Seòmar agus comataidhean

Labour has let down the Scottish social care sector with its tax on jobs, but does the blame for the worsening crisis in care not rest with John Swinney just as much as it does with Keir Starmer? Since 2021, the care sector has been in limbo, waiting for the national care service, which has swallowed up £30 million that could have been spent to mitigate Labour’s national insurance hikes.

Will the First Minister now take this opportunity to confirm that the national care service is dead and buried, and allow ministers, councils and care providers to focus all their attention and money on the worsening crisis in Scotland’s social care?

The Conservatives will support the motion lodged by Jamie Hepburn, but we do so with some reluctance. I will explain why.

Although we are not opposing this particular set of budget revisions, we have significant concerns about the practices at play here. There are questions to be asked about Government transparency and about whether the Parliament has been able properly to scrutinise the final details of major in-year budget changes. The Scottish Fiscal Commission, Audit Scotland and independent analysts all agree that greater transparency is needed regarding the Scottish Government’s budget revisions, because significant proportions of the original Scottish budget are being transferred in-year between portfolios.

I understand that some in-year revisions were required because of United Kingdom events such as the general election and the timing of the budget. However, the Scottish Government itself also made many changes, and those shifts, mostly from the health and education budgets, are now being propped up by a quick-fix funding boost at the heart of the Government’s finances.

That practice is problematic for two key reasons. It does not allow for sufficient and accurate parliamentary scrutiny of Government spending and it means that this Government appears to be flying by the seat of its pants in funding our public services. Relying on massive in-year transfers means that the figures presented to Parliament in each year’s budget could be construed as being a façade because they do not represent the actual plans, policies and spending intentions of the principal portfolios.

That can mislead the Parliament and the public about the scale and focus of the Government’s plans and priorities. For example, a portfolio such as health and social care can be promoted as having received a big funding uplift while the Government has every intention of re-routing the funding elsewhere.

In summary, we will support the SSI, but questions remain about transparency, scrutiny and the sustainability of the process by which funding is delivered. We have to question whether it is acceptable to move around such significant proportions of public money using only the vehicle of a statutory instrument. We need such questions to be discussed in a wider debate in the Parliament, and I encourage the Government to engage with that process.

The Conservatives will support the motion lodged by Jamie Hepburn, but we do so with some reluctance. I will explain why.

Although we are not opposing this particular set of budget revisions, we have significant concerns about the practices at play here. There are questions to be asked about Government transparency and about whether the Parliament has been able properly to scrutinise the final details of major in-year budget changes. The Scottish Fiscal Commission, Audit Scotland and independent analysts all agree that greater transparency is needed regarding the Scottish Government’s budget revisions, because significant proportions of the original Scottish budget are being transferred in-year between portfolios.

I understand that some in-year revisions were required because of United Kingdom events such as the general election and the timing of the budget. However, the Scottish Government itself also made many changes, and those shifts, mostly from the health and education budgets, are now being propped up by a quick-fix funding boost at the heart of the Government’s finances.

That practice is problematic for two key reasons. It does not allow for sufficient and accurate parliamentary scrutiny of Government spending and it means that this Government appears to be flying by the seat of its pants in funding our public services. Relying on massive in-year transfers means that the figures presented to Parliament in each year’s budget could be construed as being a façade because they do not represent the actual plans, policies and spending intentions of the principal portfolios.

That can mislead the Parliament and the public about the scale and focus of the Government’s plans and priorities. For example, a portfolio such as health and social care can be promoted as having received a big funding uplift while the Government has every intention of re-routing the funding elsewhere.

In summary, we will support the SSI, but questions remain about transparency, scrutiny and the sustainability of the process by which funding is delivered. We have to question whether it is acceptable to move around such significant proportions of public money using only the vehicle of a statutory instrument. We need such questions to be discussed in a wider debate in the Parliament, and I encourage the Government to engage with that process.

Today’s budget was a chance for the SNP to set a new direction on tax and spending. It was an opportunity for John Swinney to undo some of the damage that he has done to Scotland over the past 17 years. However, the budget is just more of the same—inputs, not outputs, and half-hearted attempts to fix the problems that the SNP has created.

The era of high tax and free spending is far from over. Once again, people in Scotland will pay more and get less. [Interruption.]

—but our NHS needs more than money; it needs leadership and a serious plan from the Government. We have set out proposals to reduce bureaucracy so that more can be invested in accelerating treatment on the front line. Will the SNP make those necessary changes, or is its only solution more money, which has not reduced waiting lists one bit to date? Was the Auditor General for Scotland not right when he said that the Government has no vision for the NHS? The Government now has record levels of revenue and tax receipts, but it has no vision for Scotland, for our NHS or for economic growth. In fact, a £33 million cut to the enterprise budget was announced today.

I am pleased that, after years of failing to hand over rates relief to Scotland’s struggling businesses, the SNP has in part met our demand for rates relief for hospitality, but why did it take so long? How many pubs and restaurants have gone to the wall in the interim? Why has retail been left out of the announcement? Hard-pressed householders will also face more pain in the form of council tax rises, as the Government sweeps away the council tax cap to make up for the SNP’s decade and more of underfunding councils.

Our income taxes are still the highest in the UK, so why has the Government not listened to those who warn that Scotland’s high-tax regime and high tax rates are hitting growth? Rather than just tinkering with thresholds, why did the Government not take up the option of reversing its damaging tax increases? Why did the minister not come to the chamber and admit what everyone else in Scotland can see—that the SNP’s experiment of hitting Scotland with higher taxes has failed monumentally?

Thanks to the SNP, workers and businesses will pay more in tax, only for that money to be wasted by SNP ministers who let public services decline.

What a boast it was today to say that, under a new policy, people will have a 12-month wait for an in-patient or out-patient appointment in our NHS. That is a scandal, and John Swinney’s fingerprints are all over it.

The SNP’s economic mismanagement has held Scotland back. Is it not the reality that the only growth in the economy is in the size of the SNP Government and the scale of the black hole at the heart of its finances? The reality is that we are paying a heavy price for years of SNP waste on ferries, gender reforms, failed independence bids and a national care service that has already cost the nation £30 million.

The benefits bill, which will rise by a further £800 million, is out of control because the Government cannot get people back into work. NHS waiting lists are so long that sick people are staying sick. The budget confirms that the SNP has wrecked public services. John Swinney is out of ideas, and his Government is running out of time.

The NHS is on its knees and needs urgent reform, so we welcome today’s budget increase for healthcare—[Interruption.]

The minister has been in politics long enough to know that politics is about prioritisation, and that is exactly what we are talking about here today. We are talking about making the benefit uplift mandatory for all devolved benefits now and into future years, thereby binding the hands of current and future ministers and members of the Scottish Parliament who might want to reserve the option to make selective increases based on priority and need.

When setting their budgets, Governments should, quite rightly, be given the opportunity—

I accept that, but, as Mr Mason heard during the inquiry, many pubs that appear to be very busy and are packed out still have significant pressure on margins, and a busy pub is not necessarily a profitable pub. We heard that repeatedly during our evidence taking.

That is why the closure rate for Scottish pubs—sometimes iconic Scottish pubs—is now twice the rate in the rest of the UK. That should be a significant concern both for the UK Labour Government and for the Scottish National Party Government. Pubs can be part of the growth story of our country, but when they close, they are, in many instances, unlikely to reopen.

That is why pubs now need a shot in the arm, and why the UK budget’s increase in the employer national insurance contribution is concerning to the hospitality sector, as is the Scottish Government’s failure to date to pass on the rates support relief that it has been getting from the UK Government for the past three years—although I am always hopeful, and it may yet finally pass that on.

The CPG’s report is a solid piece of work, and if the minister and members have not yet read it, I encourage them to do so.

My party’s submission to the budget tomorrow calls for 100 per cent rates relief to be passed on to Scotland’s pubs and restaurants this year. We have all heard stories of pubs that are struggling or closing in our areas, and I ask members to imagine what 100 per cent rates relief for next year alone could do—it would be transformative.

In closing, my message is that we must support the industry, because once pubs call last orders and close, they simply do so, in many instances, for good. They do not reopen, and everything that they offer is lost from now into the future. We owe it to the pubs in our constituencies to visit and support them, and to support those who work in them and the communities that benefit from them. If we come together, we can save Scotland’s pubs, and that is what we should be doing as we pull together over the festive season.

I will give way on that point.

Will the minister pay particular attention to two of the industry’s asks? The first is to simplify the planning system so that pubs are not seen as a problem in society and so that the system can be used to enable the sector. The other is a call for a period of calm in the regulatory environment, given that the industry has had quite a lot of shocks, including Covid and some Government-related shocks, such as the preparations for the deposit return scheme and the possible restrictions on alcohol marketing and sponsorship. Will the minister take those two asks to his ministerial colleagues?