Chamber and committees

No matter how much Anas Sarwar raises his voice and shouts, it does not cover up the fact that he has not brought forward a single proposal, in relation to a budget that is fully allocated, for putting a single extra penny into local government budgets. He shouts because there is absolutely zero substance in anything that he says. “All sound and fury and no substance” is a good summary of Anas Sarwar.

Let me address some of Anas Sarwar’s points. He has asked about the real-terms position. The £570 million increase that I have spoken about is a real-terms increase of £160.6 million or 1.3 per cent.

Secondly, Anas Sarwar raised the issue of the proposals that councils are looking at. At this time every year, councils look at a range of proposals. This morning, I have seen proposals from Glasgow City Council. The point is made that those are options and that no decisions have been taken. I remember claims being made at this time of year a few years ago that 15,000 jobs would be cut across local government. Since then, the number of jobs in local government has increased by 19,000.

Yes, these are difficult times for local government, but if you want to propose that more money be allocated to local government within a draft budget that is fully allocated, to have any credibility, you also have to say where that resource should come from. In the absence of Anas Sarwar being clear about that, I can only assume that he wants us to take money from national health service or police budgets and give it to local government—or perhaps he wants us to take it from social security, such as from the Scottish child payment.

If Anas Sarwar wants to be taken seriously, he must bring some substance to what is a very difficult debate and a very difficult situation for local councils across the country.

Yes—to be clear, I do agree with Murdo Fraser on that. I will perhaps come back to that in a moment.

The whisky tourism sector is extremely important to Scotland’s reputation, as well as to its economy. The Johnnie Walker experience centre here in Edinburgh is a prime example of that. In relation to the suggestion that we have heard in recent weeks that painted signs on distilleries or visitor centres would be the target, I make it very clear that those are not in our current thinking. In my initial answer, I mentioned the exposure of children to alcohol advertising. There is a world of difference between a billboard outside or in the vicinity of a school and, for example, a Johnnie Walker baseball cap.

We must look at the issue pragmatically and seriously. I am glad that Murdo Fraser recognised that we have a public health issue—a problem—with alcohol misuse. As countries such as Ireland have done, we need to look at how we sensibly restrict promotion and advertising to try to deal with the problem. We need to do that properly and pragmatically. I hope that my answer reassures those who are in the whisky tourism sector about some of the supposed things that we have heard about in recent days and weeks.

Natalie Don is so right to talk—[Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like it, but there is a difference between hypothetical harm—I understand the concerns that the whisky tourism sector, for example, has expressed and I hope that what I have said today will allay those concerns—and the very real harm that is being done today, right now, by Brexit. The loss of free movement is harming our hospitality and tourism sectors, for example, as well as the wider economy.

In relation to the issue, we will continue to listen to the hospitality sector, the tourism sector and the whisky tourism sector in particular. We will take on board the reasonable points that they make—if only the United Kingdom Government would adopt a similar posture on the concern that those industries have expressed about the real impact of Brexit and the real harm that it is doing to them right now.

That is a £3 billion investment. Already, more than £430 million has been invested in it, and road users are benefiting from some stretches that are already dualled.

On the issue that was covered in Parliament yesterday, we have carefully reviewed the submitted tender for that stretch and concluded, after a very difficult and complex procurement procedure, that the award of that contract at this time would not represent best value for the taxpayer. The price of that tender was significantly higher than expected, even allowing for the impacts of inflation and a volatile economy. If we had gone ahead with that, I am sure that, down the line, Opposition members would have criticised us for doing so because it was not best value for the taxpayer.

As the transport secretary set out yesterday, steps will now be taken by Transport Scotland on the necessary preparatory steps for the urgent retendering, with the aim of achieving a contract award before the end of this year, and a new timetable will be set out as quickly as possible.

It is also important to point out that the design work is progressing on the rest of the programme, with ministerial decisions to complete the statutory process confirmed for seven of the remaining eight schemes.

The Government is increasing local government budgets. The resources that are available to local government—if Parliament passes next year’s budget—will increase by £570 million.

Of course, inflation is sky high right now—that is not a result of this Government’s policies—and that is affecting the Government’s budget. It is absolutely the case that local government is struggling with those financial constraints, as are all parts of the public sector and, as Anas Sarwar has just said, households. That is why it is important that we continue to support local government as much as we can.

Obviously, the budgetary process is still under way and will conclude following the February recess of Parliament. We will continue to discuss with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities ways in which we can help local authorities mitigate the difficult situation in which they find themselves.

Of course, last week, I invited Anas Sarwar to point to other parts of the draft budget from which he thought we could take resources if he wants us to give more money to local government. He might have sent those to my office—I do not know—in which case I will look at them, but I suspect that he has not come up with any reasonable, realistic or credible proposals in order for us to do that.

Before I turn to answering Douglas Ross’s question, I take this opportunity to express my sympathy with the people of Turkey and Syria following the devastating earthquake earlier this week. The suffering and loss of life will be felt for generations. We are committed to doing all that we can to help. Members of our emergency services have already been deployed to help with the search and rescue operation on the ground. Yesterday, we confirmed a £500,000 contribution to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal. I know that all parties will help to promote that appeal following First Minister’s question time. Anybody who wishes to donate, and who is able to, can do so at www.dec.org.uk.

I turn to the question. On the review that Douglas Ross referred to, the Scottish Prison Service provided a final report to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 8 February. Its chief executive met the justice secretary yesterday, in the course of a regular meeting schedule, to discuss it. The cabinet secretary has already confirmed that he will update the Criminal Justice Committee this week. Both the cabinet secretary and the chief executive of the SPS are due to attend a meeting of that committee later in February, at which, of course, members of the Parliament will be able to ask questions, so there will be full transparency about the findings of the review, as is right and proper.

I am struck by the fact that, when we announced an extension to the go-live date for the scheme back in December 2021, I think, to give industry additional time to prepare, that was criticised at the time by the Conservatives among others in the chamber.

The regulations require producers to register ahead of the launch. Registration is now open. However, we continue to work—this is important—with Circularity Scotland and businesses as they finalise their operational delivery plans. The scheme is industry led, and the industry needs to work with the scheme administrator on a joined-up approach to delivering it.

We have already made changes, which I have set out. We will continue to engage with businesses on any further changes that can sensibly be made to take account of some of the issues that they raise.

First of all, the Scottish Government opposes the forced installation of prepayment meters, because that is only more likely to increase debt or leave people unable to heat their homes.

We continue to call on the United Kingdom Government to provide the necessary additional support for those who are struggling with energy bills, and we are doing everything that we can with the powers that are available to us. That includes doubling the fuel insecurity fund to £20 million and providing an additional £1.2 million to help advice services to meet the increasing demand that they are dealing with.

I chaired two energy summits last year. As a result of those, we continue to work with partners to see what more we can do by working together to support and protect Scottish consumers in these times.

We will, of course, take the time required to get it right. There was, in the letter that Jackie Baillie referred to, a line that she did not read out, so I will. It states:

“We want to emphasise that we share the Scottish Government’s desire to create a National Care Service.”

Several committees of this Parliament are scrutinising the bill at stage 1. When we have all the reports and feedback, we will take time to consider all the issues that have been raised. At that stage, we will set out the timescale for the rest of the legislative process.

In the interim, we are taking steps to improve social care. Let us remember what a national care service is about. It is about ending the postcode lottery in care provision and better rewarding those who work in the sector. In the year ahead, we are taking action to boost social care workers’ pay and getting the initial organisational arrangements in place. We will continue to proceed in that responsible way and, as we do so, we will listen to the views of all the organisations that are signatories to the letter and, I am sure, many others besides.

First, the consultation on alcohol advertising and promotion is on-going—it is open until 9 March—so I make it clear that no decisions have been taken on scope or on the type of restrictions that might be taken forward in future. The point of the consultation is to get a range of views on the most appropriate next steps in reducing alcohol-related harm, which I hope we can all recognise is one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face.

Considering restriction on the promotion of alcohol is not unique to Scotland. For example, five years ago, Ireland passed legislation to bring in a number of restrictions, which were focused on reducing the exposure of children to alcohol promotion. I think that reducing the exposure of children to that is key.

Ministers have met a range of stakeholders, including representatives of the alcohol and advertising industries, during the consultation period to hear directly from them. Of course, we will take seriously and consider properly all representations that are made.