Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?

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

I will focus my remarks on the most recent comments that have been made by the business community, which build on exactly what it told us five or six weeks ago, when we had our previous Covid debate in this chamber. Business is still very much of the view that, although minimising the Covid threat absolutely has to be the priority, especially with the dangerous new omicron variant, the second priority must be developing our ability to secure a strong economic recovery that is sustainable in not just in the short term but the years ahead. That economic growth is absolutely critical not just for jobs, investment and tax revenues, but to encourage the greater economic optimism that we all so desperately need.

What is the business community—whether that is the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, the Scottish Retail Consortium or the Federation of Small Businesses—asking for as it faces up to the on-going pandemic, supply chain issues, the increased cost of living and national insurance increases? First and foremost, those organisations are very much talking about making their businesses secure for the future.

The FSB—of course, it is small business Saturday this weekend—is very clear that to complement the existing measures that have been agreed by this Parliament, we need a package of discrete measures to assist with the small business recovery. I have a great deal of sympathy with that, because small businesses are very much the bedrock of our economy and they have been at the heart of our local communities during the pandemic—I know that the Deputy First Minister recognises that in his constituency, and Richard Leonard referred to it in his remarks this afternoon. That is why the Scottish Chambers of Commerce has been so strong about the need to revitalise our towns and cities not just with short-term measures such as extending the business rates relief and the small business bonus scheme, but with longer-term measures, too.

The Scottish Government should be credited with showing some generosity in its approach over the past financial year, in that it permitted some business rates relief. I hope that that will be true in next week’s budget as well.

Business is keen to remind us that, although the short-term measures are helpful, they will not be nearly enough. The Chambers of Commerce and the CBI want to see reform of the non-domestic rates system and the planning system, and the FRC wants reform of the commercial property market. Of course, it is absolutely essential that Scotland is not at any competitive tax disadvantage with anywhere else, including England.

It is noticeable how much business is focusing on upskilling, training and building an effective digital infrastructure. We know that unemployment has not risen quite in the way that we were once expecting, and we also know that job vacancies are higher than expected, which clearly tells us that there are some mismatches on skills in the economy and perhaps a lack of flexibility in the labour force. It would be helpful if the Scottish Government could spell out exactly what it will do to address some of those labour issues as quickly as possible.

The critical issue is the provision of greater certainty and stability—I think that those are the words that Kate Forbes used—when it comes to economic policy making. We need a much more coherent and holistic approach to policy making, to ensure that Scotland remains fully competitive with other economies. People in business want a Scottish Government that fully engages with them, not one that just gives them a quick phone call to tell them that some new regulations will be coming out in a few days’ time. They want a Scottish Government that brings a clarity of purpose to business support and planning ahead, and a Government that provides clear supporting evidence to underpin the decisions that it is making, because those decisions are absolutely crucial if we are going to have public trust in the way forward from Covid. We know that there has been a great deal of confusion and contradiction in that regard at times, so clarity of purpose is vital.

Next week’s budget, of course, presents us with an opportunity. I look forward to responding to the budget statement and to the engagement process between stages 1 and 3 after Christmas.

The cabinet secretary will have exactly the same briefing that I have from the Federation of Small Businesses and she will know that one of the things that it asks for is that checks are made on the eligibility for some of the grants that are made to small businesses. Is that something that Scottish Government is considering?

At the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s meeting on 31 August, when I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy about the Government’s commitment to the A96 and the A9 and whether there had been any problem with that, given that the Greens and the SNP had entered a coalition, she said categorically that the Greens and the SNP being together in the Government would not affect either of those projects. Is that correct?

Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that almost every medic we speak to says that there is a shortage of doctors, with one of the reasons for that being the cap on places, particularly in relation to people who are domiciled in Scotland, which prevents some universities with medical schools that would like to take more students from doing so?

First, I apologise for being just a few minutes late to the chamber—I had to deal with an urgent call.

I agree with what the cabinet secretary says about longer-term planning. However, should we not have a degree of timescale in place so that the outcomes to which she just referred are clear, and so that, for people who want to take advantage of the facilities that the Scottish National Investment Bank will offer, progress against them can be measured more effectively?

When it comes to national investment banks, just as is the case for other financial institutions, their purpose has to be abundantly clear, not least because they are underpinned by the public purse for which Governments are, rightly, held accountable. They must be able to demonstrate that, in terms of key economic indicators—whether on productivity, investment, job creation, innovation or growth—they can deliver better outcomes for the nation as a whole. I will consider those points in turn.

On the need for the Scottish National Investment Bank, about which the Parliament was agreed in principle last year, we, on the Conservative benches, still very much believe that a little more should be done to clarify the central purpose of the bank because, despite the missions that are referred to in the Scottish Government motion, the central purpose of the bank has never been completely clear.

I think the cabinet secretary would admit that there was some dubiety even within the ranks of the Scottish National Party between 2014 and 2016 about what that purpose should be. John Swinney talked about whether we should build on the existing bank and said that there would not be a new one. We know that there were concerns last year, which I think came out in response to a question by my colleague Dean Lockhart, about how the new investment bank would articulate with the other growth agencies and where the additional money would come from. That is an absolutely key point. I have sympathy in that regard with part of the Labour amendment, if not with its entirety. Daniel Johnson raises an important issue about some of those principles.

We also know that, in 2014, Nicola Sturgeon spoke about the main role of the new investment bank being to provide “patient capital investment”. That idea had moved on a little by 2019 to the aim of financing investment in net zero technology. That is laudable, but the goalposts have shifted slightly and there is an issue of coherence. I am not speaking for myself; I am speaking on behalf of a lot of people in business, who feel that lack of coherence.