Chamber and committees

They are two slightly different numbers. The £1.7 billion is, in essence, the erosion of the value of our expenditure. The £700 million is hard money; it is money that has to be found.

On Pam Duncan-Glancy’s first observation, I take a very different view about the constitutional arguments, because I think that they are central to the dilemmas that I face. The analysis that Emma Roddick put to me about the ability of the Scottish Parliament to exercise the full range of powers is absolutely correct—for example, yesterday the Irish Government set out a diametrically different budget—

I was not talking about those organisations; I was talking about members of the Scottish Parliament. Members of the Scottish Parliament have hard choices to make, and it is, frankly, not much use for members to complain about the choices that I have made without giving me alternatives.

I have been completely transparent with Parliament. There was, for example, no obligation on me to come to Parliament on 7 September with a statement about the financial position and setting out the range of changes: I could have just done it all in the background, in an autumn budget revision. There is very little public commentary about autumn budget revisions, so I could have just done that, but I did not. I came to Parliament openly and transparently and shared the problem and my view of the solution. It is then incumbent on members, if they do not like the solutions that I have come up with, to tell me how I should do it differently.

In the process, I will engage with all manner of groups, and I am very happy to listen to them, but, with respect, I have not seen a scintilla of an alternative in terms of what I should be doing.

There were a number of interesting points in that. The Government acted with great urgency and speed to try to distribute funding support, because we recognised the gravity of the crisis that was faced with Covid.

I have read the Audit Scotland report on the funding. On the one hand, it was complimentary about how swiftly the Government moved. That is certainly feedback that I have had from many businesses in my constituency, which have told me that they would not be in business today had the Government not acted so quickly.

That was contrasted by the understandable demand for there to be proper governance around the arrangements. We have to be open about the fact that there is a challenge about the necessity to act with speed, to save businesses, and the necessity to have in place absolutely every check and balance that we would require to have.

Audit Scotland’s assessment of inappropriateness in the distribution of finances in Covid business support was that, in essence, it was of a minimal level. That cannot be said for all funding across the United Kingdom, and there is huge concern from the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons about these issues and the Westminster Government.

There is a difficult balance to be struck, but I assure Mr Halcro Johnston that the Government has approached the issue with the imperative of supporting businesses when they needed that assistance, and to do that as quickly as possible.

In my answer to Mr FitzPatrick, I pointed out that Dundee City Council had received £27.8 million more in funding from the Government than it did in 2021-22. That is in addition to the £50 million of Covid-19 funding that is being provided through the local government settlement.

The Government has been providing substantial support to local government and, in recent weeks, we have provided additional in-year support to enable the local government pay deal to be settled. The Government’s making available those new, additional resources shows that it is doing its level best by local authorities in Scotland.

Yesterday, I set out to Parliament the very significant concerns that the Scottish Government has about the measures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on Friday. The concerns that were set out to Parliament yesterday by ministers have been amplified by yesterday’s intervention by the International Monetary Fund, the commentary from ratings agencies and today’s intervention by the Bank of England, which demonstrate that the announcements that were made on Friday were foolish and very damaging, and that they are causing significant financial volatility for the UK. That will have an effect on householders and the public finances into the bargain.

The impacts of inflation are affecting businesses across Scotland and have been exacerbated by the United Kingdom Government’s recent announcements, which have seen the pound fall to record lows, and the additional uncertainty that we have seen today.

That comes on top of Brexit. In the most recent business insights and conditions survey, 46 per cent of the businesses that are experiencing exporting challenges said that the end of the European Union transition period is the main cause.

The Scottish Government has engaged extensively with business and supports its calls to the United Kingdom Government for action. However, last week’s mini-budget gives tax cuts for the rich and little for households and businesses that are struggling to pay bills.

I do not think that I am at liberty to respond in detail to that question, but I will take advice and, if I am at liberty to do so, I will respond further to Mr Halcro Johnston in writing.

That is a difficult factor to calculate, given the various scenarios that could take place, but I reassure Mr Johnson that the Government has in place arrangements that ensure that all of the payments that are required to be made to the Government are up to date and the asset value of the Lochaber venture is in excess of any liability that could be created in the scenario that Mr Johnson raises in relation to that individual site.

In my response to the urgent question from Graham Simpson yesterday, I acknowledged the significance of the issues that were raised in the BBC “Disclosure” programme. Having watched the programme last night, I reiterate my concerns about the issues that it raised. Graham Simpson asked me yesterday what the Government is doing about that, and I responded by indicating that we had taken the step of asking our permanent secretary to raise with Audit Scotland the issues that were put to us at the end of last week. I welcome the statement that the Auditor General for Scotland made yesterday afternoon that Audit Scotland will consider whether further scrutiny work is required. As I confirmed yesterday to Parliament—I hope that this reassures Mr Bibby—the Government, CMAL and Ferguson’s will fully engage with and support any work that Audit Scotland undertakes in that respect.

In relation to the procurement of vessels 801 and 802 and their delivery, I have accepted in Parliament and say again that I accept my share of collective responsibility for the fact that the vessels have not been delivered on time and on budget. I deeply regret that. I regret it for the impact on the reputation of Ferguson’s. I regret it for the impact on islanders, because—again, in relation to Mr Bibby’s points—had the ferries been delivered, we would have had two newer vessels at an earlier stage, providing resilience in the network, which would have given us the ability to have reserve vessels available, in the way that we used to have with the MV Isle of Arran. That would have given us capacity, particularly in the context of winter resilience.