 That concludes topical questions. The next item of business is a statement by Shona Robison on autumn statements, Scottish Government priorities. The Cabinet Secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, therefore there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Shona Robison, Cabinet Secretary, around 10 minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Tomorrow, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his autumn statement setting out the UK Government's budgetary plans for 2024-25. The actions taken in his statement will largely set the context for our budget on 19 December. The disappointing reality is that the amount that Scotland has to spend on services is still largely driven by a Westminster wedded to even deeper austerity. That means that while I will announce our budget in 28 days time, I still do not know the quantum of funding available to support Scotland's needs. We are only a little over a year on from the disastrous trust money budget that turbocharged the cost of living crisis, inflicting misery on individuals, communities and businesses. We have now seen 14 increases to interest rates and stubbornly a high inflation. Even with the recent reduction in inflation, prices are still around 15 per cent higher than at the start of last year. Inflation remains more than double the Bank of England's target rate. The Resolution Foundation expects the current UK parliamentary term to be the worst for living standards since the 1950s. Tomorrow, the Chancellor needs to recognise this unchanged course. Our public finances have continued to face significant challenges from inflation. Brexit, the war in Ukraine, the increased costs of public sector pay and a capital budget that does not come close to what is required. Despite those challenges, I am pleased that the Auditor General last week gave the Scottish Government's accounts for 2223 an unqualified audit opinion this for the 18th year running. This year, we have prioritised public services and delivered fair pay deals for our public sector workers, but those come at a cost. We must deliver a balanced budget. Pay deals added an estimated £1.26 billion to our recurring pay costs in 2023-24 and £1.75 billion across the public sector. That was around £800 million above the amount that was budgeted for 2023-24. We have worked to try to mitigate the impact of Westminster austerity, but without a change in course from Westminster, I fear that we are now at the limits of what is possible to mitigate within the powers of devolution. I have today written to the Finance and Public Administration Committee to outline the measures that I have taken to ensure that those costs can be met in this financial year. Those have been exceptionally difficult decisions, but they have been necessary to protect services where they are needed the most. In total, savings and funding prioritisation of £680 million have been required in-year, with £284 million already being expressed in the autumn budget revision and the remaining £396 million that will be set out in the spring budget revision. Of those, £391 million are resource and £289 million capital. Those reductions have included £10.5 million from the future transport fund, £30 million from the energy industry's capital programme, savings delivered by the Scottish Funding Council, including £46 million from a withdrawal of the strategic change transformation fund as communicated in May, £3 million from efficiencies in Marine Scotland, £28 million from agricultural budgets with a commitment to return this funding in future years, and we will also redeploy £6 million held and reserved by Forestryland Scotland with that funding to also be returned in future years. Further details are included in the letter to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which was provided to Opposition business managers prior to the statement. Furthermore, as inflationary pressures continue to exacerbate the cost of living crisis and pressures for households and businesses across Scotland, I have protected overall health spending and our investment in key programmes such as the Scottish child payment and in tripling the fuel insecurity fund for this financial year. This challenge is, as a result of prolonged Westminster austerity and is not unique to Scotland. Last month, the Welsh Government set out that it needed to find £600 million in savings before the end of the financial year. Accounting for differences in the size of our budgets, that would be the equivalent to over £1 billion for Scotland. The devolved Administrations have worked together to call on the UK Government for additional funding and in-year budget flexibilities to support the management of the pressures that we all face. The response so far to those calls has been at best insufficient. I am developing our budget for 2024-25, guided by our three missions of equality, community and opportunity and the Beat House agreement. In doing so, I will be reflecting on the feedback from committees following the pre-budget scrutiny process. When I presented the medium-term financial strategy to Parliament in May, I laid out the scale of the challenge that we face. I showed in May that our central resource spending outlook for 2024-25 was £1 billion higher than our central funding scenario, which was based on the Scottish Fiscal Commission's forecast at that time. Our funding for capital projects is facing a real-terms cut next year. We must meet those challenges in the 2024-25 budget. The decisions that we make must be underpinned by reform to ensure that people in Scotland get value from the taxes that they pay and secure a sustainable future for our public services. The Auditor General for Scotland raised the importance last week of reforming our public services to ensure that they remain financially sustainable in the long term. We are committed to public service reform that will help to deliver ffiscally sustainable public services that improve outcomes and reduce inequalities. The powers that this Parliament needs to deliver a better budget for Scotland are still retained in Westminster. The Chancellor needs to act tomorrow to deliver for investment in public services and infrastructure to prioritise net zero and tackling fuel insecurity and to supporting people with the on-going cost of living crisis. I have written to him to stress the importance of those areas. From briefing to the media in recent days, it appears that this may not be the course that he follows, with suggestions that tax cuts may be prioritised over investment in public services. Bluntly, when Westminster consistently under-invests in public services, it means that we have less funding to spend on our public services in Scotland. As I have set out, those concerns are shared by other devolved Governments. The Welsh Finance Minister and I raised the need for increased funding to address that with the UK Government directly. That is especially important for infrastructure investment. However, our budget for capital investment is constrained by the UK Government's spending decisions with funding projected to fall in real terms by 6.7 per cent between 2324 and 2728, and potentially more given sustained inflation. That limits our ability to deliver projects at the required pace. I have called on the Chancellor to rectify that. There must be new money and not funding that we have already allocated to other commitments. That happened with the UK Government's recent announcement in response to our request for additional funding to support flood recovery, which was disingenuous to say the least. A key part of that is ensuring that there is the necessary investment in the infrastructure that we need to meet our net zero targets and realise the opportunities for jobs and the economy. That should include confirming a decision on the Acorn carbon capture and storage project, where we have pressed the UK Government repeatedly on that and where we need to see action. I am providing an appropriate market mechanism for hydropower. The lack of action from the UK Government is preventing Scotland from fully realising its potential. It is also unacceptable in a country as energy rich as Scotland that around 830,000 households, 33 per cent of all households, are in fuel poverty. Although the energy price cap has dropped, many consumers are still paying significantly more than they were two years ago. With Gillian Martin, I have called for a social tariff for priority consumers, as well as reinstating the £400 energy bill support scheme. The UK Government must also take longer-term action to reform the electricity market so that everyone benefits from the net zero transition. We can all see that the pain that the cost of living crisis is causing. We are using our social security powers to deliver a system built on dignity, fairness and respect. This year, we are investing £5.3 billion in the Scottish Government's benefits and payments that will reach around 1.2 million people, including our unique Scottish child payment. However, the majority of social security spend in Scotland remains reserved to the UK Government. I have called on the chancellor to increase working-age benefits by inflation to ensure that they retain their real-terms value for struggling families across the UK. I also urge him to go further and legislate for an essential guarantee, which would provide those who need it most, with the most basic necessities and benefit of 8.8 million families. That would provide dignity and security for people reliant on universal credit. I have again called upon the UK Government to remove the heinous rape clause, the two-child cap and the benefit cap, which disproportionately affect women and children. Presiding Officer, I have been frank with members about the challenges we face and the difficult decisions that we have had to take to balance our budget and make best use of public money. We are doing all that we can within the limited powers that we have, but we need the UK Government to step up and use its powers for the benefit of Scotland. The priority for any fiscal headroom should be investment in public services. To the more of the chancellor has the opportunity to make a real difference for people across Scotland and I urge him to take it. Thank you. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow up to 20 minutes, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business. I invite members, if we wish to ask a question that we have not already done, so to press the request to speak buttons. I was going to begin by complimenting the cabinet secretary, who I thought was very gracious at the finance committee this morning when she acknowledged that through the fiscal framework discussions, relationships between the Scottish Government and the UK Government had been very convivial, and that is a good sign. However, this statement completely undermines that, because it is a category of negativity that is blaming the Scottish Government for everything that has gone wrong in the Scottish Government. I want to ask the cabinet secretary three things. Cabinet secretary was right when she said in her recent letter to the chancellor that businesses in Scotland have faced serious challenges in recent years. So, can I ask her then why, in last year's budget, the Scottish Government refused to pass on the same rates relief that their counterparts in England and Wales received, something that was called for by virtually the entire business community in order to stimulate economic growth and protect their competitiveness? Secondly, she cites tourism and hospitality as facing particular challenges, but does she accept that one of the biggest challenges that they are facing is entirely one of the Scottish Government's own making when it comes to the unworkable policy on short-term lets? When she talks about public services, will she finally acknowledge that one of the biggest difficulties that they face is the result of the crippling SNP cuts to local government funding over a sustained period of time? Cabinet secretary. I described the discussions that I had with the chief secretary of the treasury, John Glenn, as a bit of an oasis in a desert, just to be precise. The desert being the rest of the UK Government in terms of the difficult relationship that we have in making ourselves heard and getting them to take on board the needs of Scotland's public services. The negativity—well, I'm sorry, but there's a lot to be negative about. Choices that are going to face us are going to be largely set by the choices of the UK Government tomorrow. What I said in my statement was that they should prioritise public services. Liz Smith, in her final remark, talked about local government funding and seemed to therefore agree with me that the chancellor should therefore prioritise public service funding. I hope that she will stand with me if the chancellor does not do that tomorrow and prioritises tax cuts for the better off over public sector funding so that she will be equally criticising him for that choice. In terms of business support, we have agreed and supported for many years the number one ask of business, and that is to freeze the poundage. We will come to our conclusions about business support as we take forward the budget discussions over the next few weeks. Daniel Johnson, I thank you for advance sight of the statement. After 16 years of Conservative government, we have had 16 years of short-term thinking, poor transparency and poor sustainability. It is little wonder, therefore, that the letter that the DFM wrote was such, but is the Scottish Government not making many of the same mistakes? On transparency, she rightly asked about how the mooted fiscal changes will be paid for, but how will the council tax freeze be paid for or will local authorities be asked to fit the bill? On long-term planning, the fiscal commission is clear that there is a £2 billion whole, but where is the plan to address that? On growth, there are cuts being made to infrastructure, such as ports and motorways, so that that does not undermine the growth and the growth in incomes that we need to gain extra money through the fiscal framework that is so badly needed. As I set out in my statement, the same challenges that the Scottish Government is facing are exactly the same challenges that are being faced by the Welsh Labour Government, who say exactly the same thing that the issue is the UK Government's lack of financial flexibility, the quantum delivered for public services in Scotland and in Wales. There is nothing exceptional about the Scottish Government's position here. It is exactly the same as the Welsh Government and, indeed, the Northern Irish public services are facing the same problem as well. On transparency, I do not think that anyone could criticise me for not laying out the scale of the problem here in the letter to the finance committee. It lays out exactly what we have had, the difficult decisions that we have had to take to balance our budget in 2023-24, and indicates the even greater challenge next year should additional resources not be coming to the Scottish Government, given the impact of inflation and all the other impacts that I laid out in my statement. In terms of the fiscal sustainability, absolutely. I will lay out in the budget the steps that we are taking. The Auditor General has challenges to do that as well. When I set out in the MTFS the scale of the problem for next year and beyond, I was very clear that there were measures that we had to take ourselves, not least in terms of public service reform. Let's not be about the bush here. The Chancellor tomorrow could solve the issues that both Wales and Scotland are facing by making sure that the priority is public services funding. I would hope that the Labour Party would support us in that, and if it does not, I think that that will be brilliant. First Minister, Scotland's budget process, including scrutiny of the draft budget, is heavily constrained by a timetable, effectively imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the imposition of one-year settlements. Given that no detail of the Chancellor's autumn statement is provided in advance, what difficulties does that present in relation to preparing Scotland's draft budget, particularly during this cost-altering crisis, when it is so crucial to protect Scotland's public services and invest in infrastructure to build a fairer, more equal and prosperous Scotland? Can you give some makes a very important point that the lateness of the autumn statement is a particularly difficult plan for Scotland's 2024-25 budget this year? The budget process is complex to develop and it is reliant on forecasts from the OBR and the Scottish Fiscal Commission to finalise the tax and social security policies alongside portfolio spending plans. We will always endeavour to produce a Scottish budget at the earliest opportunity for the Parliament, but the complexity and risks that are now embedded in developing the Scottish budget and its forecasts mean that a late UK autumn statement represents a particular challenge to this. Mordo Fraser, to be followed by John Mason. Does the Scottish Government support an on-going freeze of fuel duty? We have set out our priorities in the letter to the chancellor in terms of our priorities. What the priorities that I have set out today very clearly is that the resources available to the chancellor tomorrow should go on funding public services, not on tax cuts for the better off, like inheritance tax and support for bankers' bonuses. Those are our priorities. It is for the Tories in here to set out theirs. Let us listen to the questions and the answers. I call John Mason to be followed by Rhoda Grant. The cabinet secretary talks about tax cuts. Does she think that if there were to be tax cuts tomorrow from Westminster that it would be the poorer that would suffer most or the richer that would suffer most? We have had no engagement from the UK Government on its plans to cut tax. It is always seen as the briefing to the media, so we do not know where those tax cuts will land and how they will be funded and who they are targeted at. At this stage, it is very difficult to say. The track record of the Tory Government suggests that the poorest in our society are unlikely to be the ones who benefit most from any of their policies. We will set out our tax plans in the budget on 19 December. Rhoda Grant is followed by Stuart McMillan. The Scottish Government is reading budgets to compensate for its financial mismanagement, budgets that are essential to meeting our net zero targets. It is also kicking the can down the road as to when it will repay the farmers their missing millions. What impact will those budget cuts have on meeting our net zero targets and when will farmers get their missing millions? I wonder whether Rhoda Grant was sitting in the Welsh Assembly, whether she would have said the same to her Welsh Labour Government colleagues who have had to announce the same type of annual spending reductions because of the very same pressures on our budgets. There is no difference here. We have set out our priorities. None of those decisions have been easy. On the agriculture reductions that I set out, I said in my statement that those will be returned to the budget and will do that in a way that aligns with the spending profile of those budgets. I am very happy to set that out. I will be meeting with the NFUS tomorrow to have further discussions about that. I would hope that Labour, instead of blaming the Scottish Government, would join with us in pointing the finger, as our Welsh Assembly colleagues have done, where it should be pointed, and that is at the UK Tory Government. Our capital and revenue budgets have been cut from the Westminster Parliament, thus affecting what can be invested, and other adverse effects, including inflation and the cost of borrowing, are there. In addition to now, RAC has added on to that list. What confirmation from the UK Government has the Scottish Government received with regard to the capital and resource budgets? Will it at least increase inflation to try to protect investment that the Scottish Government is attempting to do? We have had no confirmation from the UK Government that the budgets will increase in line with inflation. The funding that we have received from the UK Government has not matched the scale of the challenge that we face with inflation eroding our spending power. Although we are using the levers at our disposal, that hinders our response to the current economic turmoil that we face. The cut to capital is particularly difficult, because we want to make the investments that we want to make, but with the real terms cut to capital budgets for the foreseeable future, that will have a major impact. I will set out at the Scottish Budget our infrastructure investment plan going forward, but there is no doubt that that will have a huge impact on our infrastructure here in Scotland, and in turn our ability to grow the Scottish economy, which is helped by that infrastructure investment. The NHS is in peril like never before in its 75-year history. Staff and patients are looking to the Scottish and UK Governments for hope, but the waiting lists are as bad as ever. Staff shortages are as bad as ever, and there is little confidence that the Chancellor's autumn statement or the steps that the Scottish Government will take will change anything. Has she had discussions with health boards about their finances for this year, because it appears that discussions about cuts are already under way there, because they simply do not have enough money? Let me say to Alex Cole-Hamilton that our 2023-24 Scottish budget provides record funding of more than £19 billion, providing new investment of more than £1 billion in supporting recovery and reform to secure sustainable public services. The health service has remained a priority for many, many years, and we continue to invest with a total increase of more than £730 million to NHS boards in 2023-24. That is nearly 6 per cent. However, Alex Cole-Hamilton says that that is in the face of rising costs, inflation and all the impacts that it has, and, of course, on the pay deals that I talked about in my statement. Therefore, trying to continue to deliver services and deal with the Covid backlog is a challenge, and there is no way of expressing it any differently from that. We will continue to prioritise health funding, but do not be under any illusion that it will be very, very challenging to do that if we do not see from the Chancellor tomorrow a real commitment to additional funding for the health service. Emma Harper, to be followed by Ross Greer. The UK Government has given strong indications that it is likely to reduce public service funding across England, while also indicating that welfare acclaimants who do not engage with their job centre or take work offered may lose benefit support. Can the finance secretary comment on whether a cut in NHS funding in England will lead to less consequentials or less funding for the Scottish Government to spend on health and social care, and will she join me in outright condemning the removal of welfare support from those who need it the most? Whatever funding we get here in Scotland for public services absolutely depends on departmental allocations and decisions by the UK Government. Whether it is less for health or more for health determines what we get, which is why it is so important that we see additional resources for the health service. I condemn the plans to remove support from some of the most vulnerable people. We have consistently opposed the widespread use of sanctions, as is clear evidence that they do not work, and that it best leads people into unstable work and causes further health problems and significant harm. Again, it would be a shocking state of affairs if tax cuts for the better off are funded at the expense of the poorest in society. Progressive tax changes secured by the Greens are worth £1 billion to Scotland every year. There is still scope to make income tax fairer and raise more, but we also need to broaden our tax base and not be so dependent on income, which is why measures that the visitor and cruise ship levies are so important. Does Deputy First Minister agree that, while Scotland's tax and social security system is already the most progressive in the UK, we can make further progress delivering tax reforms focused on the ability to pay and maximising funding for our public services? I would say to Ross Greer that, as he says, the Scottish Government has already delivered one of the most progressive income tax systems in the UK, while, importantly, raising extra revenue to invest in public services and Scotland's economy. In fact, it has been shown that, because of the decisions that we have made, 10 per cent of households have seen their incomes increase by almost 4 per cent compared with the rest of the UK, driven largely by the flagship policy of the Scottish child payment. Decisions on tax policy for 2024-25, as Ross Greer knows, will be set as part of the budget on 19 December. I look forward to continue to discuss with him and his Green colleagues and others across this Parliament what that should look like in the run-up to the budget. The cabinet secretary has been at pains to stress the need to invest in public services, but astonishingly for a cabinet secretary for finance, not once in her statement today did she mention economic growth. Does she accept that driving growth should be a key focus of the Scottish Government through measures such as targeting investment and boosting skills development, particularly through colleges, which the Fraser Valander Institute recently showed that, for every pound invested, it delivered a boost to the economy of over £8. We have been very clear about the need for economic growth. We set that out very clearly in our end-set strategy and the levers that we will use in terms of our investment in net zero, green energy and making sure that we target those growth sectors in Scotland, because we know that that is important in terms of the growth in tax revenues. I do not really think that we will take any lectures from Brian Whittle on the Tories on economic management, given the catastrophe of the trust's mini budget. I cannot remember if Brian Whittle was a supporter of less trust or not, but the damage that that has inflicted on the Scottish economy is something that should embarrass Brian Whittle and his colleagues for some time to come. The UK Government has so far failed to confirm any additional support for families facing pressures as a result of the soaring cost of living. If Westminster is incapable of taking any decisive action, it is clear that Scotland urgently needs the powers to do so itself. Can the Deputy First Minister provide any update regarding the Scottish Government's latest engagement with the UK Government regarding the transfer of further powers to the Scottish Government over, for instance, the economy, energy, employment and social security, so that the Scottish Government— Cabinet Secretary. The Scottish Government has proposed further devolution of important powers to this Parliament to address many of the issues that he has covered. Devolution of employment law supported by this Parliament earlier this month, devolution of migration powers, which we debated last week, which, of course, could help to grow our population base and, in turn, grow the economy. However, it is clear that the UK Tory Government has no intention of providing Scotland with further powers that we need. Instead, it has undermined and constrained our existing powers, not least with the misuse of the internal market act, so I would not hold my breath in that respect. Where is the ring fence, £28 million, that Shona Robison, the finance secretary, promised to return to Scotland's agricultural budget? When will that be put back? I covered in my statement that we will return the money to agricultural budgets. As I said in an answer to a previous question, we will do that in line with the spending requirements of the sector, and I will discuss that further with the NFUS when I meet them tomorrow. I will set further details out in the budget when we come to that on 19 December. Thank you. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes this item of business. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front benches to change.