to and throughout the Covid pandemic, priority has been given to progressing cases involving domestic abuse. We invested £50 million last year and a further £53 million this year to help tackle the unavoidable backlogs in the justice system as well as enhanced support for victims. The latest figures from the Scottish court and tribunal service confirm that both solemn and summary sheriff courts are progressing cases above pre-Covid volumes, and we will continue to support the process of justice Covid recovery. The member is right to say that this is a serious disruptive action, so we are considering ways in which we can work with willing partners to address any shortfall in the availability of solicitors as an absolute priority. There are unavoidable delays in court backlogs. This is an entirely unavoidable one. Solicitors do not boycott cases just for the fun of it. They tell us the reality of what is happening in our legal profession. There is barely a criminal lawyer in Scotland under 30 years of age. Everybody knows that. There have been 25 per cent reduction in solicitors working in legal aid cases and 40 firms have quit the scheme altogether in the last two years alone. The SSBA tells us that the Government has consistently ignored the profession when it was told that it was in crisis. The Law Society of Scotland went even further. It said that the current crisis in legal aid threatens the very core of justice, risking irreparable damage. Legal aid is at its worst position since devolution, and everyone will admit that except you. Your party has been in government for 15 years now. Why is it in such a mess and what are you going to do to fix it? I remind the member that we have an exchange on this matter just last week. In Scotland we have maintained eligibility and scope for legal aid in Scotland, which is not the case elsewhere in the rest of the UK where the Conservatives are in charge. We have both eligibility and scope here. We recognise the importance of legal aid providers and we are committed to continue to listen to them and to continue to invest in them. It is simply not possible to say that the Government has not been listening and the Government has not been responding. Over the last two years, we have listened and responded. I will take the member through a couple of the actions that the Government has taken in direct response to things that have been raised with us by the profession. When the Covid pandemic first reared itself up, there was going to be a vast impact on businesses of all kinds, including legal aid businesses. We straight away changed the law so that we could bring in something called an interim payment. That was to make sure that we were able to help cash flow for those businesses because we recognised that that was an immediate concern. We then went on to put £9 million of grant funding in place to firms whose businesses had been affected by the pandemic. That was grant funding for Covid resilience. In response to capacity issues that had been raised with us by the profession, we put in place a £1 million traineeship fund. That is supporting trainees, 75 per cent of whom are women. Again, that was raised with us as a concern by the profession. Over the last few years, we have put in permanence across-the-board fee rises. That was 3 per cent in 2019, 5 per cent in 2021 and 5 per cent in April, which just came on stream at the beginning of this month. That is £10 million just over the last year in permanent across-the-board rises. We also put a detailed package of fee reforms. Those were reforms that the profession had highlighted to us of being of significant concern to themselves. Those were criminal fee reforms. That was a package that was worth around £3.8 million, so added together with another 5 per cent rise that we offered to the profession last week. I do not think that it is possible to say that this Government is not listening and not responding. The previous question is a lot of interest in supplementaries, but in order to get them all in, we are going to need brief questions and brief responses. Audrey Nicholl, first. To ask the Scottish Government what level of engagement it had with the profession over the last three years. I have regular routine meetings with the Law Society and additional meetings were held during the early stages of Covid lockdown, moving to very regular meetings with officials and ministers to discuss the impact of Covid on solicitors and then close working with officials on mitigation of that impact, including the grant funding that I mentioned in my previous answer. The former Cabinet Secretary and I met personally with representatives leading up to the £20 million package of funding. That close working has continued with the most recent meeting with the Law Society being last Thursday. At both an official and a ministerial level, there have been frequent discussions as part of the structured timetabled meetings and often on a weekly basis. We also established an engagement group so that officials and representatives from the profession could discuss all the issues that were connected to legal aid. This group has met on five occasions over a six-month period last year. Almost half a billion pounds was cut from the legal aid budgets between 2007 and 2019, so any increases since 2019 do not compensate for that scale of cuts. As the minister knows, the dispute relates to domestic abuse cases. Does she agree with me that they can be both complex and time consuming, that the solicitors themselves are raising legitimate concerns and that this dispute undermines the Government's strategy on violence against women and girls? I thank the member for that question. I think I would completely agree with the member that these types of cases are complex and time consuming, as the member has put that in her words. If the solicitors feel that the fixed fee does not reflect the time that they spend on the DASA cases, they can apply to have the fixed fee disapplied and a time and line fee applied through exceptional case status arrangements. Prior to the action, we were not aware of solicitors raising specific issues about DASA cases with us. Had they done that, I would certainly have looked at that, and I would say that that offer is still on the table, that if solicitors who are working in this area feel that fees for those particular type of cases are not sufficient, I am more than happy to discuss that with them. UK Government proposals include increasing legal aid rates by 15 per cent, as recommended by the report. Can the minister say how the proposal compares to the offer that the Scottish Government has made to the legal profession? Other parts of the UK, as we have discussed already, are facing very similar challenges. Down south, they had the Bellamy review, which concluded recently, and that recommended a 15 per cent rise on the basis of a comprehensive study, which took place with the co-operation of the Law Society down south. We asked the Law Society of Scotland to co-operate with us on a similar analysis, so that we could get similar evidence-based approach to fees in Scotland, but they did not believe that that process would be of material benefit. Taking account of the previous 5 per cent and 5 per cent increases and the further 7.5 per cent offer that we have made recently, which has not yet been accepted, the Scottish Government's offer to the legal profession already exceeds that amount that was recommended by the Bellamy review. In answer to Jamie Greene, the minister gave some percentage rises to suggest that all is well. Can the minister tell us what are the actual percentages, once inflation is accounted for? I cannot remember exactly what I said in terms of 5 per cent was 5 per cent of domestic abuse cases. If the member is referring to the 3 per cent in 2019, the 5 per cent in 2021 or the 5 per cent in April of this year, then that amounts to £10 million of advancement in the last year alone. The Government is listening to what the profession is saying. I am listening to what the profession is saying. My door is open to discussion with profession fee rises, whether that be across the board, whether that be specific rises in response to specific sets of fees. I will say however that the request by the profession for a 50 per cent across the board fee rise at the moment in light of public sector funding pressures, that request would amount to about £60 million a year, and that is not affordable. However, we are committed to working with the profession, engaging with the profession to seek a resolution on this matter. The Scottish Bar Association says that it has been ignored by the minister in complex and lengthy cases, in terms of access to justice, in terms of the number of people leaving the legal aid profession, the work that is being done in legal aid. Is the minister in the same meetings as the Scottish Bar Association, or is she in a parallel reality? The only person in the chamber that is in a parallel reality at the moment is the member. If he was not listening to my extensive answers detailing the very regular consultation that the Government has with representatives of the legal profession, instead of repeating my earlier answer, I will add to what I think may be the last question on this issue, that of course I accept that there is an issue here. I am not at any point saying that I think that everything is okay, and I totally understand that some practitioners feel that they would like to have higher fees. That is the way that we obviously take that forward is to negotiate that in order that we can try to resolve that issue, and that is what the Government is committed to doing. We are also, though, which may be of interest to the member, undertaking wider work on the legal aid system, and we will bring forward a bill on legal aid in this session of the Parliament. That presents an opportunity to reimagine legal aid and perhaps to put it on a more sustainable footing financially to improve the experience for users and for practitioners. Thank you. That concludes this item of business to be a brief pause to tell you the front bench is to change before we move to the next item.