���˿���

There is a track record of your having said to ministers that something is not value for money for public investment.

In your opening statement, you said that the three pillars of being a good sponsor of a public asset such as Ferguson’s are good governance, transparency and value for money. Which of those is demonstrated in the conversation that we have had today? We have heard numerous examples of poor governance and there has been a lack of transparency, with basic questions that cannot be answered. Certainly, value for money is out the window. The ferries were supposed to cost £97 million for the two, but we are now nudging towards £400 million of public money. Is that a complete failure on your part?

Thank you for putting your faith in their importance, convener.

Gentlemen, I appreciate that the clock is ticking. I recently jumped on the bandwagon of looking into my ancestry, and, when I got the certificates through, I discovered who my grandfather was. It said on the certificate that he was a welder in a Greenock shipyard, which was a surprise to me, because my granny never told me that. It then transpired that his father was a welder in a Greenock shipyard as well, so you could say that it runs in my blood. How on earth I am sitting here in a suit, talking about their finances, is another matter.

You are right, Mr Petticrew, that everyone wants to see the yard succeed. The question that we face—this goes back to the Auditor General’s report—is about the fact that Audit Scotland has analysed the numbers and the current situation and has flagged some very serious risks around the business as a going concern. None of us wants to talk in those terms or in that language, but we have to reflect on what the Auditor General said. Therefore, I am looking for some comfort that, on the basis of the strategy and throughout the business, including at board level—as you say, it goes from the bottom up, from the apprentices in the yard right through to those in the Scottish Government who are in charge of the strategic vision for the business as a publicly owned asset—there is a real joined-up approach to creating a sensible and realistic plan for a future for the yard. Otherwise, all the warnings in the Auditor General’s report would sadly come to pass. Fill me with some confidence that that is not the case.

Why is the service not able to respond more quickly? Does it not have enough ambulances or staff, or has demand increased exponentially? Is it all of the above?

Good morning. Ms Lamb, on Monday, the First Minister made a speech about the state of the NHS in Scotland. He described the NHS as being “fundamentally resilient, fundamentally robust.” No sooner had he stood down from his place at the lectern than the director of the Royal College of Nursing in Scotland responded, saying:

“Many nursing staff will not recognise the first minister’s description of a resilient and robust NHS in Scotland. Their current experience is of a service struggling to meet the needs of patients and leaving them to carry the burden of not being able to deliver the care and treatment required.”

Who is correct—the First Minister or the director of the Royal College of Nursing in Scotland?

My final question is slightly off-centre. What has been done to improve whistleblowing in the NHS? Many ���˿��� will have been contacted by constituents, particularly those who work, or who have worked, in the NHS, with complaints or anecdotal evidence of malpractice that has led to patient safety being put at risk. What has been done to improve the process? I have dealt with a number of cases in which NHS practitioners feel that the current process is simply not working, and I know the levels of frustration that they feel as they go through us, then to ministers. They feel that the responses that they get when it comes to dealing with complaints or allegations are extremely poor. Do you think that the situation is better than it was?

I am all for people working together and agencies working collaboratively. We hear a lot about that—it is civil service lingo—but the reality is that the numbers speak for themselves. Something is not working, and it is clear that the Government is failing to meet its objective in delayed discharge, which is causing a huge number of issues. Have you had any feedback at all?

Let me ask a more fundamental question. Do you think that the IJB model is broken? I ask because it does not seem to be delivering for folk.

For the sake of all our constituents, I hope that we do not have to have that conversation in 12 months, on the next report.

Let us look at two metrics. The first is ambulance waiting times. Last week, across five health boards, including two in my region—NHS Ayrshire and Arran and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde—the waiting time for yellow calls exceeded three hours. People waited three hours for an ambulance. We have heard horrific anecdotes about people waiting far longer.

Clearly, people who phone for an ambulance do so as a last resort, having exhausted other avenues and, perhaps, having given up on NHS 24—more than 100,000 people hung up on that service last year, waiting to be answered. I presume that when a person calls 999 to ask for an ambulance, the situation is serious. Why are people waiting three hours for an ambulance to turn up? What is going wrong in the Scottish Ambulance Service?

I need to be clear about that, because I hear that comment made far too often in the chamber, and I would not expect to hear it in committee. No one is talking nurses down. I am quoting the body that represents nurses. That is their strength of feeling, not mine.

You said that last year, and the year before, and the year before. This is an on-going theme, as the Auditor General has reported.