Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the cabinet secretary say more about the 103 military staff who will be helping? For example, will they be driving their own vehicles or normal ambulances? Will the situation here be similar to the way in which the military are involved in England and Wales?

The First Minister said that there have been discussions with businesses. Have there been specific discussions with football and licensed trade representatives?

Can the cabinet secretary assure us that, should we move towards a two-verdict system, we will consider the option of verdicts of proven and not proven, and nothing else?

Does the member accept that we are looking at this in principle today, that the detail has still to be worked out and that we have a COVID-19 Recovery Committee that will look at the detail?

Does the member have some suggestions other than the certificate? For example, should we just stop having crowds at football altogether?

I am very grateful to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for correcting my online vaccination record. Can the First Minister say anything about how many people have their details wrongly recorded? What can people do about that? When will we catch up on that issue?

Does the member accept that we can have growth but that, sometimes, not everyone benefits?

Will the member give way?

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate. It certainly looks as though a wide range of things are coming up to build on the SNP’s excellent record over the past 14 years. In passing, I welcome the abolition of dental charges, the creation of a victim’s commissioner, the building of more affordable housing, and the provision for 10 per cent of front-line health spending to be devoted to mental healthcare.

However, for me, one of the highlights of any year is the budget. Although the budget bill will have its own timetable, there is now agreement that all of us on committees should be thinking about the budget all year round. Therefore, on the question of the budget timetable, I hope that Westminster will be more responsible this year and will hold its budget process first—for preference, during the autumn—so that we can set our budget in the light of that, and so that local government authorities right across the UK will know where they stand with their budgets. Westminster announcing its budget in March is, frankly, irresponsible.

It is easy for all of us to say we want more money for this or for that. This morning at the Finance and Public Administration Committee, we heard suggestions about moves including increased child payments and reduced business rates, but there was reluctance to say where the money should come from to pay for them. We have seen that again this afternoon, from Anas Sarwar. We were told this morning that doubling the child payment would cost some £220 million; I presume that quadrupling it would cost at least £440 million. We need to know where that money would come from.

It is more challenging to say, for example, that there should be more money for mental health, but that to balance that, there would be less for hospitals, or to argue for more for colleges but less for universities. That is the responsible way of looking at things.

I say to the Opposition parties and the parliamentary committees that I hope that if, as we go through the budget process, they have different priorities from those of the Scottish Government, they will say so.

The budget process and scrutiny would also be more meaningful, and the public might engage more, if we heard some more realistic alternative proposals for higher expenditure in some areas and lower expenditure in others. I think that past committees have been reluctant to say that any sector should get less money, but it seems to me to be clear, from being on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and from a briefing that we saw this morning, that

“tough spending and taxation choices await”.

I therefore encourage committees seriously to consider, when they are proposing increases in one area, making recommendations for reductions in another.

I turn to plans for the national care service. There have been many good aspects to care, both in care homes and at home. However, some aspects could be improved, one of which is the traditionally low pay of care workers, many of whom are women.

As a Parliament and as a country, we have choices to make. Do we want to take a more localised approach with different fees, standards and wages across the country, which some people would call a postcode lottery, or do we want a more consistent approach to fees, standards and wages, which some people would call overcentralisation? Those are serious questions; we must grapple with them.

I am happy to take that point. Politicians have tried to dress that up and to pretend that we can have both consistency and local decision-making, but one—either more centralisation and consistency, or more localisation—must be prioritised.

We must also seriously consider the cost of a national care service. If there are consequentials from Westminster, that will be well and good, but the service must not be funded by national insurance increases. NI is a regressive form of taxation that kicks in for the lowest-paid workers some £3000 earlier than income tax does. Income tax is by no means perfect, but it is more progressive, with those who are better able to pay more doing so. In contrast, increases in NI hit the less well-off people hardest. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has said that the national care service is a “distraction”. I do not agree with that. However, the service will come at a cost that we must tackle.

It was difficult to prepare my speech with little knowledge of what would be in the First Minister’s statement. I will mention one or two other issues.

The proposed gender recognition bill is likely to be interesting. People’s views on that subject are very polarised and I am not sure whether we can find middle ground that we can all agree on, or whether it is inevitable that one side will defeat the other. I hope that we in Parliament can handle the bill in a civilised way. We dealt with same-sex marriage quite calmly within Parliament, even if feelings were running high outside it. I hope that we can do the same again.

Some of us have signed up to the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s Young Academy of Scotland’s charter for responsible debate, which talks about debates being informed, respectful and inclusive. Although we can disagree on issues such as self-identification, I hope that we can accept that there is a range of views and that we can be respectful even when we disagree.

I look forward to debate and discussion on many other topics that were raised in the First Minister’s statement. There is to be a consultation on the “not proven” verdict. I hope that one of the options will be to have two verdicts: proven and not proven. I welcome the fireworks bill, which will help the Dogs Trust at its base in my constituency. Dogs—and some people—experience a terrible time with fireworks.

I also welcome the minimum income guarantee and, of course, a referendum on Scottish freedom.

It is great to be back after the summer recess; I look forward to a busy year ahead. The programme for government offers us many opportunities. I look forward to getting more into the detail in the coming months.