 The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on public sector pay and emergency budget review updates. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement so that there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call John Swinney. Cabinet secretary, around 10 minutes please. The cost of living crisis represents an unprecedented challenge. Families face a winter where Cymru yn fawr i ddechrau'r newid, cymorthомau cynnwysau, ryw fawr i ddechrau, ryw pawr i ddechrau, cymorth am symlfaedd y fawr, ryw nyaeth ar gyfer y cyfrifeministau. Felly mae ddim yn drwy gweithio ar fy nwau cyfle i ffynuol, yma y Bank oersiwl y byw yn rhan Darling a lot o'ch cyfrifeministau a chael gwaith o gyd yn y 1990 mae'n rhad oherwydd y 2008 cyfeirio. That is the context in which the First Minister set out the programme for government yesterday. She confirmed that we will extend and increase the child payment in November and protect the roof over people's heads with a rent freeze and a moratorium on evictions. Free school meals will be rolled out further, the fuel and security fund will be doubled, rail fares will be frozen until at least March and the warmer homes fuel poverty programme is being widened. This all comes on top of the almost £3 billion in support already budgeted for and an existing £800 million of release for business in this financial year. The UK Government holds reserved powers over energy, over tax, over the bulk of benefits, over business support and over regulation that could help address this crisis. They have borrowing powers and the ability to deploy financial instruments that can transform household and business budgets. They have all of this yet as the crisis has worsened there has been no substantive action taken to help people in business. Urgent action is overdue and I urge the Prime Minister and the Chancellor not to waste another day before setting out their plans. Presiding Officer, today I will update Parliament on the impact of the cost crisis on the public finances and the steps that we will take to keep them in balance while funding the support that it is in our power to provide. This is not just a cost of living crisis as some characterise it, the cost of doing business, the cost of third sector support and the cost of public services are all rising as well. Indeed, in all of my experience now and during my previous tenure as finance secretary there has never been a time of greater pressure on the public finances. Our budget was based on a UK spending review that simply did not foresee the levels of inflation that are now a reality. Last summer inflation was just 2 per cent. In December when the budget was agreed, CPI stood at just 5.4 per cent. Now it is more than 10 per cent and predicted to go higher still. The result is simple, almost every cost Government in Curse has risen. At the same time, our budget is now worth around £1.7 billion less than it was in December. That alone would require the budget to be revisited. But in times of crisis the job of the finance secretary is not simply to balance the books, it is to find the money to help families, to back business and to fund the priority projects that improve lives for the long term. The emergency budget review must identify funding to cope with inflation-driven cost increases and aim to support those who most need our help during this crisis. It must do so using only the fixed powers of this Parliament. Our total budget is fixed, we cannot vary income tax in year, our reserve funding is fully allocated, we have no legal ability to borrow to fund day-to-day spending such as pay increases. Our capital borrowing is allocated for projects such as new schools and housing, projects that support employment and invest in our recovery. In short, the Scottish budget is at the absolute limits of affordability. Today I will set out to Parliament the initial steps that the Scottish Government has taken and will take to manage the nation's finances, while maximising the support that we make available to help those in need. First, let me quantify the demand arising from public sector pay. As the First Minister set out to Parliament yesterday, in the midst of a cost crisis, our role in paying negotiations is to maximise the support to the lowest paid as a crucial part of our response to the cost crisis. My job is not to fight low-paid workers' pay claims, my job is to fund low-paid workers' pay claims. Accordingly, we have seen police officers agree a 5 per cent deal, while on ScotRail ASLEF has similarly settled at 5 per cent. Negotiations with some of the largest workforces, the NHS agenda for change, for example, are on-going, but the enhanced pay offers that have been made excluding direct local government contributions total approximately £700 million. Last week, we also reached a proposed local government pay settlement. As a result of our intervention and the hard work of the unions and their members, the pay rise proposed for the lowest paid was significantly increased, with awards in excess of 10 per cent, whereas the increases for the most well-off were capped at £3,000. More money for the lowest paid was funded by the Scottish Government. The proposed settlement means, however, that we must find additional savings. We said that there was no more money and there is not. Funding this agreement means taking money from elsewhere. Pay is not the only cost pressure that we face. We have rightly given a warm Scottish welcome to people displaced from Ukraine as a result of the illegal and on-going Russian invasion. Almost 18 per cent of all displaced Ukrainians coming to the United Kingdom are coming to Scotland. That requires us to find around £200 million, not planned for at the time of the budget, just as the invasion began. I hope that no one in the chamber begrudges that support. Public sector pay and the cost of supporting displaced Ukrainians, along with the rising costs due to inflation, are therefore placing enormous strain on our budget. In addition to those factors, there is our clear determination to support those who will find themselves in difficulty this winter. We have already provided almost £3 billion of support to people, and as the First Minister set out yesterday, we will go further. I have heard and am listening to proposals for further action, doubling bridging payments, freezing rail fares beyond March, more help for energy efficiency, greater businesses and third sector support, and managing the impact of rising energy and food bills on hospitals and schools. None of that can be done without reducing planned spend in other areas and on other programmes. Presiding Officer, difficult choices must be made. There is no unallocated cash, there is no reserve that has not been utilised. Every penny more on one policy is a penny less on another policy. I have therefore today written to the finance committee setting out around £500 million in reductions in planned spending and forecasting that we have made in recent weeks. Those include a reduction of £53 million in the budget for employability schemes, utilising funding of £56 million generated by the Scotland clearing process, funding that will be reinstated in future years and used as planned to invest in the just transition, £33 million deferl of ring-fenced agricultural funds to be returned in future years, and whilst not impacting eligibility, taking a risk-based forecasting approach based on demand of a reduction of £37 million in the budget for concessionary fares. Throughout this process, we have taken those savings that we consider have the least impact on public services and on individuals. Still, those decisions have not been easy and they will not be without consequence. In particular, the reduction in employability funding, but given the circumstances that we face, they are unavoidable. At a time of acute labour shortages, historically low unemployment and soaring inflation, we have taken the view that we must prioritise wage increases over spending on employability, but this is not a decision that we have taken lightly. It is a decision that we would not have wanted to have taken. Any changes to budgets will be formally set out to Parliament in the budget revision process, but it is in the public interest that underlying savings are set out now so that the scale of the challenge that we face is clearly understood and no one in this Parliament or anyone negotiating pay deals can be unaware of it. Many of the individual savings are small amounts of money, but together they add up to a significant reduction in expenditure, enabling that money to be invested in addressing the financial challenges that we face. Last week's intervention by the Scottish Government in the local government pay dispute demonstrates what we are having to do in order to shift to full consolidation of the award further savings had to be made. I have committed, Presiding Officer, to publishing the outcome of the emergency budget review within two weeks of the UK fiscal event planned for later this month. Further savings will be required to balance the budget, particularly if inflation continues to rise, and the majority of our spend cannot be changed at this stage of the financial year. It is contractually committed or supports vital programmes. In short, what I have set out today is just the beginning of the hard choices. There is one further point that Parliament must reflect on, which is why I require time following a UK fiscal event before I can set out the results of the emergency budget review. For eight weeks, we have heard the new Prime Minister talk of unfunded tax cuts that will not help the lowest paid or those reliant on universal credit and of cutting public sector spending to deliver tax cuts for businesses. If in pursuing these policies, the United Kingdom Government reduces the budgets of any portfolios where we have devolved responsibility, then the challenge that we face becomes harder as our budget becomes smaller. This is the harsh reality of a fixed budget and limited powers. The Scottish Government simply does not have access to many of the levers that would provide the greatest support in this crisis—taxation of windfall profits, regulation of the energy market or borrowing. That is why the new Prime Minister and her new chancellor must take action immediately. They have reserved the powers over this crisis to themselves. So my appeal to the United Kingdom Government is to cancel the energy price rises and fund the targeted support that people desperately need, help families struggling to feed their children and heat their homes this winter, provide the additional funding necessary to meet the impact of higher public sector pay and inflation. We will do everything we can. We will make the hard choices, but only the UK Government can act to end this crisis. They should do so, and I encourage them to do so now. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The Cabinet Secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 40 minutes for this, after which we will need to move to the next item of business, and I would encourage any member wishing to ask a question to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement as I begin. However, there was one word missing from this statement, and it was sorry. Sorry to the people of Edinburgh and Scotland for the impact that these strikes have had on their lives, especially here in the capital where waste has piled up in the streets of our capital city for 12 days during our showcase Edinburgh festivals. Scottish Conservatives warned SNP ministers during the passage of the SNP green budget that councils across Scotland would be put in a position where they are unable to meet pay demands. Ministers did not listen, and after year-on-year cuts to councils budgets were limited in their ability to address local issues. Just this year, local councils have faced a cut of £251 million in real terms. The cabinet secretary has stated today that the Scottish Government is providing £3 billion. However, a report by the independent Scottish Parliament research and information centre shows that only £490 million of support has been put in place since October of 2021. I am sure that the cabinet secretary does not want to mislead Parliament, so I hope that he will correct the record today. However, I specifically asked two questions. It is clear that local government needs a new funding settlement, which, for 15 years, has failed to deliver. Will he look again at a new cross-party discussion over local government funding settlements in the future? The cabinet secretary has announced £53 million of cuts from employability fund schemes. That is such an important part if we are going to face a recession of getting people and saving jobs in Scotland. At the same time as the SNP Government is keeping £20 million aside for a referendum, will the cabinet secretary rethink that investing jobs is not a referendum? I deeply regret the inconvenience that was experienced by members of the public in Edinburgh over the disruption about refuse collection as I regret it in other parts of the country. I think that the ability to address the issue and to avoid industrial action would have been helped if Conservative leaders in COSLA, when the Government put more money on the table, had not voted to offer a 3.5 per cent increase to workers as opposed to the 5 per cent that the Government had made it possible to be funded. The playing of politics by Conservative leaders in COSLA directly caused the industrial action in the city of Edinburgh, and Conservative leaders would be ashamed of themselves. I am very on local government funding. The local government settlement for 2022-23, before the additional resources that the Government has put up, increased by 9.2 per cent in cash terms or 6.3 per cent in real terms. That is a very substantial funding increase for local authorities. In addition to the point that Mr Briggs should know me well enough to know that I would never put myself in the position of misleading Parliament and it is a disgraceful suggestion for him to make of that. I will happily put in Spice the substance of the list of support that the Government is putting in place to assist in the cost of living that has been wrestled with by members of the public. I have it in front of me. It totals £2.968 billion, and I will happily put it in Spice, and Mr Briggs should be careful about who he accuses of misleading Parliament. I am very happy to take forward discussions about the funding of local authorities. Indeed, the Cabinet has agreed to embark on discussions with local authorities about the questions of the funding and the achievement of outcomes, the role of ring fencing, so that we can engage with local authorities on the questions of flexibility. On the point about employability funding, I was explicit in my statement that I would rather not be making that reduction in public expenditure, but I have no other choice. We are operating in a fixed budget, and this is the point that I was trying to make in my summation to the debate yesterday that I make again today. We are in a fixed budget. There is no other pot of money that we can go to than to take money from existing commitments that we have just now. That is why we have taken the decision on employability. We think that it is a reason and rational judgment because we are experiencing historically low unemployment, we have significant inflationary pressures and it is likely that the requirement and demand for employability services will be low for the remainder of this financial year. That may not be the case in future financial years, as we look at the impacts of that. Of course, the United Kingdom Government could act to stabilise the situation in which I hope that it will. Lastly, on the question of the allocated resources for the referendum, my statement is focused on this current financial year. The commitment to spend £20 million on an independence referendum, which for me is necessary to ensure that Scotland can decide our own future and get out of this unhealthy and unsatisfactory arrangements of the United Kingdom, is expenditure that will be spent next year. If Miles Briggs wants to exchange to engage substantively on the arguments about the challenges of this financial year, let us talk about this financial year, not next financial year. I know that we have allocated a little more time to reflect the wide interest and the number of members who want to participate in this session, but it is going to require shorter questions but also shorter answers, cabinet secretary. Daniel Johnson. Families and businesses across this country are already feeling the pain of rising energy bills, which is why the Scottish Labour has been calling for active measures and welcomed the fact that the Scottish Government has come to agree with many of those pledges. We appreciate that the Government itself is not immune to those pressures as we face what is an unprecedented economic crisis. However, of the £500 million worth of cuts specified today, the Deputy First Minister is also hinting at £1.7 billion larger figure. We need greater clarity, and just on the £3 billion figure of support, the Deputy First Minister does not need to place anything with SPICE, because SPICE has already done the analysis and said that only £500 million is since the rise in energy costs, and the rest predates those rises. If the Government does place difficult choices, but if that is to be anything other than euphemism, we need greater clarity, transparency and honesty. What is the total value of the funding shortfall that the Scottish Government is planning for? Given that its predecessor suggested that headcount would need to be reduced across the public sector by £30,000, can he confirm that that forms part of the plans? Given the scale of the cuts that the Deputy First Minister seems to be implying with the £1.7 billion figure, can he set out what plans he has asked civil servants to examine and when he will confirm when they will be put in place and the timelines for implementing them? I am not quite sure where Mr Johnson gets his £1.7 billion figure from, but I will happily engage with him on those questions. The substance of the challenge that we face is about the rising costs within budget lines. The £1.7 billion that I make was about the value of our budget because of the impact of inflation. Clearly, we are managing the challenges within that overall budget figure. The additional cost of public sector pay that I have cited to Parliament today on the basis of existing offers is about £700 million. That is a substantial sum of money that we have to reconcile within a fixed budget. What I have set out today takes us substantially towards addressing many of those challenges. Mr Johnson asked about some of the references in the resource spending review to Hetlin. None of my predictions of the years to come would affect the contents of the resource spending review at this stage, but we will have to turn the resource spending review into individual budgets. That will be determined by many of the decisions that are taken by the United Kingdom Government on the contents of their budget for the next financial year. If I reiterate a point that I made in my statement, for example, if the UK Government reshapes the balance of their budget between what they expect to generate in tax and what they intend to deploy in spending, that will have an effect on our budget without a doubt. That may then require us to revisit some of the assumptions in the spending review. The budget process will go through the normal process of parliamentary scrutiny. The autumn budget revisions will go to the finance committee in due course, and there will be the opportunity to scrutinise all the changes that I am making. That is why I am here today, to offer transparency around the changes that we are having to make. That would not be a statement that would ordinarily be made at this stage in the parliamentary year, but I am here because we are having to take operational decisions of such magnitude that we have never taken before. I have come to Parliament to make the statement and to address the questions from members. Thank you. We have now taken 10 minutes to do two questions. We have 18 members who want to ask questions in half an hour in which to ask them. We are going to have to pick up the pace a bit with that call, Willie Rennie. Although £82 million of what the Deputy First Minister calls savings is actually Barnett consequentials from the UK Government, can he provide more detail on precisely the impact of the other cuts to the budget? He has given us broad outlines, but I think that people deserve to know what the real impacts will be on rural communities, on training funds, and, of course, on employability schemes. Can he give the people who are going to be facing those cuts a little bit more detail about what those impacts are? I understand the aspiration that Mr Rennie sets out, and, of course, we will engage in parliamentary scrutiny on those points and answer and address any questions that members have on those points. We are obviously taking—the one point of reassurance that I would give at the outset is that the Government is trying to take a set of decisions that minimise the impact on individuals. That will not be possible in all circumstances, but we are trying to take decisions to minimise the impact on individuals and to make judgments about when we think that it is appropriate for us to reduce funding with the objective of minimising the impact on individuals. Kenneth Gibson, to be followed by Liz Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I believe that all MSPs are keen to see everyone on employment paid more, given rocket and inflation. However, given the financial straitjacket of devolution and real-terms cuts to Scotland's budget of 5.2 per cent this year, even before inflation spiked, what are the implications for the sustainability of Scotland's public finances going forward? Is the Scottish Government looking at whether or not it can continue to mitigate UK cuts in reserved areas? The impact of the higher—the expectations of public sector pay in the budget were 2 per cent. We are obviously at an increased level to that. If it is consolidated salary increases, that will flow through into future years. That will place increasing pressure on future years budgets, which is why we have to restate on an annual basis the contents of the resource spending review to take account of those factors. That puts increasing pressure within the Scottish Government's budget. As Mr Gibson highlights in his contribution, we do not have the range of flexibilities to expand the size of that cake. Obviously, those decisions will be reflected on by the Government as we look at the contents of the budget, but we believe that it is vital that the type of support that we mitigate the actions of the United Kingdom Government, particularly for people who are vulnerable in our society, that we sustain that expenditure to protect our citizens in their time of need. With tomorrow's announcement from the UK Government, there is the possibility that the Scottish Government will receive additional funding as a result of the tax cuts down south. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that the Scottish Government would use that money should it happen to fund tax cuts for hard-working Scots to avoid us being the highest tax part of the UK? I will perhaps wait until I see all the detail before I decide what the tax stance of the Scottish Government and the proposals are going to be. We will see what the contents of tomorrow's announcement are, but I reiterate my point to Parliament that, if there is an approach that rebalances between tax and spending within the United Kingdom, I would imagine that there will be an impact on the spending power of the Scottish Government, and that is an issue that Parliament will have to wrestle with and wrestle with very carefully. First Minister, in your statement, we were reminded that the bulk of benefits that are reserved to Westminster, in particular state pensions incidentally—I do not think that it is a benefit, but an entitlement. Forty per cent of those entitled to pension credit do not claim that it has been like this for over a decade, and that is a gateway to other benefits. It saves the treasury billions. As the UK Government is not pushing those claims, it may be deliberate, can I ask what the Scottish Government can do despite those being reserved to help Scottish pensioners claim their entitlement, which makes such a difference to so many? That is a very important issue. It is one of the areas of work that is taken forward by the financial advisory services that the Government funds around the country. There is advice available to members of the public. There is obviously a question about awareness and the degree to which people are aware of those opportunities to supplement their income entirely appropriately. I will take forward the point that Christine Grahame makes to ensure that our advice agencies are aware of the importance of encouraging awareness about those opportunities. It is local government that usually takes the hit when it comes to government cuts in the country, seeing the impact of six billion cuts over the past decade. Can the Deputy First Minister say what the impact is going to be on local councils and local communities of this review? As I indicated earlier on in the local government France settlement for this year, there was a 9.2 per cent cash terms increase for local government and a 6.3 per cent real terms increase. That is before we got to the additional money that I have put into local government as a consequence of the pay deals. Local government, in a very tight financial settlement, is being well supported. As I indicated in my answer to Mr Rennie, we are trying to minimise the impact of any judgments on individuals and communities, and that will be the approach that the Government continues to take as we look for ways to ensure that we are able to support those who are facing the greatest challenge from the cost crisis. Bob Doris, to be followed by Pam Gautherl. Presiding Officer, the workforce in the third and voluntary sector play an important role in delivering key services across Scotland, often in partnership with government and local authorities. Today's announcement will have an impact directly on them, I am sure. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary for assessment the Scottish Government has made of the pay and other financial pressures on the sector? What can the Scottish Government do to support the sector at this hugely challenging time? I acknowledge the significance of the third sector and its importance in providing the support to individuals that we saw during the Covid pandemic and which is ever more necessary just now during the cost crisis. The sector will be under the same financial pressures that the Government is under. Our ability to support the sector to a greater extent is an issue that we will keep under constant review as we look for ways to try to ensure that we can maximise the support that is available to provide resilience and capability within communities to meet the effects of the financial crisis that we face. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that if the Scottish Government hadn't wasted hundreds of millions on ferries that don't float, on the malicious prosecution of rangers and the delays with the Sick Kids hospital, of course, and other botched SNP projects, he would not be announcing the £560 million cuts that he is announcing today? Bluntly, no, because most of what Pam Gosser talked about was capital expenditure, and you cannot use capital expenditure to pay folk salaries. It is just not possible. I am very happy to answer questions in Parliament, but it would be helpful if they were slightly more relevant to the realities of life. The Deputy First Minister has outlined hundreds of millions of savings that have to be made for the Scottish Government to offer that enhanced pay offer to public sector workers. Nobody wants to see those savings made, but we have heard how the Scottish Government's fixed budget is falling in real terms under Westminster, so we do not have a choice, and Mr Briggs might want to think on that. Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that not only do we need Westminster to urgently provide additional funding, but we also need independence to put future decisions firmly in the hands of the Scottish Parliament, not the Tories at Westminster? The cost crisis illustrates the limitations of this Parliament's ability to deal with changing and dynamic circumstances. We saw during Covid when the United Kingdom Government extended its financial interventions to an extraordinary level, and they did that, and that was welcome. However, that was necessary in that moment, and it is necessary now. However, it would be better if we were able to take the decisions in this Parliament as an independent Parliament about the choices that our people need to face, and to be able to have those controls at our disposal and not wait for the UK Government to hopefully take decisions that will assist us in our endeavours. Paul Swinney, to be followed by Ross Greer. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. At this very moment, as the Cabinet Secretary outlines £500 million of cuts, Public Corporation Scottish Waterhouse reserves have almost £500 million following their price hike earlier this year, a rise that looks set to happen again next year. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary whether he has demanded that public corporations with vast reserves play their part in easing the financial pressures that are faced by millions of Scottish households, by holding down utility bills and investing in capital projects such as public district heat networks to get houses, public buildings and businesses off the gas grid? I certainly expect all public bodies, including public corporations, to play their part in assisting the Government in wrestling with the unprecedented situation that we face. Ross Greer, to be followed by Jackie Dunbar. There have been a number of claims made in recent weeks about the status of the Scottish reserve. The Deputy First Minister referenced the reserve in his statement, but could he expand on that and clarify exactly what the status of the reserve is at present and what has been allocated from it? At the statement that Mr Arthur gave to Parliament for the provisional Scotland reserve position at the end of the financial year, the expectation was that the reserve would hold £650 million. The budget bill envisaged that £511 million of that would be provided for £511 million of that to be inserted into the budget, and we expect to deploy the remaining £139 million at the autumn budget revisions to support announcements that have already been made to provide assistance to different aspects of public policy in the course of the work of the Government. Jackie Dunbar, to be followed by Russell Findlay. I welcome that tackling the cost of living crisis is front and centre of the Scottish Government's programme for government. However, in comparison, the UK Government has been missing in action, causing anxiety for families and businesses, not only in my Aberdeen-Donsea constituency but across the country. Can the Deputy First Minister advise whether the new UK Government has contacted the Scottish Government to outline needed emergency plans to help tackle the cost of living crisis? I have to say that nothing has reached me yet. That is not to say that there has not been approaches about some dialogue, but nothing has reached me at this stage. As I indicated to Parliament yesterday, the First Minister asked the previous Prime Minister to arrange four nations discussions on the cost of living emergency. That was turned down at that stage. I have been in touch with the former chancellor and I have written to the new chancellor overnight, requesting urgent intervention to address the very issues that Jackie Dunbar has raised. The cabinet secretary reveals that almost £10 million will be cut from the justice budget. At today's justice committee, Police Scotland voiced very real concerns about SNP cuts resulting in fewer officers on our streets. Without hearing the usual stock excuses of blaming the UK Government, can he tell people why jeopardising public safety is the right thing to do? I would not count on jeopardising public safety and I do not think that it helps the quality of debate for Mr Finlay to go chucking around accusations like that. I would remind Mr Finlay that crime in Scotland is at a 40-year low just now. We properly and effectively fund the police service. I am very pleased that the justice secretary has been able to secure a 5 per cent pay increase for the police officers. The whole purpose of my statement today is to indicate to members of Parliament that there are limitations on the resources that we have available to us and that we are going to have to make hard choices. As part of those hard choices, I am very pleased that our police service serves us so well and that we have such low levels of crime in Scotland today. It seems to me that some organisations, businesses and perhaps some individuals have been making huge profits during Covid and through the energy price challenges. Does the Deputy First Minister support the idea of a windfall tax? Is there anything that the Scottish Government can do in that, or will it be dependent again on Westminster? There are, as ministers have made clear, very strong arguments for windfall taxes and we have supported measures that have been taken forward in that respect. We believe that, out of the proceeds of a range of different activities, if there are windfall profits, there is an argument to consider whether those should be the subject of additional taxation. Mr Mason will appreciate, though, that issues of corporate taxation are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament and that the Scottish Government has very limited scope to be able to take forward any issues of that type. We can, of course, explore any issues that may arise through the non-domestic rate system but that, I would stress, is very much a peripheral approach to the tackling of the scale of the issue that Mr Mason raises with me. I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary has said about operational decisions for this year, but Scotland's two richest families have as much wealth as the poorest 20 per cent of the whole population. What work is being done to look at how the Scottish Parliament's existing tax-raising powers, for example land-based taxis, could be used to target the super-rich whose wealth has increased substantially during the pandemic? There are ongoing discussions that the Government takes forward in looking at the exercise of the tax powers over which we have existing competence. The conclusions of those discussions will feature in the budget proposals that are brought forward later on in the year and, obviously, there will be the opportunity for members to scrutinise those. There are very limited opportunities for the Government to extend beyond those existing tax responsibilities, but we will look at all those questions as part of our efforts to ensure that public finances are sustainable. The Deputy First Minister touched on some of the steps that the Scottish Government is currently taking to mitigate the cost crisis. Can he provide any further detail as to how the Scottish Government will maximise the current direct financial assistance that is available to those who are most in need, taking into account, of course, the financial strait jacket that the Scottish Government is subject to in terms, sadly, of the current constitutional settlement? I think that answering Annabelle Ewing's question, I would cite, as probably the most recent and significant intervention in this matter, the Scottish Child Payment. The Scottish Child Payment represents a very welcome and highly focused intervention to support families facing financial challenge and difficulty. We set out yesterday that it will be extended in November and that the payment will be increased. That is one example, and there are others that I could list where the Government is taking action to support families who are facing challenge and to do that. In doing so, it forces us to make choices about how we use our resources, because if we fund the Scottish Child Payment, we are not able to fund other proposals and services that other people may wish us to fund. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that no budget has been taken from this year's allocation to the Just Transition Fund for North East and Moray and that every penny of the £20 million from this year's budget will be allocated this year? There is no money that has been taken from the North East Transition Fund, whether all of it will be allocated this year is a matter that will be subject to ministerial decision making in the course of this year, but we would want to see that money allocated in full for the remainder of this financial year. Normal independent countries have and will be using extensive borrowing powers to ease the burden of the cost of the living crisis. Can I ask the Deputy First Minister what progress has been made in discussions with the UK Government in regards to more flexibility with an existing fiscal framework, particularly around additional borrowing powers, needed now more than ever? We are in what I would call the foothills of discussions about the fiscal framework, and there are some mountains yet to be climbed. We will be raising and discussing those issues. The response that we will get from the United Kingdom Government will be a matter for further consideration and explanation to Parliament. However, I think that this crisis and Covid illustrate the necessity for the Government and Parliament to have a wider range of financial powers and flexibilities to enable us to manage the challenges that we face. The Deputy First Minister will be aware that, before Covid, people with disability in employment were less than the rest of the United Kingdom. Covid has left many disabled people behind. Those cuts in employability training will affect the most vulnerable disabled people in our society. What message do you give to disabled people in Scotland that they are not important in order to get them back into employment, and what do you rethink, particularly around disability? I hear Mr Balfour's point and I understand it and I think that he makes a fair point. The challenge that I face is that I cannot spend money twice. That is the point that we are reaching because of the pressures that we are facing. I hear what he says and I will explore what opportunities there are to try to address the issues that he raises. However, we are under severe financial pressure and to meet the costs of public sector pay, we have to take the decisions that we are taking. I will try to minimise the impact on members of the public. That is the assurance that I have given Parliament today. However, the wider context for our financial pressures is set by the parameters in which we are operating from the United Kingdom Government. If those were to be relaxed, I would be in a position where I could allocate more money than I am able to allocate today. The response to my appeal to pick up the pace was absolutely exemplary and has set the standard for the rest of the session. With that, we conclude.