 That concludes topical questions. The next item of business is a statement by Kate Forbes on ministerial statement investing in Scotland's future. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Kate Forbes up to 10 minutes, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The resource spending review today details how we'll invest over £180 billion to deliver the Government's priorities in the coming years. I'm also publishing our medium-term financial strategy and accompanying equality statement and a review of the capital programme. But of course still recovering from COVID, there's acute pressure on the NHS on businesses and on the wider economy. The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine is a humanitarian crisis and it's affecting the global economy. Rising energy prices, constrained supply chains, have affected countries worldwide. Whilst inflation is also impacting other countries, it's not impacting them equally. The UK currently has the highest inflation rate of any G7 country, almost twice the rate of France. Brexit has made this problem worse, with increases in food prices hitting the poorest, hardest. We're experiencing an unprecedented cost of living crisis. Inflation is at a 40-year high of 9 per cent, with households facing considerable hardship. This Government is doing all it can in response, prioritising additional funds to help households in need, but the limits on our fiscal and our economic powers are, in turn, the support that we can offer. This Government faces the same interrelated challenges as other Governments across the globe—significant volatility, sharply rising inflation and a need for greater investment to aid COVID recovery and to shield people from the impact of a cost of living crisis. However, we face those challenges without the tools and without the levers that other Governments have at their disposal. Whilst I welcome the more targeted grant-based support that was announced by the Chancellor last week, £400 per household is less than half of the predicted forthcoming rise in the energy price cap before factoring in the pressures that families face right now. Of course, that help has been funded disproportionately by taxes on Scottish industry. The Chancellor's efforts were in reserved areas, so there is very little consequential funding. We will consider where there are gaps and who most needs most help before we decide how to allocate any further limited funding. Today's resource spending review is not a budget. Change to the fiscal position is inevitable over the next few years. One hopes for the better, and tax decisions will be taken in future budgets. However, it is essential to share high-level financial parameters with public bodies, with local government and the third sector, so that we can plan ahead together. The basis for our spending plans were set out in the Bute House agreement and the programme for government. Our long-term ambitions for Scotland include tackling child poverty, transitioning to net zero, growing a stronger economy and improving public services. To that, we have added the actions that we are taking to help people struggling with the cost of living. The funding that I have at my disposal is mainly based on the existing block grant settlements implied by the 2021 UK spending review and the forecasts from the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Those judgments can change over time in response to the available data and the economic outlook and, of course, as a result of decisions taken by the UK Government. By way of example, the first medium-term financial strategy back in 2018 set out the expected budget for 2022-23. In reality, that projection was out by around £7 billion. That illustrates the level of volatility inherent in the funding outlook underlying the importance of taking decisions at each annual budget. Inflation will inevitably erode the funding growth that we have assumed in today's MTFS, reducing our spending power. When the UK spending review in October set out funding for the Scottish budget, inflation was 3.1 per cent. Despite inflation hitting 9 per cent, the UK Government has not updated its spending plans, leaving us with far less funding in real terms. Following a real terms reduction of 5.2 per cent between last year and this year, our real terms funding grows by only 2 per cent across the whole four-year period of the resource spending review after accounting for the devolution of social security benefits. That is the stark reality that was reflected in the commentary by the IFS and the Fraser Valander Institute last weekend, but it is not inevitable. It is the result of a deliberate choice by the UK Government as it sits on its hands. Although the Chancellor has provided welcome of limited and late support for households, the chill winds of Tory austerity are blowing when it comes to spending on public services. It lays bare the constraints of the current fiscal framework. Our budget is largely decided by others, denied sufficient borrowing powers yet facing the very same demands for increased spending as Governments with much greater levers do. We must prioritise. We have prioritised spending on health and social security, education and tackling climate change, but, by definition, we cannot prioritise everything. After years of growth in the public sector, due to Brexit and the pandemic, we need to reset. We need to focus on how the public sector can reform to become more efficient, giving us space to realise our ambitions for better outcomes. Reform will focus on digitalisation, maximising revenue through public sector innovation, reform of the public sector estate, reform of the public body landscape and improving public procurement. The spending review also incorporates continued engagement with trade unions and public sector employers about pay and workforce. I know that inflation is a very real concern for public sector employees, as it is for those in the private sector, and particularly so for those on lower incomes. The UK Government has chosen not to act on public sector pay, meaning that our more progressive approach with public sector wages on average 7 per cent higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK is funded from within our severely limited budget. We do not intend to take the same approach that is set out by the UK Government today, but we need to reshape and refocus the public sector post Covid, and the spending review calls upon all the public sector to look creatively at ways to sustainably address that challenge while seeking to ensure fair increases. Those reforms are necessary in order to prioritise spending, which makes the biggest difference to our objectives. Our objectives are on child poverty, net zero and a growing and thriving economy and improved public services. The spending review funds the Scottish child payment, which will more than double to £25 per child per week over the course of this year, with eligibility expanded to under-16s. It will provide for universal free school meals to primary school children in primaries 1 to 5 and the expansion of provision beyond that. It will deliver increased investment in front-line health services by 20 per cent over this Parliament, and it increases investment in primary and community care to provide more care for people in a place and in a way that makes their needs. It provides capital investment of around £18 billion over the period. It will fund improvements in Scotland's transport network in the NHS and the public sector estate, in affordable housing, and it will fund the shift to a low-carbon economy, with an additional £500 million directed to net zero programmes that meet the climate challenge. The resource spending review delivers on our commitments to invest in energy efficiency and zero emissions heating. It supports public transport and sees record investment in active travel and protects our natural environment. The spending review also underpins the actions of the national strategy for economic transformation to deliver a strong, inclusive and greener economy to deliver growth, to stimulate entrepreneurship, to open new markets, to increase productivity and to develop the skills that we need today and long into the future. Today I set out an ambitious but realistic public spending framework for the years ahead. It does not ignore the realities of our financial position, but neither does it roll back on our ambitions for change. It balances the need to shift resources so that we achieve the greatest impact for our economy, for our environment, for our society, with the need to continue improving public services as we build back from Covid-19 and respond to the challenging economic and financial outlook for Scotland. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question where to press their request-to-speak buttons now. If ever proof was needed of the SNP's mismanagement of the Scottish economy, it is today's glaring £3.5 billion black hole in the public finances. That comes despite the SNP receiving record pay-outs from Westminster. We know only too well that the world economy is facing extraordinary pressures as our hard-pressed families here, but they will receive no comfort whatsoever from today's statistics. The financial shortfall set out in today's forecast is stark, most especially the gaping hole between projected public spending and tax revenues in the next few years. It is plain for all to see, and it is the product of incompetence from an SNP Government that has no idea how to manage the public finances, the ferries fiasco being the worst example of that. I ask the cabinet secretary three things. Firstly, will she commit to ensuring that Scottish income tax levels are put back on a par with UK income tax levels so that Scotland is no longer the highest-paid part of the UK, threatening both jobs and investment? Secondly, will she agree with Mr Archie Meekle, chairman of Ashwood Scotland, who says in today's times that a second independence referendum should be immediately taken off the table because it is doing serious damage to Scottish business and trade? Thirdly, will the cabinet secretary finally admit that the Scottish Government has completely failed to act to address the low productivity, the imbalances in the labour market and the skills shortages in the Scottish economy that the fiscal commission has been warning about, not just today but for years? If we ever needed proof of what the Tories priorities are on a day when an investigation by Glasgow University confirms that UK Tory austerity is the reason behind stagnating life expectancy across Scotland and the UK, that is the proof that we need of where the Tories will prioritise their spending. Liz Smith talks about £3.5 billion. Can I suggest that she reads the resource spending review and the medium-term financial strategy? The figures that she is quoting are well out of date and go back to December. They are based on forecasts. What we have before us today is a resource spending review that balances the budget that we have available with the priorities that we have. A budget that has been cut by 5.2 per cent by her colleagues last year compared with this year and sees growth of only 2 per cent over the next few years. She talks about the constitution. We see EY today confirming that Scotland has outperformed the whole of the UK and the whole of Europe on attracting foreign investment, a sign of the strength of the Scottish economy, not weakness. Whilst we are celebrating those increases in foreign investment under the Tories, we are seeing the sharpest fall in living standards. We are seeing the sharpest rise in food prices as a result of their Brexit. We are seeing families across the country struggling. That resource spending review outlines our commitment to tackle child poverty, to transition to net zero and to ensure that we have the resources to help families who are dealing with the cost of living crisis. Daniel Johnson Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have waited 11 years for a spending review, and yet we are just getting 30 minutes of questions and had less than 60 minutes to digest this document. For a Government that seeks to refute accusations of lack of transparency, I think that the cabinet secretary would do well to at least begin by remarking that we must do better than that. However, there are three big problems with the statement provided by the cabinet secretary. First of all, it is the lack of context and insight. For the last three to four decades, Scotland has typically experienced higher wage growth and higher productivity growth than the UK average. However, over the last decade, what our wage growth has been below the UK average and productivity growth has been below the UK average is a problem because of the fiscal framework. The fiscal framework depends on those things for the monies that the Scottish Government has to spend, which is why there are 200 million pounds less to spend than if income tax had not been devolved. There is no acknowledgement from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Fiscal Commission's report just published that shows that there will be an income tax deficit next year of £359 million. There is no acknowledgement of those. Secondly, there is no sense of Government getting better. The reality is that ministerial salaries have doubled, and quangos are up by a third in the last decade. The cost of government has increased by £2 billion to £4.5 billion. However, while the Government is proposing to cut economic and enterprise support, it is finding £20 million for another independence referendum. Finally, it is the lack of data. We waited 11 years and yet there is no detail. 11 years ago, the spending review went down to levels 3 and 4, giving us insight into what health boards would have to spend, giving us insight into the split between universities and countries. I have a question, Mr Johnson, please. We have none of that this time, so my questions are these. Will the committee come forward with the full, frank economic assessment as to why wage growth and productivity growth are lagging the rest of the UK? Will the committee pledge to cut consultants, comms agencies and non-executive directors before front-line staff? Will the committee bring forward the detail that is lacking in the spending review at level 3 and 4 by portfolio so that we have the clarity that should be contained within the spending review? Can I first say to the member that I am happy to answer as many questions as anybody has? It is not my job to set how long I speak. I do not know if the Labour Party asked for this statement to be extended. On the actual fact of the matter, I do not need to bring forward any additional analysis on productivity. I can give it to him right now. Between 2007 and 2019, which is the latest year available, productivity in Scotland grew by 10.7 per cent compared to the latest estimate of 5.2 per cent for the UK, so the gap in output in Scotland reduced. In terms of income tax, it is interesting to hear the Labour Party now advocating for a different approach to taxation when, in Scotland, the lowest paid pay less and the highest paid pay more. It is a far more progressive approach, and it has also raised revenue for the public sector. Lastly, on pay, it talks about ministerial salaries. I assume that it knows that ministerial salaries have been frozen since 2008. In short contrast, in Scotland, public sector workers on average receive 7 per cent higher wages than they do across the rest of the UK. Excuse me, Cabinet Secretary. There is a great deal of discussion going on around the chamber. There is a great deal of discussion going on around the chamber. I would be grateful if we could hear the Cabinet Secretary and only the Cabinet Secretary. Daniel Johnson raised an important point about the need to have as much granularity as possible. He will appreciate that, when we published the resource spending review consultation back in December, inflation was forecastarised to just over 4 per cent. It is currently at 9 per cent, forecastarised to 11 per cent. We have got to make decisions based on the best available data, recognising how volatile the situation is right now, so we have set out as granular data as we can with a view to updating that in advance of next year's budget, and this is not a budget. On 30 March this year, a motion without notice was accepted to extend business for up to 30 minutes. It was on a ministerial statement on Murray maternity services and was accepted on the grounds that there were still a number of members seeking to ask questions. In the vein of what has been said both by the Labour spokesman and by the Cabinet Secretary and given the significant interest from MSPs in that topic, I would like to propose a similar motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 of the Standing Orders. They can shout me down all they like. Members, members, I will hear Mr Kerr. I would like to propose a similar motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 of the Standing Orders to extend business by up to 30 minutes for his law or as long as it takes to get through the remaining questions. I thank Mr Kerr for his point of order. I know that he refers to a previous incident. There is no precedent set by a previous incident and by the decision of the chair at that time. I would point out that the time allocated for this item was agreed at the Parliament. It was voted upon by the Parliament. There was no call at this morning's bureau meeting for an extension to the time of this item. Members, I would also like to point out that it is very important too that we protect time for other important items of business in the Parliament this afternoon. I am mindful of that need. We do have a full speakers list where questions and responses are concise. We can, of course, accommodate ever more contributions. Now that we have taken up time debating this item, I would be grateful if we could move on. I call the next speaker who is Liam McArthur. It is barely three weeks since the elections where the SNP and Greens told voters about their commitment to local government. We now see what those promises were worth. Cast for local government is effectively frozen for the remainder of this Parliament, meaning real terms cuts to local services. The Government intends to spend countless millions of stripping powers from local authorities to create an expensive, centralised national care service. If the UK Government treated the Scottish Government in this way, can the cabinet secretary advise local authorities what the appropriate response would be? The member is right to draw attention to the local government investment. We have set out one of the primary reasons for doing a resource spending review is to give local government clarity going forward within those spending parameters. I have said it already. I will say it again. This is not a budget. I can only spend the funding that is allocated to me by the UK Government and in light of a 5.2 per cent cut between last year and this year and an outlook where inflation is eating into our spending power, we have treated local government fairly. One important point is that this resource spending review will go hand in hand with an updated fiscal framework. He talks about powers and that fiscal framework will see local government empowered further. I call John Mason to be followed by Douglas Lumsden. Inflation is clearly very high at 9 per cent and it is not helped, of course, by the Conservative actions at Westminster. Can the cabinet secretary go into any more detail about the assumptions that she is making on inflation over the next four years, both for tax revenues and expenditure? In terms of this question, it is hugely important because it demonstrates again the changes that we are contending with, the level of volatility that we are contending with. Our plans are based on the Scottish Fiscal Commission's latest economic forecast, which, like the OBR, sees inflation averaging 8 per cent across 2020-23, double the rate of inflation forecast at the time of the Scottish budget in December, before falling back to being in line with the Bank of England's 2 per cent forecast from 2024 to 2025. That is, in stark contrast—this is an important point—with the inflation assumptions used by the UK Government to underpin their spending review in October 2021, which makes sense, because things have changed. However, we can only spend what was allocated to us back in October 2021, which does not take into account the significant rise in inflation. The shameful devolved SNP Government is nothing if not predictable. It presents data that shows that its tax policies are failing and that its spending is out of control. With the Scottish Fiscal Commission predicting a funding black hole of £3.5 billion by 2026-27. Once again, the attempt to pass the buck of responsibility on to the UK Government. With the public finances in such a mess, would the cabinet secretary not agree with me that the £20 million allocated for another divisive independence referendum is a slap in the face for so many hard-working Scots who are having to pay more and get less? Can I respectfully suggest that any future Conservative speakers base their questions on the facts in front of us, because they keep quoting figures that were last published in December. Today, I have outlined spending plans that must balance. You cannot have unbalanced spending plans within a devolved arrangement, where I can only spend what is raised. The other point is that they defend continually what their UK Government counterparts have allocated to Scotland. If they have such a concern, then may I suggest what they would cut or whether they would lobby their UK Government colleagues to increase funding to the Scottish budget? Today's publications confirm this SNP Scottish Government's priorities. The game-changing Scottish child payment, huge increases for front-line health services, free school meals for young people, money to decarbonise buildings and promote active travel, among many others. However, the cost of living crisis will be at the front of most people's minds at the moment. Can the cabinet secretary expand a bit more on what the Scottish Government is doing to help? We added the response to the cost of living crisis to our priorities in light of the challenges that people are facing. Within our fixed budget, we are investing £770 million this year through a package of living measures and social security support that is not available anywhere else in the UK. That includes the Scottish child payment, which will obviously increase to £25 per child per week by the end of this year. We will also extend that to under-16s, which means that our five family benefits can provide support of over £10,000 by the time a family's first child turns six and funding for subsequent children is well. Paul McLennan, to be followed by Mark Griffin. It has been estimated that around 90 per cent of the revenue raised from the UK Government's energy windfall tax may be set to come from Scotland on account of our substantial energy resources. If that funding was retained in Scotland, the Scottish Government would be in much stronger position to support people facing the brunt of the cost of living crisis. The Bank of America warned yesterday that the UK is all now but an emerging market currency in all but name, and that one investor should hedge for a sterling crisis. That is UK Government management. Does the cabinet secretary far more could be done to build a fairer and more prosperous society with the full powers of independence in Scotland's hands? I do agree with that wholeheartedly. There is an irony that it is only thanks to Scotland's huge energy resource that the UK Government is able to respond in this way to their own Tory-made cost of living crisis. If Scotland was independent, the money raised would deliver more for every Scottish household, but we will only get a small fraction of that under Westminster control. We want to do more to help to tackle the cost of living crisis. We would do more with more powers. Mark Griffin, to be followed by Evelyn Tweed. The cabinet secretary's claim of a new deal for local government in fact sounds the death knell for local government as we know it. Today's review plans are further £900 million of real-term cuts by 2027, on top of a decade of cuts that has libraries closing roads crumbling and bins overflown. Does the cabinet secretary not accept that there is nothing more to cut in local government and that the grinding down of local services and economies is what has gone into this mess and it will not get us back out of it? Can I suggest to the member that he joins us in calling for a bigger pot of funding to be shared more equally across all of the needs and the priorities that we have identified? Whereas right now, within the funding that we have allocated, which has been cut by 5.2 per cent versus last year, we have treated local government fairly. We have given them as much forward clarity as possible in terms of the resource spending review. It goes hand in hand with the fiscal framework. That does not replace annual budgets. Evelyn Tweed, to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. I note that the finance secretary wrote to the UK Government ahead of last week's statement by the Chancellor calling for the UK Government to go further in tackling the cost of living crisis. Can the cabinet secretary provide any further information about what engagement the Scottish Government had with the UK Government in advance of the Chancellor's statement and whether she believes that the UK Government acted on her calls? I did write to the Chancellor ahead of last week's statement, urging him to use the full £30 billion fiscal headroom to introduce a comprehensive funding package to address the cost of living crisis and to provide support to business. Unfortunately, the UK Government did not engage on those points before the announcement, whilst I have already welcomed a number of the measures that have been belatedly announced. Quite clearly, the majority of support will not be received until the autumn. Very little support for business, for example. They are facing the same spiralling energy prices as domestic households, and the statement was very silent on public sector pay. Those are the issues that the UK Government still needs to get to grips with. Jamie Halcro Johnston to be followed by Ross Greer. Despite receiving the biggest block grant in the history of devolution, recent years I have seen the Scottish Government oversee a litany of public spending disasters, £250 million so far on rusting hulls and a Clyde, while local ferry services collapse, £150 million on a census that may be useless, and the unsold Prestwick airport still a financial albatross. During a period where the Cabinet Secretary accepts that resources will be tight, what will she be doing to ensure that we see an end to the massive cost overruns on public projects, and how will she ensure that we see value for every penny of public money, allowing us to target to those struggling with the cost of living crisis? I set out today a package that includes a package of reform to ensure that we derive value from every penny, and every year I balance the budget to ensure that we are spending every penny that we have at our disposal. However, I suggest that what commentators, economists and families are worried about right now is the cost of living crisis that Jamie Halcro Johnston's colleagues are presiding over, with inflation at the highest rate eating into our spending power, and that will have the biggest impact over the next few years. Despite the challenges that the UK Government has created at the Scottish Government's end, the spending review has made the funds available to increase the Scottish child payment, and we will see an additional billion pounds invested in the transition to net zero. Can the cabinet secretary set out how that will allow Scotland to step up our climate action and does she acknowledge that it represents the minimum that we need to do and that across the UK we need to see a significant step up in public investment in the transition on the scale that we are seeing in many European countries if we are to deliver on our climate targets? Ross Greer is right to draw attention to this, because in my statement I was quite clear that the reforms that I have set out allow us the space to invest in our objectives and our ambitions, and one of those is to ensure that we do transition to net zero effectively despite challenging circumstances. The resource spending review and the targeted refresh of the capital spending review protect and enhance our commitment to the twin global climate and nature crisis, and we are investing in public-funded infrastructure to ensure that we enable that transition to net zero by 2045. Over the course of this Parliament, there are a number of initiatives that will take forward between heat and building strategy through the nature restoration fund and the public transfer network that will enable that to take place. As we know that work is on-going in terms of the review of the fiscal framework, can the cabinet secretary provide an update on progress along with any detail as to what outcomes the Scottish Government is hoping to see from the review and how those outcomes could affect managing Scotland's public finances? We have together with the UK Government finalised the terms of reference for the independent report that precedes the fiscal framework review, and we are jointly taking forward the preparatory steps for the report and the review itself. As I have already noticed, the need for that has been reinforced through the pandemic, and now there is the cost of living crisis. Our current powers are inadequate for us to manage the risks, and that is laid bare in the publications that have been published today. Looking beyond the usual water boundary in this statement, there is only one mention of the word outcomes. Audit Scotland has repeatedly commented on the complete lack of measurement of outcomes and even the lack of transparency on how money is being spent. What will the cabinet secretary do differently going forward to measure and report outcomes and not just the extraordinary sums of money being spent? I think that it is an important question. The number of reports that are published today include the medium-term financial strategy, the resource spending review capital and the spending review. There needs to be equal interest in our out-turn statement and in the national performance framework, both of which measure our funding according to the outcomes that they develop. We have laid out today our approach that we intend to take. It is an ambitious approach that does not shy away from the realities that people are facing, and it is an approach that is based on wanting to ensure the best outcomes for our people, to tackle child poverty and to reduce the pressures on families. The out-turn statement, which will be published in the next few weeks or so, alongside updating the national performance framework, allows us to scrutinise the extent to which the money that we spend is delivering the results that we want to see. That concludes the ministerial statement, investing in Scotland's future. There will be a short pause before the next item of business.