Chamber and committees

We will certainly give consideration to that proposal as part of the budget process for the next financial year. Lorna Slater puts to me a substantial proposition that can certainly be considered for the next financial year. We will look at whether the resources are available to support that as part of the whole budgeting process, but I give Lorna Slater the assurance that we will look at that question.

I recognise that Parliament resolved on the issue, but that obviously has to have financial support within the budget. I give her the assurance that the issue will be considered. The finance secretary is engaged in detailed discussions with all political parties in Parliament to secure the passage of the Government’s budget for next year and we look forward to discussion on that, and other questions, with Ms Slater and her colleagues and with other parties in Parliament.

I will go back and look at the parliamentary record of what I have said so far today, but I do not think that I have blamed anybody for anything. Mr Sarwar has blamed the Tories—quite fairly. Actually, to correct the record, I did blame the Tories—I blamed them for 14 years of austerity. That is correct; I agree with Mr Sarwar on that point.

However, let us take a couple of the examples that Mr Sarwar talked about. On schools, when this Government came into office, 63 per cent of pupils in Scotland were educated in good or satisfactory school buildings. That figure is now more than 90 per cent, because this Government did the heavy lifting of investing in the school estate of Scotland.

Yes, there is a housing challenge, and far too many families are living in temporary accommodation, but this Government has presided over more affordable housing being built per head of population than in any other part of the United Kingdom—and, crucially, more than was built when the Labour Party was in government in Scotland before we were. [Interruption.] My dear friend Christine Grahame gives me some prompted comments from the side, which I shall pick up on. The Labour Government that was in power before we came into office was so incompetent that it could not even spend the money that was available to be spent on behalf of the people of Scotland.

We will continue to do what I have always done as a minister: we will deliver careful stewardship of the public finances to deliver for the people of Scotland, we will balance the books and we will deliver value. That is what people get from a Swinney Government.

The Lord Advocate’s view of yesterday’s decision is that it has the potential to transform the way in which all offences, and in particular sexual offences, are prosecuted, and that it will contribute to the

“development of a progressive and humane justice system.”

I welcome any decision that will do so, as, I am sure, all members will. As Audrey Nicoll will recall, I served on the Criminal Justice Committee, under her convenership, last year, and I heard much of the powerful testimony to which she refers. The Government is taking forward the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which commits us to having a trauma-informed justice system that puts victims and witnesses at its heart. We want to ensure that anyone who has been a victim of a sexual crime has confidence in our justice system.

I might need to have further exchanges with Liz Smith to understand exactly the point that she wishes me to address.

Police Scotland must properly and independently conduct a police investigation, and Liz Smith accepts that point. Whatever information Police Scotland wishes to obtain from the Scottish Government, I expect Scottish Government officials and ministers to engage fully and substantively with Police Scotland on that question. If there are any concerns about that, I will happily address them, but my expectation is for the Government to engage in addressing any request for information or assistance from Police Scotland in order to support its independent investigation.

—although there are welcome steps in the budget, there are issues that will prolong the agony of individuals in our society. A Labour Government should address those and right the wrongs that it is presiding over now.

I understand the significance of the issue that Mr MacDonald raises. I am familiar with the Broomhouse area of the city. I grew up very close to Broomhouse, so I know its challenges and circumstances.

The Government attaches great importance to supporting the third sector in the delivery of services and the impact that they can make. I understand that, on this particular issue, decisions have not yet been made by the Edinburgh integration joint board, and that those proposals will be discussed tomorrow.

I stress to Mr MacDonald the importance that the Government attaches to ensuring that we have in place the proper services that will meet the needs of individuals and communities.

I will have to write to Pam Gosal with the definitive answer to that question. During my time as education secretary, with my ministerial colleagues I undertook work on what has become known as the Emily test, in response to the terrible case of Emily Drouet, who was a victim of sexual violence. That approach was rolled out across our higher education sector. I will look carefully at the point that Pam Gosal makes. We must make a range of interventions to ensure that individuals are able to come forward in such circumstances. However, we must also take steps to change the culture among men and their attitudes towards sexual violence. That will have to happen if we are to improve the lives of women in our society.

I do not think that any of us is surprised that Mr Sarwar is so excited in asking his questions in the Parliament today. Let me provide a calming influence in this afternoon’s parliamentary discourse. The budget is a step in the right direction. I accept and welcome that.

The increased funding for this financial year largely accords with the Scottish Government’s expectations with regard to dealing with the issues of pay and inflation pressures, which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has shared with the Parliament.

The funding for next year is welcome. The budget delivers an increase in funding for Scotland as a result of the Barnett consequentials for health and education, but we must be conscious that negative consequentials will arise as a result of the budget’s financial implications for areas such as culture, environment and transport. Therefore, we need to consider the net implication of the budget for Scotland’s public finances.

Significant uncertainty remains about the impact on public spending in Scotland of the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. We have to publish a budget on 4 December, and there is currently uncertainty about whether our finances will be compensated in full for all that is involved in that regard. The cost of the change to national insurance contributions is not an insignificant sum; it is a £500 million question.

We will engage constructively with the United Kingdom Government on those questions. I suppose that my regret comes from the fact that, in the financial estimates that the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out yesterday, she indicated that, over a three-year period, there will be a £10 billion surplus in the budget. That is encouraging, but she was unable to find a single penny to lift the two-child cap, which is forcing families into poverty in our country today, and I deeply regret that.

It is so important that Mr Findlay does not do anything that might mislead Parliament, and it is part of my duty to correct his mistakes when he comes to the chamber.

When it comes to working with Scottish business, I am delighted with the engagement that the Deputy First Minister is taking forward in leading the Government’s approach to investment and dialogue with business. I look forward to discussing those issues when I attend Scottish Financial Enterprise’s annual event tonight in the city of Glasgow. I look forward to discussing the success of the financial sector in the competitive climate that we create in Scotland. That is what business will get from my Government.

Mr Findlay is standing in front of me arguing for a reduction in taxation. The problem with what he and his colleagues bring to the Parliament is that that would involve a reduction in public expenditure.