Chamber and committees

I begin by recognising Miles Briggs’s opening remarks, in which he generously welcomed James Dornan to the chamber. I associate myself very much with that welcoming back of James Dornan to the chamber. Miles Briggs did so in the spirit of generosity that is necessary and appropriate in a Parliament, and frankly, we need a bit more of that in this Parliament. I commend Miles Briggs for that welcome, and add my words of welcome to James Dornan. It is lovely to see him back in the parliamentary chamber.

There are a few points of detail, if I can put it as mildly as that, that I would like to correct in the statements that have been made by colleagues. Douglas Lumsden mustered up the motivation to say that he would have to vote against the budget because of the cut that has been made to the men’s shed movement. I assure Parliament that the men’s shed movement has been offered the same amount of funding in the next financial year that it was given in this financial year, so there is no cut there. Mr Lumsden has just lost one of his reasons for voting against the budget.

The second reason that Mr Lumsden gave was about the condition of school buildings. When the Government came to office in 2007, 63 per cent of pupils in Scotland were being taught in good or satisfactory buildings. That is from the school estate survey. I remember the former Presiding Officer lecturing me in 2007 when he was a Labour spokesperson that “not a brick”—those were his words—would be built by the SNP under our school building programme. Now, more than 90 per cent of school pupils are being educated in good or satisfactory school buildings. That removes another excuse from Douglas Lumsden about his ability to support the budget at decision time.

A number of members have commented on the situation in relation to funding for culture and the arts. In particular, I refer to Sarah Boyack, who tried to intervene on me on that point in the stage 1 debate—I was unable to take her intervention. The difficulty that arts and cultural organisations face is a perfect storm. There are challenges in the public finances, in lottery income and in relation to the purchasing of tickets and financial support to cultural organisations because of the cost of living crisis. Those are all coming together.

I have to be candid with Parliament: the Government cannot solve all those challenges. That is why I have intervened to the extent that I have today. No cut has been made to arts and cultural organisations in the Government’s budget. We have asked Creative Scotland to use its reserves to provide stability, but we have put in new money to ensure that those reserves can be used to enhance provision and provide some respite in the perfect storm that the arts and cultural organisations are experiencing. The Government will continue to act in that fashion wherever we can.

I am grateful to Liz Smith for giving way for a second time. I am interested in her economic thinking because I think that the quickest way to grow an economy is to grow the population. That would be helped if we had a more sympathetic migration regime. Just now, every sector that I speak to in the business community complains about the lack of people because of the restrictions of Brexit. When are the Conservatives going to sober up and recognise that migration is the problem that is undermining economic growth in our society?

I am grateful to Mr Briggs for his recognition of the substance of my point about the need for a more collaborative arrangement. I made that proposition in the budget statement in December, and I followed it up with dialogue with council leaders. I put on record my and the Government’s willingness to engage in that proposition to ensure that we meet the financial challenges by having a more collaborative approach to addressing the issues.

I would love to take an intervention from Christine Grahame.

It is there as the Government’s contribution to the existing offer that has been put on the table to local authorities.

Mr Fraser can bang on all that he wants about the teachers’ pay deal, but what suggestion is he offering today about how much money we should put on the table for that deal and where that should come from? Essentially, Mr Fraser has spent £1 billion this afternoon and he has not come up with one sentence about where the money would come from.

Mr Fraser has the brass neck to talk about leadership elections. He has failed in every Conservative Party leadership election that he entered, just like he has failed in every election to try to defeat me in Perthshire North, where I have beaten him every time. [Interruption.]

Has Liz Smith not read the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s report on the budget and the tax projections? That makes clear that the projected income earnings growth in Scotland over the next five years is a source of great encouragement. Why cannot the Conservatives welcome that as an indication of the progress that is being made here in Scotland?

Much of that gets to the heart of the choices that this Government has made in the budget. In approving the budget, the Government believes that we are investing in Scotland now and in the future. The budget has been created in partnership with our colleagues in the Scottish Green Party and this Government’s decisions have created a tax and benefit system in Scotland that is considerably more progressive than that in the rest of Great Britain.

Presiding Officer,

“Scottish reforms to the income tax and benefit system are set to raise the incomes of households with children by around £2,000 per year on average.”

I say to Jackie Baillie that those are not my words; those are the words of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies. They are a vindication of the policy decisions that we have taken to advance that agenda.

Anyone who votes against the budget today is voting against the substantial steps that this Government has taken to use the powers of this Parliament to make Scotland a more progressive country.

As we conclude the 2023-24 Budget (Scotland) (No 2) Bill process, I have reflected carefully on points that have been raised in Parliament and by a range of organisations, and have recognised the financial challenges that are faced at this time by individuals, households, businesses, the third sector and the public sector. I am also aware of the challenges that are faced as we manage our way through the cost crisis. The budget is designed to do as much as possible to assist, at this most difficult moment.

None of this is easy. This is by far the hardest budget process that I have led, with the effects of raging inflation being felt against the impact of more than a decade of austerity and Barnett funding having come down by 5 per cent in real terms since 2021-22.

I have been open and transparent with Parliament on the budget challenges that we are managing for the current financial year and the forthcoming financial year. On 7 February, I indicated to the Finance and Public Administration Committee that the 2022-23 budgetary position continues to improve; I am now confident of the path to balance for this financial year. That is the result of careful budget management and of taking hard decisions in order to live within our means, despite the ferocious pressures that are being created by high inflation.

I can report to Parliament two changes to our funding position that have enabled me to take further steps to increase commitments that were made in the draft budget. The first of those changes is that it has been confirmed by His Majesty’s Treasury that we will receive £125 million of additional funding as a result of Barnett consequentials arising from the United Kingdom supplementary estimates. Secondly, I expect to receive an additional £21 million for 2023-24 due to the correction of an error in our UK spending review allocation.

Christine Grahame is a wise and thoughtful member of Parliament, so I would not have thought that she would be so surprised by the Conservatives’ lack of reaction to the news of the Scottish child payment.

The decisions in the budget are designed to support people who are facing difficulty; to support businesses to make their way through the challenging transition to net zero that is required; and to ensure that our public services can meet the needs of the public. These are difficult decisions in difficult economic times. The budget that has been set out to Parliament enables us to invest in our public services to ensure a strong boost to local authority funding and to ensure that we help those who need it the most.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Budget (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill be passed.

I ask Liz Smith to clarify the point that she has just made about the Scottish Conservatives’ support for the Scottish child payment. Does that mean that the Scottish Conservatives are going to vote for the budget? Unless they vote for the budget, the Scottish child payment will not happen. [Interruption.]

I set out in my earlier remarks that £33 million is coming from this year’s budget. That money is available because I have taken decisions to enable me this year to balance the budget for this financial year, which has been extremely difficult. It has enabled me to free up, from within budget reductions that I have made and have required my colleagues to sign up to, £33 million this year to put into the teachers’ pay deal. That is where the money has come from in this financial year; it is there because I have forced my colleagues to take hard decisions.

The Government is allocating from the existing budget provision for next year a further £123 million to be made available to support the measure. The passing of the budget bill today is necessary to enable that money to be put on the table, so I hope that there is no mucking about and that members vote in favour of the budget that I am putting in front of Parliament for consideration.