Chamber and committees

First, I make it clear to Mr Fraser—I thought that my original answer had done so, but I will say it again just to make sure that I can make an impact on his presentation of all of this—that £900 million of the underspend reported by the Auditor General relates to non-cash and ring-fenced budgets that the Government cannot spend on other items. It is in relation to annually managed expenditure, which is in the control of the UK Government, and student loan support, which can only be used for student loan support on a demand basis and we cannot redirect it to anywhere else. Those are basic points—really, really basic points—about the public finances, which I would have thought that Mr Fraser might have understood, given the length of time that he has been in this institution.

We assumed, when the budget was passed in the spring, that £450 million would be carried forward into this financial year. That had risen to £550 million by March. I assure Mr Fraser that the underspend that was reported does not represent a loss of spending power in any respect by the Scottish Government.

I agree with that point. The Government has increased local authority funding to the tune of 23 per cent since 2013-14. We have treated local authorities fairly. There is a real-terms increase in local authority funding of 6 per cent in the budgets from last year into this. We do all that we can within the resources available to us to ensure that local government is properly funded.

I am familiar with that report, and I am considering it as I come to take the final decisions in relation to the tax choices that the Government will make and set out to the Parliament next Thursday.

I should make it clear to Katy Clark that, in this financial year, the Government’s budget is fixed; once we have set our tax rates, they cannot be revisited during a financial year. Unless there are consequential decisions taken by the UK Government during a financial year, our budget is locked in. That is the difficulty that I am wrestling with in relation to finding adequate resources to fund the pay claims that we are facing during this financial year.

There is a hard limit on the money that is available this year. Katy Clark raises a completely legitimate set of issues about future tax choices, but, for this financial year, the budget is fixed.

Mr Kidd raises a topical point in relation to the mismanagement of the public services. At the Finance and Public Administration Committee this morning, the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility revealed that there would be an extra £40 billion-worth of debt due to the fiscal mismanagement of the Conservative Government during the course of the past few weeks. That is £40 billion-worth of debt with which we will all be saddled by 2027-28. There is no escaping the financial implications of that for us and our citizens, and the Government’s budget will be constructed to try to address those issues.

However, Mr Kidd can be assured that the Government is giving every attention to the challenges that he raises in his question. We will do all that we can to address the cost of living challenges that are faced by members of the public the length and breadth of our country.

In relation to Covid spending, the Government has spent in excess of the Covid consequentials that have been allocated to us. There was another comment of the Auditor General that Mr Fraser did not cite. He said:

“My independent audit opinion is unqualified. This means in my opinion, I am content the Scottish Government Consolidated Accounts show a true and fair view, following accounting standards, and that the income and expenditure for the year is lawful.”

I would have thought that that would be quite reassuring for Mr Fraser, as a law-abiding citizen, and would provide confidence that, not for the first time, the Government’s accounts have attracted an unqualified opinion. We have had unqualified opinions for our accounts for every single year that the Scottish National Party Government has been in office. That should be a source of great reassurance to Mr Fraser.

On the point about transparency, the Auditor General said:

“The Scottish Government has continued to strengthen aspects of its governance arrangements during 2021/22.”

We will of course consider all the recommendations of the Auditor General as we take forward our accounting practices.

I recognise the gravity of the financial challenge. I am faced by that every day in wrestling with the Scottish Government’s budget just now. I am dealing with the profound implications of inflation, public sector pay and energy costs, and those implications will be felt by public bodies the length and breadth of the country. Last week—I think that it was on Friday—I met COSLA leaders to hear their views on the Scottish Government’s budget, and my officials followed up that discussion on Friday with supplementary discussions. As I said in my earlier answer, I will set out the financial support for local government in the Scottish Government budget next week.

As Mr Griffin will know, when I set out my first budget to Parliament in 2007, I took decisive action to reduce ring fencing. I acknowledge that ring fencing has come back into a number of areas, but that is largely to assure the Government and, indeed, the Parliament that expenditure that is decided on in Parliament is deployed by local authorities on particular policy priorities. That applies particularly to the challenges that we face in relation to social care, where the Government is allocating substantial additional revenue. However, delayed discharges are at their highest level in our hospitals today, and that is a result of issues in the social care system. Therefore, there are tough issues to be wrestled with here.

Mr Griffin cited the letter from the directors of finance and the point on ring fencing. Another point that the directors of finance made to me, and which is part of the dilemma that we all face, is that they asked for the Barnett consequentials from the United Kingdom Government to be targeted to support the vital services that local government provides.

If I followed that, no extra money would be given to the health service, and I do not for a minute believe that that is what Mr Griffin wants. I have to take a balanced position. I cannot do everything that is asked of me in the letter, because it would be impractical to do so and would starve the health service of resources, and I do not think that anyone in Parliament wants that to be the case.

For all the reasons that I set out in my last supplementary answer to Mr Griffin, the national care service is an important reform to ensure that we can make progress in addressing the challenges, which I think that all parties are agreed on, in the delivery of social care in Scotland. Therefore, the Government will take forward those proposals. They are the subject of consultation and dialogue. We are listening very carefully to what parliamentary committees say in relation to the national care service and we will take forward the steps that the Government has already announced.

I am sorry that Mr Lumsden takes that view, having read the terms of reference. I answered a parliamentary question on that from Jackie Baillie, if my memory serves me correctly, and I made clear two points in that answer: first, the inquiry remit is set out to not be prescriptive—in that only the words that are in the remit can be addressed by the inquiry—but rather to create the broadest scope to address the issues that are relevant in relation to Covid; and secondly, in my judgment, the issues relating to long Covid are certainly at the heart of the inquiry remit and should be considered by the inquiry.

It will be for Lord Brailsford to decide independently what evidence he hears and considers, but I would be very surprised if the issue of long Covid was not scrutinised by the inquiry. In my view, the remit is set with sufficient breadth and scope to enable that to be the case.

I hope that that reassures Mr Lumsden.

I cannot give a specific answer to that question because, clearly, that would require me to have knowledge of the transactions of the inquiry. However, in my conversation with Lord Brailsford in the aftermath of my statement to Parliament, in which I announced his appointment, he indicated to me that he was making early preparations to meet bereaved families, and I am certain that that will be the case.