Chamber and committees

That was an interesting intervention. If the NPF belongs to wider Scotland, we have to ask ourselves how much of wider Scotland is aware of its existence, far less has the opportunity to input. Ben Macpherson made some points on that.

In the previous session of the Parliament, I sat on a cross-party working group that looked at a refresh of the national performance framework. It was chaired by the then finance secretary, Derek Mackay. That discussion was dominated by sectoral interest groups from the third sector, who were all there to lobby for their particular interests. Derek Mackay and I found ourselves unlikely allies in trying to push back against some of that and keep the focus on what should be the core function of Government.

That leads me to the issue of the economy, which Daniel Johnson was talking about a moment ago. It is fundamentally important. I share the view that Craig Hoy and Michelle Thomson expressed, that there needs to be more of a focus on the economy when it comes to the national outcomes. Both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have talked about economic growth as a stated priority. However, there is no mention in the national outcomes of economic growth per se. Instead, the focus is on the wellbeing economy.

That would be fine, thank you. I will try to say what I have to say in another minute.

I will touch briefly on the second question, which is that of performance. There are 81 national indicators; however, as Craig Hoy said, only 61 are actually measurable. As of last year, there was no data available for 11 of those, despite their having been agreed as part of the previous review, in 2018. We cannot measure progress if we do not have the data. Of the 61 indicators, fewer than half show performance improving, and 11 even show worsening outcomes. Three out of eight indicators are worsening in both the fair work and business and health categories, and four out of nine education indicators have no data available.

What this report therefore tells us is that the Government is simply failing either to deliver on its national outcomes or to demonstrate that it is making any serious effort to do so. There are weaknesses here. Is the national performance framework a useful tool? It may be—frankly, the jury is still out on that. However, if we accept that it exists and that it has a purpose, the Government has to do much more to demonstrate that it is trying to meet the very objectives that it has set itself.

To ask the Scottish Government how it supports music venues. (S6O-04153)

Notwithstanding what the cabinet secretary says about the budget, there are very real concerns in the sector about the viability of music venues. The budget gives 40 per cent rates relief but, unlike in England, that is capped at £51,000 of rateable value. That means that one third of venues that are associated with the Music Venue Trust are not eligible for support, including the likes of NiceNSleazy in Glasgow, the Voodoo Rooms in Edinburgh and Hootananny in Inverness, which are getting no support. How will the cabinet secretary, through the budget, secure the future of the venues that are currently feeling the pinch?

Like everybody else, I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for the work that it has done on its report, and I thank the convener for his opening statement. We have heard from a number of committee conveners, but none produce motions as excellent as those of the convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, so I pay tribute to him for that. [Interruption.] Yes, what a sook I am, as somebody just said.

Two key issues underpin the debate. First, what is the purpose of the national performance framework, and are we asking the right questions? Secondly, how does the Scottish Government perform against the questions that it has set for itself? Throughout the debate, we have touched on those issues. It is fair to say, as my friend Craig Hoy said, that this is not the talk of the steamie—nor even of the Tweeddale Arms in Gifford, apparently—but a tool that is used by civil servants and others in the public sector.

Keith Brown raises an interesting question. The economy is a shared competence between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. We, in Scotland, can try to measure the performance of the Scottish economy relative to that of the UK as a whole, but there will be areas that require both Governments to work together. There has been some of that—for example, in relation to city deals, levelling up and the green freeports agenda—but perhaps the area requires a bit more work.

I return to what I was saying about the economy. Michelle Thomson tried to explain what the term “wellbeing economy” means. With respect to her, I have yet to hear a clear definition. Until we have that understanding, we will never be clear about the purpose of economic growth and how it sits within the national performance framework. I am firmly of the view that economic growth is important and is a good in itself, and that creating wealth is a good in itself. That is how we help to eradicate poverty and spread wealth through society. It is disappointing that what should be a key objective of a Government—to drive economic growth—is not covered in the national outcomes. In its report, the committee highlights the fact that many consultation submissions raised concern regarding the omission of explicit references to economic growth.

The committee also called for an effective implementation plan for the national outcomes. If the NPF is to be more than a box-ticking exercise, we need to see a plan for delivery. Those criticisms are not new, having been raised back in 2022. The Government says that it will provide such a plan, but we still have not seen it.

My final point on the first question, about how the framework is drawn up, is about what is not measured. Where, for example, is the measure of efficient use of public resources in Government? Where is the measure of a target for efficiency savings in Government departments? That is commonplace in the private sector, but we do not see it in the public sector.

Am I okay for time, Deputy Presiding Officer?

The cabinet secretary needs to work a bit harder on her pre-scripted gags, given the response from the chamber.

On the issue of welfare spending, surely we should not be happy about presiding over exponentially expanding welfare spending, year after year, when we should be getting people off welfare and into work. That is what this Government should be doing.

Is Mr Marra not a little bit embarrassed that he represents a party that has slashed the winter fuel allowance for the most vulnerable group of people in our society—pensioners? What a brass neck Mr Marra has.

I am sorry, but I have taken a number of interventions and I am going to run out of time.

Allan Henderson, the owner of Aberdeen’s McGinty’s Group, said that the sector had been “completely shafted” by the policy. Paul Waterson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association warned that larger licensed premises were wondering whether they could now survive. As both Craig Hoy and Douglas Lumsden reminded us, the finance secretary had £145 million in Barnett consequentials from the policy. How much of that did she pass on? She passed on £22 million—less than one fifth of the sum available to her. Even if she could do it for only one year, what a boost that would be to struggling hospitality businesses.

The anger does not stop there. Donald Macaskill of Scottish Care could not have been more outspoken in his response to the budget when he said:

“This is a budget that kills. It will kill any reassurance that the Scottish Government truly values social care, and it will kill essential community services which are forced to close and leave workers without employment. But ultimately, it will kill people.”

Where has all the money gone? Certainly, public sector workers have had above-inflation pay rises without any expectation of increased productivity. There has been substantial growth in the welfare budget—it is up £800 million—with the Scottish Fiscal Commission calculating that Scotland now pays out £1.3 billion more in benefits than it did prior to the devolution of welfare. That is before the additional cost of scrapping the two-child benefit cap, should that ever come in.

We as a nation cannot go on paying out more and more in welfare payments. We have to get people off welfare and into work. There are far too many people of working age claiming benefits who should be contributing to the economy. That is why we are unapologetic in saying that we want the overall welfare budget to be reduced.

Our alternative approach, as Scottish Conservatives, would give more support to Scottish pensioners, with winter fuel payments; more support for hard-working families, with cuts in income tax; and more support for struggling Scottish hospitality businesses, with 40 per cent rates relief for retail, leisure and hospitality and specific 100 per cent rates relief for hospitality for the coming year, recognising the serious pressures that are affecting that industry.

I was intrigued to see last week the Deputy First Minister, who is not in the chamber for the debate but has the economy in her brief—[Interruption.]

Oh, she is here now—I welcome her. I was intrigued to see her telling a business breakfast that it was up to the Opposition in this Parliament to push for a more business-friendly budget. I might have thought that that was her job in government, but we are very happy to assist. That is why today we are proposing real support for business, real support for households and real support for pensioners. That is what is covered in our motion, and I commend it to Parliament.

I am really surprised that Michelle Thomson, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, does not understand what “in real terms” means. The Scottish Government’s budget has nearly doubled in real terms since devolution was established.

Of course, the block grant is only one component of the overall budget. The other determining factor is the receipts from the devolved taxes—principally from income tax—and those are lower than they should be. According to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the SNP’s failure to grow our economy over the past year has cost the Scottish budget a staggering £634 million. Had we seen economic growth and wages match those of the rest of the UK, we would have had that money to spend on public services. That is why we make no apology for saying that our focus needs to be on growing the economy to at least match the level of average UK growth.