Chamber and committees

I warmly congratulate Jenni Minto on bringing this vitally important debate to the chamber, and on the tone that she has set with her very moving speech.

We all have our part to play on this issue. I actually witnessed the life-saving capacity of rural defibrillators when one member of my constituency staff suffered a cardiac arrest in a rural part of Perthshire. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the village had not had a defibrillator to hand, that colleague would not have survived. The office that Murdo Fraser and I share is part of the building for the Scotland’s Charity Air Ambulance team, and I know just how much they appreciate all the work that is done.

Now more than ever, we are so aware of what our healthcare services do for us, and of just how precious the principles of the national health service are, given that it meets the needs of everyone on the basis of clinical need. We are also so aware of the work that the exceptional NHS staff undertake; we must also include in that the work of all those who look after our rapid-response ambulance teams and all those who are involved in campaigning for defibrillators. In addition, it is important to compliment, as Christine Grahame did, the members of our local communities who are so much a part of this very important campaign.

Every year, more than 3,000 people suffer an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but if you are one of those 3,000 and you live in a rural area, you are 32 per cent less likely to survive than others. People from more deprived areas are 60 per cent less likely to survive to be discharged than those from less deprived areas. There is a responsibility on us all to ensure that no matter where people are, we are able to respond to any out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

It is good to hear that, in the past five years, the Save A Life for Scotland partnership has equipped more than 640,000 people with the necessary skills for resuscitation. It is vital that we continue to train people on how to react, but we also need to ensure that defibrillator equipment is readily available and, just as importantly, that it is properly maintained. As Christine Grahame and Jenni Minto flagged up, information on where defibrillators are located is crucial. I whole-heartedly support the provision of more defibrillators, and I was delighted to hear that, in November, the Rattray community became the latest in the Perth and Kinross area to install a new defibrillator.

However, there are challenges, such as to ensure that the yearly monitoring, which is so important, actually happens, that parts-replacement costs can be met, that the location of the devices can be made more consistent, and that we can support our local communities. We know that in Wales, the Government has pledged £3 million to improve public access to defibrillators. As Jenni Minto rightly pointed out, we in Scotland could do a little more to ensure that there is further outreach.

In 2015, only around one in 20 people survived an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Thankfully, that statistic is now a little better—it is one in 10—but the survival rate is still too low. I therefore welcome the progress that we have made, the increased chance of survival and the continued installations of defibrillator equipment across the entirety of Scotland. However, we still have a long way to go to ensure that people’s lives are fully protected. We need not just to ensure that clinical assistance is provided, but to take responsibility and ensure that our local communities are very well prepared and know exactly what to do. As MSPs, we all have a part to play in helping that process. I warmly thank Jenni Minto once again for the debate, and I will do my part to ensure that we give that support.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement, and I thank Labour for advance sight of its questions.

The cabinet secretary is a fair-minded person, but I am astonished that she has not at least acknowledged that, for this budget, she has at her disposal record block grant funding from Rishi Sunak and the UK Government. That funding is up by 10.6 per cent, proving the benefit of Scotland being part of a strong United Kingdom, which is needed now more than ever as we battle our way out of the prolonged pandemic.

The Scottish Conservatives were clear that the focus of the budget should be twofold: supporting our public services coming out of Covid-19 and accelerating our economic recovery. Those two goals are not separate. Each relies on the other and, achieved together, they will secure the wellbeing of Scottish jobs, companies and families into the future. In that respect, we welcome the doubling of the child payment, which we had called for.

We had called for it.

I can keep a straight face.

We understand that budgets are about choices, and in the lead-up to today’s statement, we made choices that show that it is possible to balance support for public services and the move to net zero with the protection of jobs and stimulating economic growth.

Such is our concern on the back of what businesses were telling us, we wanted the Scottish National Party to extend 75 per cent rates relief to customer-facing businesses in the next financial year. That would be worth £631 million to businesses. We therefore think that businesses will be disappointed by today’s budget statement. Why is there no commitment to a clear programme for long-awaited structural reforms to the Scottish economy, especially the reform of non-domestic rates, as called for by Liz Cameron and Scottish Chambers of Commerce? Why is there no commitment to greater investment in skills and the digital infrastructure, as called for by business organisations and colleges and universities, all of which will play leading roles in securing Scotland’s future economic success?

Secondly, we wanted to ensure that money goes to front-line health services in the care sector, which clearly has significant resource issues. Scotland is set to receive £2.1 billion in healthcare consequentials and, although £1.2 billion in consequentials is coming to local government, there is clearly a real-terms cut to local government in the budget. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can explain what that choice means and whether the local authorities will have the autonomy to spend the money that is going to local government as they choose.

Thirdly, we will reject any attempt by the SNP, whether now or in later budgets, to backtrack on its £2.2 billion commitment to upgrade the road network, including the dualling of the A9 and A96, which are important for connectivity and economic growth and provide a much-needed lifeline for our rural communities, many of which suffered disproportionately during the pandemic. After all the confusion that we have seen in recent weeks, and the absence of clarity in today’s statement, can the cabinet secretary tell us when those two upgrades will be completed?

We will measure all the announcements in the budget against the essential test of whether they will assist efforts to protect jobs and families, and safeguard our economy. The budget process is a chance for the Scottish Government to put aside party-political priorities and act in the national interest. That will be the test of whether this budget delivers for Scotland.

To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made in 2021 to adopt greener bus transport across Scotland. (S6O-00503)

Mr Dey is well aware that improving bus and train transport is absolutely key in persuading the public to go green rather than relying on extensive use of their cars. What is Mr Dey’s reaction to the fact that First Bus has cancelled altogether the X53 service from Stirling to St Andrews and that Stagecoach has reduced the X56 service between Perth and Edinburgh, both of which are causing constituents across Mid Scotland and Fife serious inconvenience?

How easy is it to understand whether the labour market problems have been caused by Brexit or by people not being willing—rather than not having the right skills—to take up the available jobs? How easy is it to drill down on that?

Professor Bean made some interesting comments in reference to the impending meeting with the MPC and what is focusing minds on inflation and, specifically, its causes. How easy is it to use economic data to home in on the cost-push factors in inflation and on demand-led inflation? In previous meetings on the economy, people have spoken to us about cost-push inflation being very strong.

That is very interesting. In Scotland, there has been a significant problem in specific sectors such as hospitality and tourism, so I was interested in how such issues are measured.

My final questions are about the chancellor’s budget. He made the decision to be a bit more demand led—in other words, he wanted to ensure that public spending was at a higher level than it might have been—and to increase some taxes. Has the budget led to some increase in the demand side of the economy? Is it having an impact on inflationary pressure?

Would it be correct to assume, therefore, that, because of some of the blockages in the system that you mentioned earlier—specifically, the tightness in the labour market and employers not being able to fill some of the available jobs—your understanding is that the expectation factor may be increasing?