Chamber and committees

I have explained the challenge and the difficulty. The Government has taken the action of increasing taxation for higher earners in order to invest more in the national health service than would have been the case had we just passed on the consequentials from United Kingdom funding. We have taken the hard decisions, and there was, of course, a time when Mr Sarwar would have supported us, but he has now U-turned on that position. As a consequence of what he said on Tuesday, he wants to cut the money that is available to the public finances.

Mr Sarwar is shaking his head at me. [Interruption.]

There are two aspects to answering that question. The first is the actions of the Scottish Government, and Mr Harvie will be familiar with these points. We have taken a range of decisions to vary the tax position in Scotland and, in some circumstances, to ask higher earners to pay more in taxation where that is appropriate. The Government has set out its position and its fiscal approach to enable that to be the case.

There is then the debate about the forthcoming United Kingdom election. I set out my party’s position yesterday, and if the Presiding Officer will forgive me, I refer Mr Harvie to the contents of our manifesto, which sets out a number of tax and spending changes that we would make to enable the priorities that we set out to be afforded within the financial envelope that is available to us.

I gave Graham Simpson a considered answer. I do not think that it could in any way be described as ideological, because I made the point that evidence shows that new nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives. We are facing a cost of living and public finance crisis, so any responsible First Minister will look to make sure that we take the most fiscally efficient approach to energy generation.

This Government, as a result of its clear policy leadership, has successfully decarbonised electricity generation in Scotland. We have developed renewable energy with policy certainty. I want to give the same policy certainty to storage, to hydrogen and to carbon capture technologies, in order to drive economic growth and support green jobs.

What troubles me is that we have fabulous projects in Scotland—in, for example, carbon capture and technology, such as the Acorn project—and we have been led up the garden path by the Treasury and by United Kingdom ministers. I have lost count of the number of times, when I was a senior minister, that UK ministers promised me, face to face, an acceleration of the Acorn project. It has not happened.

I am afraid to say that Graham Simpson does not have a leg to stand on with that question. We have a clear strategy on renewables, and we will pursue it sustainably to deliver for the people of Scotland.

I am very happy to engage on the point that Mr Bibby has raised. I welcome his question, because it provides me with the opportunity to say a bit more about the issue. I have been deeply concerned by the events that have taken place. I have spoken with the leadership of Baillie Gifford; I am concerned about the targeting of that company, because I welcome the philanthropic support that it provides to many organisations. I have reassured the company of the importance that I attach to its contribution to the economy. The disinvestment campaigns are misplaced; I do not think that they achieve their objectives; and they are now jeopardising really important cultural festivals that I know Mr Bibby and I value equally.

I will take away Mr Bibby’s proposal. I said in my original answer that the Government has publicly called for dialogue. Angus Robertson, who is the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, has been engaging heavily on the question with a number of interested parties. However, if a further, more formal dialogue is required, I will consider that proposal and reply to Mr Bibby.

This Government has taken hard decisions to increase the resources that are available for investment in public services. We have asked people with higher earnings to contribute more in taxation to enable us to invest more in the health service and in social care. That is what we have done. Jackie Baillie opposed that—she opposed every single bit of it.

There is now an opportunity, on 4 July, to elect a Government that could end austerity, but the Labour Party is not seizing the opportunity to end austerity—the Labour Party is going to prolong austerity. I gently suggest to Jackie Baillie that it would help the situation if the Labour Party committed itself to ending austerity and supported this Government’s agenda so that we could address the issues that she raises with me.

I am not sure that Douglas Ross is on his strongest ground—

The specific remark that I made was that a commitment by the Prime Minister to undertake 100 new oil and gas licences without any scrutiny was climate change denial of the first order, and utterly and totally reckless. Those were my words, and I will not have them misrepresented by Douglas Ross.

We have a rational and considered process, which we have argued for, which is that every individual application should be subject to a climate compatibility assessment, because there is a journey that we as a country have to make to reach net zero. That is inescapable.

What is clear from the position that has been taken by the Prime Minister, which has been supported by Douglas Ross and the Conservatives, is that they do not care about the journey on climate; they are not interested in the crisis that we face with the climate emergency. The Scottish Government will take the responsible approach to managing the transition and the challenges of the climate emergency.

I very much welcome the findings from the report, which signals a strengthening of private sector activity in Scotland. It confirms that that activity has expanded for the fifth month running and at the strongest pace in two years.

As Parliament will know, one of the four priorities of the Government is to strengthen the economy, and the Deputy First Minister is leading work, with my support, to advance that within Government. We are taking measures to build on the good work that has been done to encourage the start-up community and further investment is being provided in the scale-up community. We are seeing some of the fruits of that in the success of business, which underpins the very positive information in the purchasing managers index report.

I assure Mr MacDonald of the Government’s continued focus on ensuring that we strengthen economic growth and economic activity, because that is the foundation of good and strong public services in our country.

Mr Sarwar obviously does not understand what he was saying at his press conference on Tuesday. The consequences of his stance will be to reduce public expenditure in Scotland. It is, quite simply, beyond credibility to come here and ask me to invest more money in the national health service, in order to tackle the issues that Mr Sarwar is concerned about, when he wants to cut public expenditure and any prospective incoming United Kingdom Government will also cut public expenditure.

The Scottish Government does not support the building of new nuclear power stations in Scotland. We have abundant natural resources and a highly skilled workforce that enables us to take advantage of the many renewable energy opportunities.

Evidence shows that new nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives. Nuclear energy also creates radioactive waste, which must be safely managed over many decades to protect the environment, and that requires complex and expensive handling. The Scottish Government is supporting continued growth in renewables, storage, hydrogen and carbon capture technologies to drive economic growth, support green jobs and provide secure, affordable and clean energy for Scotland.