Chamber and committees

Comprehensive data is emerging, some of which I have already shared with the committee during my opening statement and some of which is reflected in the information that I have just put on record in response to Mr Dey’s question. There will be other information—for example, about the number of cases in which individuals have requested a review of Redress Scotland’s determination and the outcome of some of those reviews. I am very confident that there is a broad range of data that will satisfactorily provide the evidence base on which a report can be constructed to address the substance of Mr Greer’s amendment.

There is another dimension that is just as important, if not more so, and it is what we hear from survivors through their feedback. It is, of course, less quantifiable than the data I have just talked about. Nonetheless, it is very important for us to openly acknowledge the feedback from survivors about their experience and for us to decide what we need to do to address that as part of the operation of the scheme. The data and information are there.

It is all very well for the Parliament to pass an amendment that says that there will be a review, but, in the light of this meeting, if the committee wishes to give some input about what it would like to see covered in the review, I would be very happy to consider that to ensure that what we produce in the review addresses the points that are on the minds of committee members.

Definitely.

There is a difficulty there, because it is inevitable that, in the scheme, we will, unfortunately, need survivors to recount what has happened. That is unavoidable and inescapable in the scheme. That will come at a particular moment in the handling of the application, which is why we need to have the right people to properly handle that process with applicants. Regrettably, there is an inevitability about some of that because of the nature of the scheme. We are trying to address things that should never have happened in people’s lives, so that will be traumatic and painful. We try to reduce that to the minimum level possible, but it is an inevitable part of the scheme, unfortunately.

We will gather that information from our dialogue with survivors, and that dialogue is broader than simply the Redress Scotland process, if I can call it that. The discussion about the waiver acknowledges that there will be a group of people who decide that, because of the presence of the waiver, the scheme is not for them. Therefore, for us to provide as complete a picture as we can, we have to be cognisant of what those who are looking at the scheme and coming to the conclusion that it is not for them—because, for example, of the presence of the waiver—are considering about the scheme, and then we must formulate a position that reflects all of that information.

There will be applicants who will consider whether it is appropriate for them to sign the waiver once they see the proposition that comes to them from Redress Scotland, and it is important for us to gather that information and to reflect on that in the progress report that we undertake.

Given that we have completed and passed to Redress Scotland 345 applications, it is quite difficult to draw out patterns of opinions at this stage. Redress Scotland has made 277 redress determinations, and 255 applicants have already made a decision to accept their offer. A period of six months is given to an applicant to consider whether they wish to accept the application, so, according to that data, applicants in 22 cases have not yet decided to accept the offer. I am making an assumption that they are considering whether it is appropriate, and I imagine that the waiver will be part of their considerations.

Given the interest in the answers to those questions, we will endeavour to provide as much detail as we can in the 18-month report about the attitudes and views about the waiver and its significance.

I hope that that reassures the committee that the overwhelming majority of applicants see the proposition that comes to them as something that they are prepared to accept. I appreciate that I am making an assumption, based on that data. We probably have to interrogate applicants’ views and attitudes to conclude on that position.

I am certain that that is the case. I assure the committee that we will explore that issue in the dialogue that we have with survivors.

I have been talking to a particular survivor who has been very helpful in informing many aspects of our approach, but who is wrestling with the very difficult dilemma of whether the scheme is correct for them, given the presence of the waiver. I can think of that one example where that is a very big consideration for the individual. They are making an outstanding contribution to our thinking and development and could not be more helpful, but the waiver is an issue for them on a personal level. I acknowledge that.

With all the available evidence, the extent of the economic damage that is being done by the Brexit that was imposed on Scotland by the United Kingdom Conservative Government is becoming very clear. Among the specific areas in which we are suffering is that of free trade with the European Union. Companies are suffering in that regard, so it would be an advantage for Scotland to be an independent country with the ability to rejoin the EU.

Given the failures in the energy market, the ability to redesign the energy market would be an important attribute for Scotland to have. The ability to use employment laws to ensure fairer work would be an advantage, as would the ability to have a migration policy that was designed to boost our working-age population. That can come only with Scottish independence, given the UK Government’s hostility to such approaches.

Mr MacDonald correctly highlights the severe economic damage that is being caused by Brexit and the opportunities that Scottish independence would give to create much more fiscal flexibility for the Government in Scotland.

I have not yet met with the current chancellor and I did not have the opportunity to meet with either of his two predecessors. I last met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 November, after the United Kingdom autumn statement.

Happy new year to you, convener, and to members of the committee and its parliamentary staff.

When I set out the budget in December, I indicated that it was a particularly challenging one to construct. We are managing a range of unprecedented circumstances due to volatility from global factors, the impact of inflation and the cost of living crisis, and the consequences of the September fiscal statement from the United Kingdom Government.

Across the Government, through the emergency budget review in this financial year, we have taken difficult decisions that have resulted in a total of £1.2 billion of reductions in public expenditure, which has allowed us to meet the costs of increased public sector pay and to provide further help to people who have been most impacted by the cost of living crisis. I am still working to ensure that we can forge a path towards balancing this year’s budget, and have applied the assumption that there will be no carryover of resources into next year’s budget from this year.

In developing my approach to the 2023-24 Scottish budget, I have taken the necessary steps to continue to maximise the Scottish Government’s support for people in Scotland during the cost of living crisis. The pressures on this budget cannot be overstated. We have chosen to act to do everything in our power to deliver for the people of Scotland. We are confronting the challenges that we face by increasing taxation for those who are most able to pay, to enable additional investment to be made in the national health service at this critical time. With this budget, we are choosing to invest in Scotland and focus on eliminating child poverty, prioritising a just transition to net zero and investing in our public services.

I welcome the opportunity to meet the committee to discuss the Scottish budget in more detail and to assist in its scrutiny process.

It is not for me to explore or explain the numbers from SPICe. I have put forward the Government’s numbers and our assessment, which we have made in a transparent way. That indicates a number of points.

First, the impact of inflation can be viewed and judged in a variety of ways. If I recall correctly, when I was last at the committee, I was asked whether I would use the GDP deflator and I indicated that I would, because that was important for consistency in the way in which budget documentation is presented. Having said that, what the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Fiscal Commission said to the committee is accurate. The GDP deflator is a measure of comparative effect from year to year, but the effects of inflation will present themselves in a variety of ways to different aspects of the public services and public finances. Although the numbers that I present are underpinned by the GDP deflator, I cannot ignore the fact that, in reality, the ability or capacity to spend is eroded by the effect of inflation.

On the details of the numbers in the budget, the budget documentation clearly shows that, between 2021-22 and 2023-24, there is a real-terms fall of 3.2 per cent in the Barnett resource funding that the Government has available to it. We have taken steps in the budget to address some of that impact. Through the decisions that we have taken on tax, we have tried to overcome some of the effect of the erosion of the contents of our financial settlement and the capacity to spend as a consequence of the effect of inflation.