Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will not give way just now, if the minister does not mind.

In other words, unless university places increase, there will, by definition, be displacement of other students from more traditional university backgrounds. We know that that is happening.

I come on to the issue of what needs to happen. First, there has to be a radical improvement in school education. If there was not such a wide attainment gap between pupils from rich and poorer areas, the Scottish Government would not need to demand such rigid widening access targets. The reason why the Scottish Government will struggle to meet the artificial 2030 target is that, even with minimum entry requirements, there is no guarantee whatsoever of a broad enough pool of students with sufficiently strong attainment to merit a university place. That point comes from Universities Scotland, not from me.

The second thing that needs to happen—I would like to see this done on a wide cross-party basis—is a change in the current funding system, which is simply not sustainable financially. I believe that there is growing evidence of agreement across the political parties in the chamber that that is the case. It is very nice to say that we would like to offer entirely free education—I absolutely understand that. However, if we are going to do that, we have to change the current structure.

That takes us back to the key question about what a modern university is for. The debate is not just about how our universities maintain the traditional role of being custodians of academic knowledge and their research; it is about the extent to which they should be the agents of Government economic and social policy. The debate about funding and the structure is far too important to get it wrong. We have to agree on a cross-party basis.

The minister’s colleague Fergus Ewing made an important point in a contribution in a debate a couple of weeks ago about the possibility of a bond for medical graduates in order to try to retain them in Scotland. Has the minister considered that? That could be part of a funding structure that could be of considerable help in ensuring that we retain more of our graduates.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to a recent report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which states that the 2024-25 budget implied a real-terms reduction to health spending. (S6O-03192)

I recognise that comparisons can be made with previous years, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies made the point that the Scottish Government’s claim that health spending had increased by 1.3 per cent for 2024-25 did not include the top-up figures for the previous health budget in 2023-24. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that there is some inconsistency in that, and that that makes it more difficult to scrutinise budgets?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I thank the Labour Party for bringing the debate to the chamber, because it is extremely important. The measure of GDP may be incomplete, but it matters hugely because of the other benefits that it brings, such as increased tax revenues and economic confidence, to name just two. As Jamie Halcro Johnston rightly said, it is essential for delivering better public services, raising the standard of living and delivering more secure jobs and investment, and it is the prerequisite to addressing our social ills and improving the wellbeing of the whole country.

It goes without saying that the biggest challenge that we currently face is the extent of economic inactivity. The rates of economic inactivity are worryingly high, which means that we are not making the best use of the skills and talents in our workforce. Willie Rennie was absolutely right when he referenced our universities, and Colin Smyth and Alex Rowley were absolutely right when they mentioned our colleges. Those are essential to ensuring that we have the skills and people who are able to work. Our best policy prospectus is to focus on helping those people back into the workforce and preparing them for future jobs, and on secure jobs and investment.

That is why the Scottish Conservatives were so critical of the SNP’s recent budget, which cut the economy portfolio by 8.3 per cent in real terms, including cuts to enterprise, employability, tourism, the Scottish National Investment Bank and several other aspects of policy that are essential to jobs and investment.

Murdo Fraser referred to what Sandy Begbie said. That is why Scottish Conservatives were so vociferous in their opposition to the recent budget, and it is probably why only 9 per cent of Scottish businesses think that the Scottish Government is sympathetic to their concerns. We heard some of that this morning from one or two members who were at the Scottish Tourism Alliance conference in Aberdeen.

I come to the debate about tax, which is obviously a very big part of the debate about economic growth. I fully acknowledge that the overall tax burden in the UK has grown, and is too high, but it is even worse in Scotland, where the differential is widening and disincentives are increasing. Some in the SNP even acknowledge that fact.

It is vitally important that there is a specific focus on making work pay, and on work becoming more attractive. That is why Jeremy Hunt chose a change to national insurance instead of income tax: because the OBR predicted that that could help 200,000 people back into work. We should be concentrating on that.

On the question that Murdo Fraser was talking about in debate with Daniel Johnson, I gently remind Labour that, although it wants to make itself into the party of growth and lower taxes, it was the Labour Party that voted for the rates resolution in 2023 that ensured that the SNP imposed further tax hikes. Just six months ago, the Labour Party also voted against a Conservative amendment that called on the Scottish Government to deliver a package of growth policies, including a competitive tax regime, less burdensome regulation and investment in innovation, entrepreneurship and infrastructure. I am not quite sure what was going on there.

I will finish on another issue. As well as taxation, another key debate around economic growth is about meaningful public sector reform, which will deliver the future savings that we so desperately need. I come back to Jeremy Hunt’s budget. Brian Whittle mentioned that one of the considerably underreported parts of that was the £3 billion investment in the NHS to reform artificial intelligence data use and streamline IT. We should take that seriously, and the Scottish Government should ensure that we have similar policies.

The chancellor’s budget prioritised improving public sector output and efficiency, with, for example, £3 billion going to the national health service to update information technology, streamline data and utilise artificial intelligence. When will we see similar changes in Scotland through public sector reform, as the Finance and Public Administration Committee has been calling for?

On the multiyear theme, the Scottish Government said last year:

“wherever possible multi-year certainty will be provided to support strategic planning and investment”

for local authorities. What progress has been made on that?

I know that the cabinet secretary is aware of the very strong concerns that have been expressed by the Scottish Retail Consortium. At stage 2, she promised that she would examine the likely impacts of any such move. However, I ask her to recognise that those who are already liable for the higher property rate are paying a much higher rate on comparable premises than those elsewhere in the UK and that the imposition of a surtax would just widen that differential and undermine the ability of large Scottish retailers to remain competitive.