Chamber and committees

Willie Rennie is familiar with the fact that I, too, have constituents who are affected by the issue. I engage with them in my constituency capacity.

On the question of engagement with Police Scotland, what I said to Liz Smith was an attempt to be helpful in that respect. I would expect the Government to provide Police Scotland with whatever information it is looking for in relation to its inquiries. If there are deeper anxieties, I am happy to meet Willie Rennie, Liz Smith and any other members who wish for me to intervene on the question. I am happy to do so if there are any outstanding issues following my answers today.

Mr Sarwar is very, very excited today. I have the sense that he doth protest too much. There are many welcome measures in the budget. I am particularly pleased that a reliable source of funding is being made available for the victims of the infected blood scandal—both those affected and infected—because I have constituents who have demonstrated tenacious leadership in ensuring that that injustice was corrected. I think of my constituent Bill Wright whenever I think of this issue. I am very pleased—and it is to its credit—that the Labour Government has done that.

There are many welcome measures in the budget. For example, I argued that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to change the fiscal rules. During the election period, she said that she would not do that, but I have obviously been very persuasive in getting her to change the fiscal rules so that we can get more investment—the very investment that Mr Sarwar talked about. It is important to invest in our infrastructure and our housing stock and to ensure that this country’s competitiveness is enhanced by that investment.

I welcome all those things. However, Mr Sarwar will have to try to convey some of his enthusiasm to people other than me—people who are living in poverty and the children of families who will move into poverty because the two-child cap has not been lifted. The Resolution Foundation estimates that, by next April, an additional 63,000 children will be affected by the failure to lift the two-child cap. There will be pensioners who have lost their winter fuel payment who will not be greeting with enthusiasm the points that Mr Sarwar is making.

Mr Sarwar has to recognise that—

Russell Findlay misconstrues the remarks that I am making. It is up to the Labour Party to defend its position.

I will set out my analysis of the horror show that the Conservatives have inflicted on this country through their management of the economy for the past 14 years. It is an absolute horror show that the Conservatives have inflicted on our public services, on working people in this country, on people with any vulnerability and on anybody who is paying a mortgage. Every one of them has been punished by the incompetence of the Conservative Government. Mr Findlay—I know that he does not like this—was one of those who told me that I had to follow in Liz Truss’s footsteps. Thank goodness I never did that in any of my decisions.

I say to Russell Findlay that we have taken decisions to increase tax in Scotland because we wanted to invest in our public services. That investment has improved our public services to meet the needs of people in Scotland. We have faced the reality. If Mr Findlay wants to stand here and defend spending cuts to the people of Scotland, he is welcome to do so. I will not follow in his footsteps.

I have no intention of doing that, because the process has been properly conducted, and information—[Interruption.]

I do not think that it should be a surprise that a Government that, in its policy position, is supportive of renewable energy developments has taken a decision to authorise a renewable energy project.

I agree with the overwhelming majority of what Pauline McNeill has said, if not all of it. I commend Police Scotland for the work that it has done in driving some of the increase in reporting through the very successful “That guy” campaign, which I think is acknowledged across the parliamentary chamber as one of the most effective means of communication.

The Government is still dealing with the implications of the Covid pandemic on the criminal justice system, and we have sought approvals from the Parliament for further extensions. However, we will not seek any further extensions to those arrangements—I give Pauline McNeill that assurance.

Obviously, there are other steps that we can take. Indeed, yesterday, the court of appeal determined on the Lord Advocate’s reference in relation to corroboration, which will obviously have an effect on questions in relation to prosecution.

Mr Brown used a couple of examples that illustrate some of the many remaining challenges that we face. Pensioners have lost their winter fuel payment as a consequence of a decision by the United Kingdom Labour Government, and the persisting maintenance of the two-child cap is forcing more and more children and families into poverty. It is beyond me to understand why, when there is a projected budget surplus in a three-year period, the two-child cap has not been lifted immediately by the UK Government. We were told in the summer to be patient until the UK budget, but we have been patient and the Labour Government has not delivered what people expected.

I recognise the need to increase taxation in the budget and, during the election campaign, I argued that that issue had to be confronted. However, I believe that some of that increase could have come from the UK Government following the Scottish Government’s tax approach in asking people on higher incomes to pay more in taxation, which could have generated about £20 billion in increased revenue and avoided some of the punishing business taxes that have been applied, particularly to the Scotch whisky industry and other sectors of the Scottish—[Interruption.]

I understand the significance of the point that Mr Halcro Johnston raises. I am concerned about the delayed discharge situation, especially in Highland, where it is particularly acute. The proposed closure that Mr Halcro Johnston raises will only exacerbate that situation, so it would be moving things in the wrong direction. The Government has engaged substantively. The health secretary, along with the Deputy First Minister in her local representative capacity, have been engaged in those discussions, and all possible options have been explored by the Government. I understand that the issue that Mr Halcro Johnston puts to me is being considered by Highland Council today. The Government stands ready and willing to engage on finding a solution, because the impact of the proposed closure would mean matters moving in entirely the opposite direction to the one that I want to see happening.

Some weeks ago, I had a discussion in Stornoway with an organisation that provides support and care to patients who require access to cancer treatment—the name is not at the front of my mind just now—about the substantive challenges that Rhoda Grant has raised with me regarding the practicalities of accessing hospital treatment from the islands when a sustained period of care is required.

I give Rhoda Grant the assurance that the health secretary and the transport ministers are looking closely at the situation to ensure that we are providing all the support that we can so that individuals who require to access healthcare needs are able to do so, regardless of their location.

Earlier this year, information was released under freedom of information requests that showed that there had been no breaches of protocol.

I really do not think that it is a big surprise that a Government that has had a consistent policy position for 17 years in favour of renewable energy development should take a decision to grant consent to a renewable energy development. What the question represents is the grubbing at the bottom of a barrel by Douglas Lumsden and the Conservatives. It debases this Parliament, it debases the Conservative Party and it shows that it has nothing constructive to say in Scottish politics.