Chamber and committees

Presiding Officer, I will say openly to Parliament what I have said to you privately in the welcome conversation that we have had: at no stage has anybody been authorised on my behalf to brief information—[Interruption.]

The measures that Mr Gibson sets out are encapsulated in the national strategy for economic transformation. The tech scaler programme, which a very successful organisation called CodeBase is taking forward, is part of that, and it will enable a network of tech scalers to assist in the development of new business concepts and ideas in a thriving innovation environment. Those opportunities will be available in all parts of the country, because one of the key points of the national strategy for economic transformation is the necessity for regional economic policy to thrive as a consequence of it.

I also point out that we have given the enterprise agencies stronger settlements than they might have expected in the resource spending review to support that process of economic development.

There are a number of points there. First, the Government has expanded the reliefs that are available to renewable energy projects as part of the non-domestic rates regime.

Secondly, as Mr Fraser knows, valuations for non-domestic rates are undertaken by assessors, who are acting independently of Government and come to their judgments on the basis of the structure of non-domestic rates. Individual organisations who do not agree with the assessors’ decisions have the opportunity to appeal against those valuations, and a due statutory process is in place for those appeals to be undertaken.

The decisions that I have taken today have been about ensuring that our health service has available to it resources to recover from the pandemic and ensure that patient care can be properly addressed. That billion-pound, single-year increase is the largest contribution that the Government can make to help the national health service. It exceeds the Barnett consequentials that are available to us, so it demonstrates our commitment to recovery in the national health service.

Parliament is currently considering the legislation on the national care service. A scrutiny process will be undertaken and it is for Parliament to consider all those issues through the proper process.

On the care sector, I recognise the financial challenges that individuals face, which is why the Government has put so much effort and energy—and resource, I might add—into strengthening the pay deals that are available to individuals in employment in the care service. We will continue to do as much as we possibly can, but the scale of the change that Jackie Baillie talks about would rather force her front bench to get off the fence a little bit about where the money would come from to enable that change to take place.

I am happy to participate in discussion and dialogue with Opposition parties about the budget’s priorities. I have already engaged with Mr Johnson on this question—indeed, I have engaged with all political parties—but we have to establish the ground rule that when people come forward with suggestions that will increase costs in the budget, they also have to tell us where the savings will come from.

I have set out what the perspective looks like in relation to the spending available from the UK Government in future years. It becomes extremely challenging in the later years of the spending review. I have engaged with the UK Government and set out the perspective of the Scottish Government, and we will continue to do that.

In relation to this financial year, I have encouraged the UK Government to recognise the extraordinary inflationary pressures with which we are wrestling. The UK Government has decided not to change the financial position this year, which increases the financial strain with which we are wrestling. I appeal to the UK Government to revisit these issues, which must be causing significant difficulties in UK departments. That call has been echoed by my colleague in the Welsh Government, who has made a similar plea to the UK Government.

I have been very open with the Parliament about the enormous constraints with which we are wrestling in this financial year, which is the first financial year in the history of the Parliament in which inflation has been a particularly significant factor. We have learned about the acute difficulty created by the limitations of our resource borrowing powers, and we have no ability to address the volatility other than by redirecting spending from one programme to another. Obviously, I have had to do that on two occasions.

As I indicated in my statement, I have not yet found a sustainable path for this financial year to fully balance the Scottish Government’s budget. Those are real practical issues. The UK Government has not indicated a willingness to address those questions, but I will continue to make that case to it.

We are taking steps in the budget to ensure that our expenditure focuses on delivering the outcomes that Mr Dey wants to secure. That will be a constant focus of the Government in taking forward the budget and ensuring that the agenda, on which we are making progress, can be intensified in the years to come.

There are two elements of the budget that are relevant in answering the very important question that Fiona Hyslop puts to me. The first is the investment that the Government is making of £50 million to further develop whole-family wellbeing, which is a holistic family-based support programme. We have also allocated £30 million in the budget to support our on-going commitment to the Promise. I hope that those two commitments give Fiona Hyslop, and the care-experienced community in Scotland, confidence in the sustained commitment of the Government to ensuring that we improve the opportunities and life chances of young people who have experience of care in Scotland.

Here we go again. Here we have another Conservative who does not believe in our raising tax to increase the size of the public purse, and who wants us to spend more money on a particular issue however important that policy commitment might be. Let me just—