Chamber and committees

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.

The autumn statement did not do enough to support devolved budgets to address the 41-year-high inflationary pressures that are impacting Scotland’s families, businesses and public services. I have already taken the unprecedented step of making an emergency budget statement to Parliament to reprioritise more than £1.2 billion of expenditure. Although most portfolios were required to make savings in that exercise, ministers took a conscious decision to protect local government, and the funding available to councils actually increased. Despite that, Parliament should be under no illusion that we are facing the most challenging budget circumstances since devolution. I will set out the financial support for local government in the Scottish Government’s budget next Thursday.

The aim of the emergency budget review was to support those who need most help, while also managing the nation’s budget. That meant making hard choices to further prioritise spending and find savings. Many of the difficulties that are facing public finances are the result of the United Kingdom Government prematurely cutting the funding that was intended to support our recovery from the pandemic, despite the Scottish Government warning against that action.

The emergency budget review identified a further £615 million in savings. Those are not decisions that we would wish to make but, in the absence of additional funding from the UK Government, they are decisions that we were compelled to make in order to balance the books this financial year, while prioritising funding to help families, back business and protect the delivery of public services.

I sympathise very much with the point that Mr O’Kane makes about the importance of ensuring that people with long Covid are able to access the support that they require to assist them in their recovery. In some cases, that will involve clinical support; in other cases, it might involve additional assistance that individuals might require to assist them on their journey into employability. I assure Mr O’Kane that the Government is working across portfolios to ensure that we put in place the support that is necessary to assist individuals in their recovery.

To my recollection, the figures that Mr Fraser quotes for the funding that was available are correct. If that funding has not been utilised, it will be made available to meet other budget pressures within the Government. Mr Fraser is familiar with the fact that I am wrestling with the challenge of balancing the budget, so any resources that are not needed for the purposes for which they are allocated are being drawn into the centre so that I can meet funding pressures across the Government.

It is impossible to give Mr Fraser a link between the individual money that was allocated for one fund and the other purposes for which it is being used in the Government—Mr Fraser knows the way in which Government funding works—but I remind Parliament that I am still working to balance the budget this year, because of the significant and corrosive effects of inflation, and because of the public sector pay deals. Parliament was well informed of the challenges that I face by the Auditor General’s statement that was issued last Thursday, which gave a fair and accurate account of the significant challenges that I face in this financial year.

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.

The Scottish Government continues to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities on a regular basis to cover a range of topics, including current and future budget pressures.

I was pleased to meet Councillor Stockan on 31 August during my visit to South Uist, which observers will note is not in Orkney, but it was on the occasion of a meeting with three island authority leaders, which took place on South Uist. I responded to Councillor Stockan’s most recent letter on 21 November, confirming that we will make arrangements to meet again at the earliest opportunity.

I understand and sympathise entirely with the point that Collette Stevenson has advanced. The analysis that the IPPR has provided has demonstrated quite clearly the negative impact of the benefit cap and the two-child limit as being both unjust and unfair.

All Governments must take action to address child poverty issues. As I said in my opening answer, the Scottish Government has introduced the Scottish child payment, which is available only in Scotland—it is not available in any other part of the UK. However, our efforts to lift substantial numbers of children out of poverty would be substantially assisted by the removal of the two-child limit and the benefit cap. That could be of enormous assistance in addressing the issue of child poverty.

Obviously, there are lots of issues to consider in relation to social care reform. As a Government, we look at all the available evidence. A parliamentary process is under way for each committee’s scrutiny of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. The committees will have the ability to consider all manner of questions in relation to social care, and ministers will, of course, listen with care to the evidence that is put forward.