Chamber and committees

I very much welcome the report that the commissioner for fair access published yesterday. It is, of course, this Government’s ambition that every child who is growing up in Scotland, regardless of their background, should have an equal chance of going to university, so I very much welcome Sir Peter Scott’s recognition of the excellent progress that has been made. Indeed, I appreciate his role in delivering that outcome. This was his final report, so let me acknowledge and thank him for his commitment, during his time as commissioner, in progressing access to higher education for people from the most deprived areas.

The number of entrants on full-time first-year courses from the 20 per cent most deprived communities has increased 39 per cent since Sir Peter Scott took on his role. The Scottish Government will consider all Sir Peter’s recommendations carefully and respond in due course.

We will continue to support our universities, we will continue to support fair access to our universities and of course we will continue to support the world-leading research that happens in our universities.

It is a bit galling to hear a Conservative member talk about the threats to university research, when the biggest threat and the reality for universities is that Brexit has damaged their research potential. Perhaps the Conservatives will want to look to themselves before they raise questions for others on university research.

After months of delay, the United Kingdom Government belatedly conceded the need for a windfall tax to help those who are struggling to make ends meet—action that the Scottish Government had been urging it to take. However, we have also made the point that oil and gas companies are not alone in profiting from recent global events and that a windfall tax should apply to all companies that are posting significantly higher profits.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s failure to implement the levy fairly now means that Scottish industry is carrying a disproportionate burden of funding what is a UK-wide response. It also means that the support that is available is still far too limited. By widening out and using the fiscal headroom that is available, the chancellor could have gone beyond one-off measures and introduced long-term strategies, such as introducing an equivalent of the Scottish child payment.

Murdo Fraser should probably think twice before quoting the IFS, since the IFS had to take to Twitter this week to correct things that he was saying on social media.

The facts are deeply uncomfortable and inconvenient for the Conservatives, but they continue to be the facts.

This year—I believe that these are actually Scottish Fiscal Commission figures—the Scottish budget, in real terms, is 5.2 per cent less than it was last year—[Interruption.]

Yes, it has. National Records of Scotland is confident that the national return rate and the coverage across the country, coupled with the normal planned post-collection quality control and assurance work, will provide credible high-quality outputs.

As I have said previously, NRS is working with a number of statisticians and experts in census and administrative data to help to steer the work over the next few months. The support and advice from the steering group will help NRS to produce a high-quality census data set—one that will, ultimately, provide us with the right statistical outputs that are needed to inform future service planning.

I, too, begin by taking the opportunity to wish Steve Clarke and the team every success at Hampden this evening. I will be there, cheering on Scotland. We all want Scotland to win and to qualify for the first world cup that we would be at in a long, long time. That said, I think that I can speak for everybody at Hampden this evening when I say that, no matter how strongly we will be supporting Scotland, a bit of all our hearts will be with Ukraine, as we continue to stand in solidarity with them in this hour of need. [Applause.] Just as the tartan army this evening will, as it always does, belt out “Flower of Scotland”, I hope that we will also stand and show real passion for the Ukraine national anthem. Good luck to Steve and to the team.

I thank Douglas Ross warmly for giving me the opportunity to set out exactly why giving the people of Scotland an opportunity to choose a better future is so important at this particular moment in time. In many ways, the resource spending review that Kate Forbes set out yesterday sets out the very heavy price that people across Scotland are paying right now for continued Westminster decision making. As a result of United Kingdom Government decisions, our budget this year has been cut by more than 5 per cent in real terms, and growth in our budget over the next four years will be constrained to 2 per cent, while inflation is close to 10 per cent. Of course, thanks to the folly of Brexit, inflation is higher in the UK than it is in any other G7 country.

Every year, the Scottish Government is having to invest more than £700 million to mitigate the impact of Westminster policies that Scotland did not vote for, such as the bedroom tax, the rape clause and the removal of universal credit, which has plunged more people into poverty.

Yes, I think that spending £20 million—0.05 per cent, or one half of one tenth of 1 per cent, of the entire Scottish Government budget—to give the people of this country the opportunity to choose a better future is, and will be, a really good investment.

Douglas Ross stood up and said that I did not mention the cost of living crisis. I suggest that he might want to consider what is causing the cost of living crisis. It is soaring inflation. As I said, thanks in large part to the utter folly of Brexit, which was imposed on Scotland by Tory Governments, inflation is higher in the UK than it is in any other G7 country. That is part of the price of Westminster government. It is a Tory-created cost of living crisis. How much worse does it have to get before the Conservatives take it seriously and provide real, proper help to people across this country?

Douglas Ross stands here and asks me about spending £20 million—which is, as I said, one half of one tenth of 1 per cent of the entire Scottish budget—to give the people of this country the option of a better future. He never stands here and apologises, as he should, for the fact that this Government is required every year to invest more than £700 million to mitigate the effect of Tory policies that we in Scotland do not vote for. That money is spent to mitigate the awful rape clause, which was imposed on Scotland by the Tories; the awful bedroom tax, which was imposed on Scotland by the Tories; and the poverty that Tory policies are plunging so many people into. It is also being spent to mitigate austerity, which research from the Glasgow Centre for Population Health has said has caused a “stalling” in improved life expectancy in Scotland and across the UK.

Yes, I think that £20 million to give Scotland the choice of a better future—a Tory-free future—is a good investment. If we look at the opinion polls, I suspect that Scotland is well on the way back to being Tory free anyway.

Let us remind ourselves that, thanks to this Government, we have more police officers and more primary school teachers than at any time since 1980, so I will get on with the job of delivering for Scotland and, I hope, of freeing Scotland from continued Westminster Tory Government.

For the avoidance of doubt, I reiterate that, if spending £20 million wins this country a better future in which we do not have to spend £700 million on mitigating Tory policies, then yes, that is a good investment.

The reason for Douglas Ross’s bluster today is, of course, that we know that the Tories and Douglas Ross are not very popular among the Scottish people. However, as of this week, we also know that Douglas Ross has never been less popular with Conservative voters. For the first time, he has got negative approval ratings and is in the unenviable position where the only Tory who is less popular among Conservative voters is his boss, Boris Johnson. No wonder he is in a bit of a state today.

I will provide the member with the precise figures, but I do not have them to hand. I do know that more people are on NHS waiting lists now, post-pandemic, than will have been the case at many points in recent years. That is not only the case in Scotland; it is the case across the United Kingdom and much of the world because of the pressures of Covid.

I also know that, before the pandemic, significant progress was being made in reducing waiting times. For example, before the pandemic, the number of people who were waiting for a first out-patient appointment had reduced by 21.3 per cent.

Over the same period, the number of people who had to wait more than 12 weeks for an out-patient appointment had fallen by more than 30 per cent, more appointments had been carried out under the in-patient treatment time guarantee and the number of people who had to wait more than six weeks for one of the eight diagnostic tests was down by 25 per cent. That is the progress that was being made. Clearly, that has been set back by the pandemic, which is why our recovery plan and the significant additional investment that is going into the national health service are so important.

As the Royal College of Emergency Medicine said, the reduction in bed numbers is

“largely because of shortened hospital stays”.

The average length of stay for a hip replacement has fallen from just under 14 days to six and a half days; the average length of stay for a knee replacement has fallen from 12.2 days to 5.7 days; and cataracts, which used to require a hospital stay, are now done on a day-case basis.

It is important that we ensure that there is an appropriate number of beds in our NHS. We will continue to do that, but—as I have said—the RCEM also pointed out that Scotland has more beds per head of population than do Wales or England, where the member’s party is, of course, in government. There are big challenges in Scotland, but the numbers suggest that this Government is getting to grips with the challenges better than Governments elsewhere are.