I'm pleased to open this committee debate on pre-budget scrutiny on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. This debate is an important part of the full-year budget process and is intended to enable conveners to set out how their committees are sought to influence the budget and provide the Government an opportunity to respond. Having greater influence on the formulation of Scottish Government budget proposals is one of the four core objectives of the budget process, as recommended by the budget process review group back in June 2017. Others are to improve transparency and raise public understanding and awareness of the budget, respond effectively to new fiscal and wider policy challenges and lead to better outputs and outcomes. Due to time constraints within the budget process in recent years, this is only the second time the Parliament has held this committee debate. I therefore very much look forward to hearing all the contributions from colleagues today and the pre-budget scrutiny that their committees have undertaken. However, first I wish to thank the Finance and Public Administration's committee's clerking team, Alan Hunter, Chris Hind, Joanne McNaughton, Sarah Robertson and Jane Williams, who work so diligently and provide such sound advice and support to myself and my committee colleagues, as well as excellent briefing papers and notes. I also want to thank Ross Burnside of the Spices Financial Scrutiny Unit, our committee adviser, Mary Spowage, Eric McLeod in Media and my six committee colleagues, Ross Greer, Deputy Convener Daniel Johnson, Douglas Lumson, John Mason, Liz Smith and Mel in Michelle Thompson. All of what has worked hard and contributed significantly to our work, despite the often steep learning curve that is initially faced, particularly for those members who are new to Holyrood. The Covid-19 pandemic required public investment at an unprecedented scale and speed and its devastating impact will be felt for years to come. That is why we, in the Finance and Public Administration committee, decided to look at the impact of the pandemic on Scotland's public finances as part of our pre-budget scrutiny. I shared some of our findings about the short-term impacts of Covid-19 during a recent committee debate on Covid recovery. Today I want to explore some other aspects of report looking longer-term at the challenges ahead and some cross-cutting measures that could help support fiscal sustainability. Deputy Convener Daniel Johnson will return to some of our findings on the impact of Covid-19 in his closing speech. We know that the pandemic exacerbated pre-existing inequalities and moved more people into poverty and debt, and we received specific calls for funding to address those issues. Age Scotland, for example, argued that the budget should include measures to assist with pension or poverty, citing more people are never being pushed into fuel poverty and loneliness during the pandemic. At the other end of the age spectrum, we heard from the child poverty action group that their top priority in this year's budget should be the doubling of the child payment and the issue that the Scottish Government is taking forward in the 2022-23 budget. Public finances will be under significant pressure on those to come, and Scottish ministers will continue to face difficult decisions on how to prioritise, spend and raise revenue. We have therefore asked that the Government expose which policy interventions would have the greatest impact on cross-cutting issues, such as addressing inequalities and poverty. With the upcoming resource, spending review and the annual medium-term financial strategy, we provide timely opportunities for the Scottish Government to prioritise this approach, and we look forward to hearing more from the cabinet secretary about this work in due course. We believe that multi-year budgets are crucial in securing certainty for Scotland's public finances, including for local government, third sector and other key bodies. It can, of course, be more difficult to deliver this approach in situations where the Scottish Government does not have confirmed multi-year block grant funding from the UK Government. We therefore recommend that the UK and Scottish Governments consider how multi-year budgets can be achieved more routinely as part of the upcoming review of the fiscal framework. The fiscal framework review also presents an opportunity to consider how communication and transparency between the UK and Scottish Governments can be improved, with witnesses describing a decline in intergovernmental relations and suggesting that tensions seem to be increasing in light of UK Government spending in devolved areas. In two to three years, we will also seek to widen the pool of individuals and organisations that provide evidence to the committee and seek to expand the focus of that evidence. For example, when stakeholders give evidence on their asks, it would be helpful if they specified how much additional resources they seek, should it be available and how it can be funded. We need to move on from simply having witnesses ask for more money, often with a clear idea how such resources would be utilised, but without knowing how much is required or suggesting from where such resources could be found in any but the vaguest fashion. Following Brexit, we consider that managing replacement EU funds requires greater communication and sharing of information to enable effective public spending in areas where there may be a common interest. We look forward to exploring the evidence received from local authorities and how the funds are operating in the sector state for housing, communities and local government, Michael Gove MP, when he appears before the committee next month. A time and date, despite our clerks' pressing since last October, has still to be finalised. When we reported back in November, concerns were raised about a lack of clarity on whether the Scottish public sector would incur additional costs as a result of the proposed increase in employer national students' contributions under the UK Government's health and social care levy. The Scottish Government, in its response, told us that the public sector would incur additional costs of around £150 million per annum in Scotland through increased national insurance contributions. Indeed, I myself asked a written question on that matter. However, although the Treasury has confirmed that the Scottish Government will receive Barnett consequentials, the exact breakdown was not available at the time of its response. It would therefore be helpful to note if the cabinet secretary has an update on this important matter. Local government, for example, is concerned that such consequentials are not being passed on. Before Christmas, the committee took evidence on the Christie commission 10-years on and revisited the priorities that had a prevention, people, partnership and performance. In our report, we could see real economic and societal benefits and prioritising expenditure on preventive measures, where to protect the environment or the health of the nation in future years. We believe that the Scottish Government's resource spending review provides an opportunity to introduce bold preventive measures to protect funds and create a wellbeing economy for the longer term. We look forward to hearing more from the Government on how it is prioritising preventive spend and how that approach has resulted in a shift in policy direction and expenditure. The Finance and Public Administration Committee also felt that more efficiency could be achieved by streamlining and linking up the various strategies and plans that have an impact on growing the economy and fiscal sustainability as we move out of the pandemic. We asked the Scottish Government to outline how it would progress this matter, a recommendation that has not yet been addressed in the Scottish Government's response. We believe that the upcoming statutory review of national outcomes provides an opportunity to reposition the national performance framework at the heart of government from which all priorities and plans should flow. In addition, we have asked the Scottish Government to look at how the NPF can be more closely linked to budget planning and, again, await the response to the recommendation. When we reported back in November, we noted that the declining working age population, an increasing number of over 65s, presented what we described as a double whammy to fiscal sustainability. We argued that, in this scenario, the provision of public services and welfare payments would need to be funded from a smaller and more productive working population and that reversing those trends would require a focused and sustained approach to policymaking over a number of years. We would appreciate details of how Scottish ministers will address that vital and pressing issue. Laces forecasts on the Scottish Fiscal Commission show weaker income tax revenues in Scotland than the rest of the UK, along with higher social security spending, at a time when the fiscal resource that is available to the Scottish Government is in decline. That suggests that pressures will soon be even more acute than we warned back in November. A report on the Scottish budget 2020-23 published last week exposed the trends behind this data in more detail. I look forward to speaking more about those issues in the stage 1 debate on the budget bill tomorrow. In the meantime, I move the motion of my name that the Scottish Parliament notes the pre-budget scrutiny undertaken by the Finance and Public Administration Committee and other parliamentary committees. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Gibson. Before calling the next speaker, I remind members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request speak buttons or place an R in the chat function, and I call the cabinet secretary for around eight minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that I was one of the guilty ones for not having pressed the button. Today's debate marks a welcome return to full Parliament scrutiny process for the Scottish budget. I thank all the committees for their consideration engagement on the budget and for the inquiries and the questions that they have posed to me certainly in their scrutiny sessions. Across the chamber, I am sure that we all appreciate the difficulties that the pandemic has created and the challenges that we are continuing to manage. I think that the convener of the finance committee set those out very helpfully in his opening statement. As we consider the budget today, I would like to highlight some positive news that today's GDP statistics illustrate that Scotland's GDP is now back above pre-pandemic levels for the first time since February 2020, and that is hugely encouraging news in light of the enormous challenges that have faced our economy over the past two years. Our economy continues to broadly track the UK's as we recover from the impacts of the pandemic. It is important context for next year's Scottish budget, particularly because we know that Covid is still with us, and yet there is a distinct absence of future Covid funding from the UK Government, which is creating additional budget pressures and difficult choices for this budget—difficult choices that I have not shied away from. Despite that, the budget delivers on three key priorities—reducing inequalities, taking action to tackle climate change and investing in economic recovery. The budget scrutiny that is undertaken by the Parliament's committee is a key part of the budget process, and I will focus my remarks on the committee's perspectives on the budget. There is, of course, stage 1 tomorrow, which allows us to air some other key issues and may well involve less consensus than this afternoon's debate. The Constitution, Europe, external affairs and culture committee focused its attention predominantly on support for the culture sector, and we recognise the vital contribution that Scotland's culture and heritage sector makes. That is why the budget is proposing to spend £277 million in next year. The criminal justice committee recognised the effect of the pandemic on the justice sector, which is well documented and will be investing £53.2 million to continue the recovery, renew and transform programme across the justice system next year, which is tasked with remobilising the justice system. In total, we will invest almost £3.2 billion across the justice sector, including almost £1.4 billion of support for policing. Understandably, the Economy and Fair Work Committee focused its pre-budget scrutiny predominantly on economic recovery and support. That is a particularly crucial time to support businesses across Scotland, and I am proud that next year's Scottish budget continues to offer a generous, non-domestic rates package with the lowest poundage in the UK for the fourth year in a row. We will also invest £635 million across the enterprise agencies of the Scottish National Investment Bank and Visit Scotland to support economic recovery and transformation. That is the highest level of investment for our enterprise agencies since 2010, and for good reason, because our economic recovery underpins our spending decisions across the public sector. I recognise the importance of the issues that were raised by the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and I am pleased therefore to confirm that next year we will provide the first £50 million of the whole family wellbeing fund and will continue to prioritise funding for raising attainment, providing 1140 hours per year of high-quality early learning and childcare and supporting further and higher education sectors. I particularly want to reference the way in which those portfolios are trying to ensure that there is a whole Government approach to supporting children and young people in particular as part of our mission to tackle child poverty. The equality and human rights committee indicated an ongoing interest in how we do equality and human rights budgeting. Equality impact assessment is an essential part of the budget scrutiny process, and our analysis across the range of protected characteristics is recognised as progressive and inclusive and is a key part of our process. I welcome the finance and public administration committee's acknowledgement of the challenging economic outlook in simple terms, despite being in the middle of a global pandemic and a cost-of-living crisis. There is less funding available for Scotland in next year's budget compared with this year's budget, and that is not just a matter of political opinion. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has noted that the overall Scottish budget for next year is 5.2 per cent lower in real terms. That is why this new budget is particularly challenging and why it has required difficult choices, particularly around how we inflation-proof are budget lines. The pandemic has demonstrated why the fiscal framework is currently inadequate for Scotland's needs. I continue to welcome the finance and public administration committee's scrutiny of the issues, because there is an opportunity to build cross-party consensus on how we ensure that the review of the fiscal framework makes it easier for us to budget and to tailor our response to Scotland's needs. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee offered considered comments on key areas of health spend. The health and social care budget is vital to Scotland. We have all seen that in particular over the past two years, and next year the Scottish Government will deliver £18 billion of funding for that. It provides new investment in excess of £1 billion for health and social care and lays the groundwork for the national care service. Turning now to the scrutiny by the local government housing and planning committee, I am aware that there has been much debate recently on local government funding, and I appreciate the important element of scrutiny on that budget line, as well as the importance of local government across Scotland. The budget will offer local government a total funding package of more than £12.5 billion. That represents an increase of £917 million, £9 million, £7.9 million in cash terms or 5.1 million in real terms. That is not to shy away from some of the challenges that we have identified, particularly with the significant increase on inflation. Moving now to consider the rural affairs islands and natural environment committee, the rural affairs and islands budget is wide-ranging. It will provide £967 million of support across Scotland next year, including more than £630 million to provide on-going agricultural support for farmers, crofters and land managers. The social justice and social security committee offered a view on a range of important areas, and in line with the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast, we are committing more than £3.9 billion for benefits next year, which will provide support to more than a million people in Scotland and progress our national mission to tackle child poverty, with £197 million on the new Scottish child payment, including doubling it to £20 a week from April 2022. Lastly, but not least, I would like to recognise the net zero energy and transport committee. We are investing around £2 billion next year to collaboratively deliver a just transition to net zero. With a combined net zero energy and transport portfolio budget of more than £4.4 billion, we will spend more than £3.4 billion on transport across Scotland. On that note, I thank all the committee's further budget scrutiny, much of which reveals that the chamber agrees on more than it disagrees when it comes to Scotland's priorities, and I hope that tomorrow we can all back the budget. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. I now call on Clare Adamson, who is speaking on behalf of the constitution, Europe, external affairs and culture committee, around six minutes please, Ms Adamson. Thank you very much. I'm delighted to be speaking on behalf of the committee today. I'm sure that a few wheels swalled kites by leave bent like drums in the chamber today. Burn's Night is simply a global phenomenon, and it is estimated that some 9.5 million people take part in Burn's Suppers across the Glow beach here. Following Murray Pettisack's Glasgow University report, Burn's in the Scottish economy, we know that it contributes £203 million to the Scottish economy. While impressive, in its reach, it by no means represents the depth, value, inspiration and excellence that encompasses all that we have to offer culturally in and from Scotland. Culture provides insight, perspective, challenge, it challenges us, it is innate, it inspires and innovates, and it dares us to think differently. Indeed, one of the few positive outcomes of the pandemic was cultural innovation through digital adaptations, performances and activities shared with wider and more remote, sometimes international audiences. However, there is a prevailing irony in our relationship with culture amid the pandemic. Culture is one of the hardest hit sectors in our society, and yet our continued reliance on it for our mental health and wellbeing is undeniable. How many of us were uplifted during lockdown through a book or a poem, watching a film or a TV series, listening to our favourite songs or even picking up an instrument, honing an old craft or hobby or learning a new one? Culture and the Arts is a lifeblood, a basic sustenance, even to people who may not think of it in those terms. The icon of Scottish culture, Alistair Gray, once said, people in Scotland have a queer idea of the arts.  When you think of your own relationship with the arts, I urge you to think of what lockdown would have been without the many artists and the arts many of whom are freelancers. The focus of the committee's pre-breddit scrutiny was on the culture sector, both on its recovery and opportunities for a more strategic response. I want to thank those who provided written and oral evidence, but I would especially like to thank the community organisations that took part in our round-table sessions and who have done so much in uniquely difficult times to either as charities, social enterprises and with their army of volunteers to protect wellbeing in our communities. As I said, the pandemic hit the sector hard with a estimated 400,000 potential job losses across the UK. Since the start of the pandemic, the Scottish Government has provided £175 million to culture heritage in the event sector, and the forthcoming 2023 budget commits to investing £277 million in Scotland's culture and heritage sector, understandably focused on recovery. The committee welcomes the initiatives, including bursaries and the hardship funds, which have covered gaps in the furlough scheme. We welcome the commitment to three-year funding settlements for regularly funded programmes, and we would very much welcome certainty that those funded by Cate of Scotland could also benefit from three-year funding. One of the community contributors to our focus groups wanted a reimagining of the traditional approach to funding. I move away from the blue chips and the bigger organisation, indeed to the haves and not the have-nots, and Creative Lives made a similar point to the committee. They told us that professional expertise can kickstart intervention but without local buy-in and capacity buildings, those projects tended not to be long-term. Any tangible benefits to wellbeing can be lost. They said that as little as a few hundred pounds can make things happen in our local community, and such micro grants can then have a ripple effect. We have asked the Scottish Government to explore that with Cate of Scotland and COSLA. For all who work more closely with the third sector, when it comes to the funding of the grass roots and the mainstreaming of culture, it is a key theme in our scrutiny. We called for resource spending review to address how budgetary decisions can support mainstreaming and for an outcome-based process based on health and wider social benefits of culture. We had a plethora of evidence in that area. May I give one example of broad talent? A social enterprise who worked with several schools to make a short film about Scottish education and how it should look in the future. It was supported by the Parliament's own Futures Forum, and I know that some members will have seen the film, but the opening lines are that in 2030 the curriculum needs to be about creativity and project work. Our film project was active and practical. We learned best by doing things. In 2030 we should be learning every subject through the expressive arts and projects like this one. The committee welcomes the fact that the Government has promised to pass on the £40 million of consequentials when received from the UK Government. We welcome the Government's cultural recovery fund, which was announced in March 2021. We welcome the Scottish Government's aspirations to mainstream culture in its policy making. We now need to move beyond the aspirations to meet the ambition of the cultural strategy, which states that culture must be valued first and foremost in and of itself. It is central to who we are and who we seek to be. Let us put culture at the heart of all Government policy making to meet the expectations of a well-being society. I am Burgess, on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. The experience of the pandemic has emphasised just how critical local authorities are to the communities that they serve. Through the dedication and hard work of council staff and the community and third sector workers, they have collaborated with local authorities to ensure that communities are able to access vital services throughout the pandemic, and they continue to do that as the pandemic endures. Although our pre-budget scrutiny considered matters in relation to housing and planning, our primary focus in our follow-up session earlier this month was on what local government needs to lead recovery from the pandemic, and that is what I want to focus on today. Further, to be meaningful and transformative recovery from the pandemic, local government needs to take a leading role in the process. Simply returning to the status quo is not good enough. Recovery from the pandemic must involve tackling the inequalities that have been exacerbated by the pandemic, and that can only be achieved with the full involvement of local government. However, to do that, local government needs to have the finances, workforce and tools to deliver that transformative recovery. In the rest of my contribution, I want to talk about what needs to be in place for local government to be capable of playing that role. Firstly, local government needs sufficient resources and funding. The intention of any local government funding settlement is to allow local government to deliver vital services. As with every year, different views were presented to the committee on whether or not local government funding has or has not gone down in this year's budget. Irrespective of your view on whether or not local government funding has or has not gone down, funding is not keeping in pace with the ever-increasing demands on local government, and that needs to be recognised. We hope that the forthcoming conversations between the Scottish Government and local authorities can be productive. We note that there are no new plans to review funding methodology, but we would hope that those conversations might begin to explore that issue. Careful consideration should be given to how funding can be better targeted to tackle inequalities. For local government to continue to deliver those vital services and play a leading role in recovery, not only does it need to be sufficiently resourced, but it also needs more long-term certainty about resources. Causola stressed how important multi-year funding settlements from the Scottish Government are to local authorities. Not only has the absence of multi-year funding frustrated the ambitions of local authorities in preventing them from developing long-term plans, but it also impacts on their partners in that without certainty in their own funding, local authorities are unable to make long-term commitments to their partners, including the third sector. We recognise that the Scottish Government has not, to date, been in a position to offer multi-year funding. However, with the announcement from the UK Government of its intentions to set out three-year spending plans, that opportunity is now there, and we welcome the Scottish Government's intention to produce multi-year settlements. We look forward to seeing the outcome of the spending review. Witnesses also raised concerns with us about the extent of ring-fencing and the constraints that it plays on local authorities acting flexibly. It appears that the bulk of additional funding provided to local authorities during the pandemic was not ring-fenced, and it enabled local authorities to act flexibly to meet the greatest needs in their areas. I think that we would all accept that there will always be some funds that is appropriate to ring-fenced, but at the same time local authorities were able to act effectively and responsibly during the pandemic because of the flexibility of order to them, and we would hope that the positive lessons from that experience are not lost. It would be helpful to hear today from the cabinet secretary about the overlap between ring-fenced funding and shared priorities. As we consider the role of local government in recovery from the pandemic, we looked at the funding framework for local government. We will be pursuing the issue in the context of our consideration of local governance review over the coming year. However, it appears to be agreement that for local governments to be able to act flexibly and to deliver better outcomes for communities, they need to have greater financial autonomy and certainty of funding. We recognise that local authorities have been given greater flexibility in the setting of council tax, but this is in and of itself does not offer a resolution to the issue. The Scottish Government committed to developing a fiscal framework in the last parliamentary session. We recognise the delays in this arising from the pandemic, but it needs to progress with more urgency now. To that end, it is welcome to hear that the Scottish Government's commitment to progressing this in the early part of this year. Any recovery from the pandemic must focus on tackling inequality and building a fairer Scotland, if it is to be sustainable. To do that, local government must be supported and encouraged to play a full role in delivering that recovery. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Burgess. I now call on Stephen Kerr to speak on behalf of the Educational Children and Young People Committee again in around six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the Scottish Government budget for 2022-23. In particular, it is a pleasure, as I speak today, for the first time in this chamber in my capacity as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I want to thank all members of the committee for the constructive manner in which we have engaged in budget scrutiny and pay particular thanks in this regard to the committee's deputy convener, co-cab Stewart MSP. I trust that speaking as convener of the committee will result in a substantial reduction in the number of interventions that tend to accompany my contributions in this chamber. The budget process relies on a year-round cycle of scrutiny. Inevitably, our budget scrutiny is truncated at the beginning of a parliamentary session. The Education Committee's approach was to use budget scrutiny as a means of setting out the key priorities that the committee intends to pursue over the course of this parliamentary session. The committee took evidence from the Auditor General for Scotland and Accounts Commission and considered the key messages in Audit Scotland's influential report on improving outcomes for young people through school education. An outcomes focus is a key principle of the Parliament's budget process. The extent to which there is a clear line of sight from spending decisions through to outcomes has been a regular feature of debate with regard to budget scrutiny since the publication of the Christie commission report back in 2011. That remains an issue across the Scottish public sector, including with regard to education expenditure by the Scottish Government, was emphasised by the Auditor General for Scotland in his evidence to the committee. The committee intends to pursue an outcomes focussed approach to its budget scrutiny. We recognise the efforts being made by the Scottish Government in this regard, for example through the national improvement framework. However, we consider that to be an area where further progress is essential. We look forward to an on-going dialogue with the cabinet secretary on that. Clearly, the pandemic has had a particularly significant impact on children and young people. The learning, wellbeing and economic circumstances of children and young people, in particular those who are living in the most challenging circumstances, have been significantly affected by Covid-19. The cabinet secretary emphasised in evidence to the committee that the importance of the Scottish attainment challenge is a key plank of the Scottish Government's response to addressing inequality in educational outcomes. The committee agrees that addressing the poverty-related attainment gap is even more critical as a result of the pandemic. As the cabinet secretary stated to the committee, the most recent statistics on the attainment gap in Scotland are, and I quote, exceptionally concerning. In words, you may not often associate with me, I strongly agree with the cabinet secretary. That is why the committee launched an inquiry last week into the operation of the Scottish attainment challenge. Four key but simple questions will guide our work. What has worked? What could improve? How is the impact of funding measured? What has been the impact of the pandemic on attainment and achievement in schools? I was struck last week by the words of Josh Kennedy, the outgoing chair of the Scottish youth Parliament when he delivered time for reflection. He stressed the importance of meaningful engagement with young people in decision making. Integrating the perspectives of children and young people into our work is a key principle that informs the work of the education committee. It is also an area where we intend to hold the Scottish Government to account. The return to multi-year funding allocations has been a long-standing demand across the Scottish public sector. That is true also of local authorities, higher and further education sectors. The committee is supportive of the move back to multi-year funding allocations and recognises that such allocations allow for improved planning of services by public sector partners. The committee has written to the Finance and Public Administration Committee to set out our views on the Scottish Government's resource spending review framework published alongside the budget for 2022-23. We welcome the work of the finance committee in reviewing the content of the medium-term financial strategy. We also welcome the emphasis in the framework document on an outcomes focus, evidence informed and consultative approach to setting multi-year financial plans. In that regard, the committee recognises that the Scottish Government has announced multi-year funding allocations over four years for the Scottish attainment challenge. The Scottish Government has also committed to explore providing multi-year funding assumptions for colleges and universities during the budget process. The committee received a joint letter from colleges Scotland and universities expressing significant concern at the budget settlement for the further and higher education sectors. Audit Scotland had also highlighted in evidence to the committee the impact of increases in employer contributions to pension funds and additional staff costs arising from both the cost of living pay awards and the outcome of national bargaining. The committee recognises the critical importance of both further and higher education to the recovery from the pandemic and in providing opportunities for our young people. In recognition of that, the committee intends to undertake an inquiry looking at colleges and the impact of regionalisation on the sector. Scrutiny of attainment and colleges will therefore form key strands of the committee's budget scrutiny in the forthcoming financial year. As ever, the committee's scrutiny of both issues will focus on whether Scottish Government policy is improving outcomes for children and young people. Thank you, Mr Kerr. You just escaped an intervention from the Deputy Presiding Officer there. I now call on Gillian Martin to be followed by Clare Baker and Gillian Martin to be speaking on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for around six minutes. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee on our considerations of the budget from our portfolio point of view. My contribution is divided into themes that we drew attention to the cabinet secretary in our letter. The first is preventative spend, which I was very pleased to hear Kenny Gibson mention in his contribution. As he said, a key recommendation of the Christie commission on the future delivery of public services was to divert more public funds towards preventative spend. Committee witnesses highlighted the challenge of prioritising preventative spend measures while also seeking to reduce pressure on acute services and backlogs in primary care, resulting largely from the pandemic. It is entirely understandable that the pandemic has thrown its worst at the nation's health and our NHS. However, as we come out of the pandemic and into recovery, we need to prioritise preventative spending appropriately in the health, social care and sport sectors in Scotland. Turning to health and social care integration and the national care service, we have heard evidence of particular challenges in achieving integrated finances and financial planning as part of the process of integration of health and social care. For four years on, from the launch of the integration process, to a large extent, budgets for health and social care continued to be managed and deployed independently of one another. We are keen to see on-going challenges around financial integration addressed as part of the proposed creation of a national care service. Data availability and evaluation continues to be an issue highlighted by us to stakeholders in our portfolio. Evidence to the committee has highlighted the crucial importance of comprehensive, high-quality data to enable effective targeting of health and social care funding towards areas that will have the greatest impact. Unfortunately, availability and quality of data vary significantly in different parts of the country. We welcome all efforts that the Scottish Government is making to improve quality and availability of data, but there remains a lot more work to be done in this area. It will not surprise anyone that widening health and inequalities across society is having a significant negative impact on health outcomes, and that has been further exacerbated by the Covid pandemic. Back in 2013, the Scottish Government commissioned an international policy review of health inequalities from NHS Health Scotland, which resulted in the publication of a ministerial task force report on health inequalities. We welcome the efforts that have already been made by the Scottish Government to implement the task force recommendations by funding a range of projects and programmes aimed at tackling some of the key drivers behind health inequalities, particularly in child poverty and social security. It will be really important to ensure that, over time, the impact of those interventions is carefully monitored and evaluated so that we continue to learn lessons for the future and how best to tackle health inequalities where we can within our devolved powers. Now to the allocation of funding to NHS boards. First of all, we recognise the increased spend in this area over the pandemic, but looking to the future, responding to the committee's pre-budget scrutiny, the Scottish Government advised, although it remains committed to undertaking a review of the existing NRAC formula for allocating funding to NHS boards, that work will take time to complete and it has been delayed by the pandemic like so many other things. In the meantime, we have heard evidence that there is scope for improved transparency in applying and communicating the existing formula and been encouraged by the Scottish Government to consider what action it can take to address this in the short term. In terms of budget setting, I am grateful to the Scottish Government for updating the committee on its planned timetable for bringing forward an updated media term financial framework for health and social care. We acknowledge the on-going uncertainty created by the pandemic in making future cost projections and other step changes such as the forthcoming resource spending review and proposals for the transformative national care service. At the same time, we want to highlight the negative impact of a continuing short-term approach to budget setting on effective planning and spending within health and social care, a point that Kenny Gibson made well in relation to constraints in the current fiscal arrangements between the two Governments. However, we do not want to see the publication of an updated medium-term financial framework delayed any longer than necessary. In closing, we cannot get away from the impact of Covid-19 and the wide range of financial impacts on delivery of health and social care services. It is important that we embed the positive innovations for the future, but at the same time that we develop strategies for overcoming the negative impacts. That means building long-term resilience of the health and social care sector. Innovations in the e-health has been one of the positive outcomes of the crisis that our health service has faced. As we modify services to become more digital, for example, we must protect against threats such as cyber attacks. Those changes to working practices during the pandemic mean that services could be more exposed. In that context, the committee is encouraged that the Scottish Government is making strenuous efforts to ensure that appropriate lessons are learned for the future and that those are helping in particular to inform the NHS recovery plan. I am pleased to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. Our committee took evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Economy last week, who raised some of the key issues that I will talk about today. In the context of the pandemic and its on-going impacts, we are facing particular economic challenges, and we must ensure that the build-back better slogan can be turned into reality. We have an opportunity to rebuild and refocus in a way that will make the economy work better for us as a country and as a society. The Economy and Fair Work Committee is clear that support that encourages investment, growth, prosperity and employment opportunities must be front and central in this budget. We must also learn lessons from the pandemic and ensure that we build resilience and protection against any future economic shocks. We have also been operating in the context of the Scottish economy, not growing at the same rate as the UK, with our growth rate typically two percentage points behind. Although the estimated GDP figures that are published today offer some shoots of growth and encouragement, compared to pre-pandemic levels, Scottish GDP, employment and earnings are recovering more slowly than the rest of the UK. The Scottish Fiscal Commission's outlook for Scotland is more subdued than the OBR's outlook for the UK. That underlines the particular challenges that are facing Scotland and the need for targeted actions to boost our recovery. The publication of the 10-year economic national strategy will be crucial, and in parallel with annual budgets, it must be transformational for Scotland's economy. I will now speak on some of the key issues that were raised by the evidence session and the committee's considerations. The committee wishes to emphasise the importance of tourism. Tourism is key to Scotland's economy, but the sector has been hit hard by the pandemic both for providers at home and those catering to overseas trips. The committee recognises that the Scottish Tourism Response Group received £25 million for its phase 1 recovery plan, but more needs to be done to instill confidence in the sector. It is regretful that the cabinet secretary has said that the Scottish Government is not including recovery funds for the sector on the face of the bill. Notwithstanding assurances that the cabinet secretary gave to the committee about the possibility for in-year budget allocations, the committee would ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on the need for a commitment to fund phase 2 for tourism recovery and how that can be delivered through the upcoming budget. I appreciate that financial support is available for tourism more generally in the budget and many in the sector are struggling. The committee also notes the loss of income to Visit Scotland as a result of the pandemic and the need for it to scale down its work. We will be taking evidence from representatives of the tourism and hospitality sectors that are in meeting next week and we look forward to hearing their views. If we are aiming to boost investment and growth, the role of our enterprise agencies is core to that. They have an important part to play in supporting national outcomes, but we also need to make sure that we are measuring the impact that they make and scrutiny is given to the budgets that they have. There is a cash terms increase of £30 million and the committee welcomes the substantial investment, but while there is a cash terms uplift that protects and maintains spending power, in real terms the budget for Scottish Enterprise is flat and for Highlands and Islands Enterprise the budget is reduced. The committee does recognise the efforts that have been made to protect those budgets but would note that, given the importance at the stage of recovery, any opportunity to invest more in their budgets would be welcomed. We would also like to see a clear roadmap developed to support businesses in the pursuit of net zero, particularly smaller businesses. That should be backed up with practical support and more non-loan-based funding, which can both drive and sustain the efforts that will require. The committee is also calling for a consistent approach to conditionality for business support. Regarding a one-stop portal for support, the committee recognises work during the pandemic in setting up the find business support website, but the support environment continues to be complex and challenging to navigate. The committee expects there to be regular progress updates on how the Scottish Government is building on the find business support website and on streamlining and improving joint work in between agencies. The committee has also looked at the particular impact of the pandemic for women, noting the disproportional impact that it has had on women's employment, difficulties in accessing financial support and a lack of consistent gender disaggregated data. We welcome the Scottish Government's intention to look at what can be done to disaggregate data and the recognition that only by capturing and publishing more information can there be an appropriate policy response. The committee also asks whether the Scottish Government should prioritise its commitment to progress a women's business centre. While we note that preparatory work has been undertaken, the committee is disappointed that no undertaking was given to accelerate the timescale for getting it up and running. I encourage the cabinet secretary to look at that. The committee's remit on fair work and skills is another important area to consider, and we must ensure that our efforts to rebuild progress the fair work and wellbeing agenda. The cabinet secretary conceded that we can always move faster, particularly on fair work, and spoke of the role of conditionality in that area. On employee-owned businesses, we recognise the ambition that the Scottish Government has to increase those, but we wish to see more detail on how that can be delivered, and I have asked about the introduction of interim targets to pick up the pace of delivery. As I have highlighted, the committee is aware of the impact of the pandemic on employment opportunities of women, but we also recognise the impact on young people, as well as the mismatch between vacancies and the skillsets of those who are looking for work. We are asking for a clear commitment in the budget to ensure that work-ready young people have access to training and support that will equip them with the skills needed to match vacancies. The committee also wants to see the budget support create stronger links between employers and employability services, and we recognise the comments in the recent report from the Audit General on the need for urgent action on skills alignment. We would highlight this as an area that the committee is likely to consider in the coming year. In conclusion, the committee notes the budget allocation from its remit and appreciates the evidence that we have had from the cabinet secretary. We have highlighted a number of areas of particular interest. We will further explore some of those in our work programme and will continue to examine areas where additional support is needed to support Scotland's economy to recover and ensure that everyone can benefit from our future prosperity. I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee in the Parliament's first pre-budget debate of the session. I have gladly stepped in today as the former convener Neil Gray has been appointed as minister of culture, Europe and international development. I hope that the chamber will join me in wishing him well in his new role. He has led the committee with great drive and passion to ensure that we focus our efforts on addressing poverty. Our predecessor committee's legacy report stressed that measures to tackle poverty has straddled several committee remits. At times, there was a lack of clarity around which committee should take the lead in scrutinising this important policy area. My committee has used its extended social justice remit to focus its budget considerations on the cross-cutting issue of poverty and spending on social security. During this parliamentary session, we hope to bring together committees with a shared focus on tackling poverty and social inequality. Meeting our child poverty targets is a shared national responsibility between Parliament and Government. That is why the committee chose the Scottish Government's progress in meeting the interim targets for 2023-24 as the central focus of its pre-budget scrutiny. Our ability to meet those targets has been made much harder as families are facing reductions in household incomes, price rises and Covid-19 support measures, such as the £20 universal credit uplift being withdrawn. This year, the convener, alongside UK Committee chair counterparts, wrote to the chancellor and the secretary of state for work and pensions. He called for the £20 universal credit uplift to be made permanent and to be extended to legacy benefits, which are disproportionately claimed by disabled people. Ending the uplift means that families on the lowest incomes, those with children and particularly single parents, BAME families and families where someone is disabled are disproportionately affected. Modelling carried out by the child poverty action group suggested that as many as 22,000 children in Scotland would be pushed into poverty due to the removal of the uplift. Third sector organisations advised the cutward result in indebtedness, rent of years and homelessness for families. We felt that there was compelling evidence that the Scottish child payment should be doubled, so we welcomed that the budget now commits an additional £103 million, bringing investment to £197 million overall. The committee recognised that social security would have to do the heavy lifting in the short term. Other levers available to the Scottish Government, such as tackling low pay or reducing housing costs, could take longer to achieve results. However, we are keen that the Scottish Government continues to prioritise increasing access to childcare and improving employment prospects to reduce child poverty. Poverty is gendered. While giving evidence to the committee, Satwatch Raymond from One Parent Family Scotland relayed a quote from a parent, summarising the difficulties that working parents face. Childcare costs are crippling. I earn what I always consider to be a reasonable salary, but it costs more than I earn to send my two children to nursery for only three days a week. We are aware that women and people with disabilities face challenges finding good employment opportunities in suitable childcare. The committee welcomes the Scottish Government's expansion of funded early learning to all one and two-year-olds, starting with children from low-income households in this Parliament. Women have wasted the most of caring responsibilities during the pandemic. Ailee Dixon, in gender, advised that women have also experienced labour market disruption because of the distribution of care, which was removed from the state back into the household over the pandemic. Care for children, care for older people and care for disabled people. When scrutinising the carers allowance supplement Scotland Bill, we heard that carers are looking for more assistance in relation to respite care. The committee notes that the Scottish Government's budget includes £20.4 million to expand local carer support, including short breaks, to meet increasing demand under the carers act. The committee will monitor whether that has the desired impact. On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who contributed to our evidence to inform our pre-budget letter. What is evident from our deliberations is that a preventative approach to spending is needed to maintain the sustainability of anti-poverty measures and the social security budget. As referred to throughout my contribution, social security is an investment in people. Social security is also, however, a demand-led budget, and therein lie risks. Dame Susan Rice from the Scottish Fiscal Commission advised the committee on 23 December that it forecasts that devolved social security to rise £400,000 to £4.1 billion in 2022-23 and to reach £5.5 billion in 2026-27, once the full cost of the adult disability payment and the Scottish child payment are included. By 2026-27, spending on the Scottish Government's social security benefits will be £760 million more than the corresponding funding received through the block grant adjustment, reducing the funding available for other parts of the Scottish budget. Having a hybrid benefits system means that UK Government decisions can impact on Scottish Government policies, as we have seen with the universal credit uplift cut. Scotland is also relying on UK infrastructure and data sharing to deliver benefits. It is clear from our scrutiny that we need a more joined-up approach where the principle of devolution of social security is honoured. To illustrate this, recent minutes from the joint ministerial working group on welfare highlight concerns that the Scottish Government has about the DWP's infrastructure to deliver the Scottish child payment for six to 15-year-olds by the end of this year. In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to appeal to committees to look at ways to tackle poverty through their remits. We have called on Government departments to work together to reduce the potential long-term demands on the social security budget. With committees, Government departments and national governments working together, we hope that everyone can redouble their efforts to make headway in tackling poverty and social inequality once and for all. I am pleased to speak today about the work of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. Firstly, there is much in the budget to be welcomed. For example, the 39 per cent increase in the promoting equality and human rights budget line from £32.28 million to £44.98 million. That has the potential to provide continued funding for many organisations who support some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland today. Surely everyone will welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to tackling inequality and poverty, including the pay rise for those working in social care and the increase and expansion of the Scottish child payment, which will support women and those on low incomes. In the evidence, the Joseph Rinpe Foundation welcomed the doubling of the Scottish child payment but cautioned that it will not be sufficient on its own to eradicate child poverty. We welcomed the progress that has been made on the equality and fairer Scotland budget statement, which the chair of the equality budget advisory group said just yesterday, had seen really significant improvements and become more accessible and developed into a tremendous resource. What are the main areas where the committee feels progress is needed? Firstly, while the increase in the promoting equality and human rights budget line will be crucial, it is just one budget line and in fact accounts for around £1 in every thousand in the overall budget. There is a bigger picture, a bigger prize if we look at the equalities and human rights effect of the budget overall and to try to ensure that different budgeting areas do not work against each other but instead contribute to and complement each other. The committee heard about the need for much more extensive equality data, underpinning everything that the Government does. For example, there are still many challenges in relation to gender disaggregated data, even before considering any additional protected characteristics. That is pointed to perceived shortcomings in relation to learning disabilities, ethnicity and poverty. While the Scottish Government told us about the positive work on the equality data improvement programme, data has been a recurring issue for our committee. Yesterday, data challenges continued and indeed have been made worse by the pandemic. About the right data and through analysis, including how it compares to the data that we might previously have relied upon to analyse trends pre-pandemic, it is more difficult for us to understand, for example, how the pandemic response has ffaird in terms of protecting particular groups or which groups have ffaird worse. The committee will continue to explore why those challenges exist and how they might be resolved. I would like to provide an update on two other areas of the committee's work. On women's unfair responsibility for unpaid care and domestic work, a pre-budget scrutiny highlighted pre-existing inequalities for women that were exacerbated and brought into stark focus by the Covid-19 pandemic and the response to it. The committee heard that the burden placed on women in relation to unpaid care duties for elderly parents and children and an increase in domestic work during the pandemic is likely to have a long-term negative impact on their future rights and economic prospects. That led to our inquiry into women's unfair responsibility for unpaid care and domestic work. In the early stages of the inquiry, we have heard that policy solutions need to be gender-sensitive and to take account of intersectionality, for example, gender-sensitive employment support and increased access to flexible childcare. I also want to highlight the committee's work on human rights budgeting. The committee is taking a year-round human rights-based approach to its budget scrutiny, which we encourage other committees to factor into their scrutiny. It was good to hear one or two other conveners mentioning equality within their speech contributions. Taking a human rights approach means starting to think through what are new concepts for many of us in relation to budgets, such as discussions on a minimum core, the aggressive realisation of rights and maximising available resources to achieve rights. Previously, I heard from Dr Alison Hosey of the Scottish Human Rights Commission that the idea of the minimum core is simply the red line below which we are not prepared to accept that our society should fall here in Scotland so that everyone can live with human dignity. Taking a human rights approach will involve identifying some specific areas on which to focus during the year, possibly in the form of short, discreet inquiries, which we hope will inform our subsequent pre-budget scrutiny later in the year. Complement our year-round approach to budget scrutiny, the committee has agreed to a spice fellowship in human rights budgeting. That will commence in April, and the envisage will include a case study that will enable us to get into the practicalities and real-life circumstances of a specific group or focus issue. I anticipate that that will help to inform a consultative participatory exercise to be launched in the summer, which will give us some real-life examples that we can talk and take into our pre-budget scrutiny for next year. We are hopeful that that will offer an opportunity for a range of individuals and groups to get involved and engage in a process that can sometimes feel distant, dry and formulaic. In closing, we look forward to receiving an update from the Scottish Government on its response to the recommendations of the equality budget advisory group, which, as noted in our correspondence of October 2021, requires some urgent consideration. We note that this response is due in the spring and we would be grateful if we could have a little more clarity in the closing about precisely when that might be. I am pleased to speak in the debate on behalf of the Public Audit Committee. As members will know, the committee has an important scrutiny role to play to examine whether public money has been spent efficiently and effectively by both the Scottish Government and other public bodies. Key to our work are the reports prepared by the Auditor General for Scotland. Those reports provide us with the information that we need to maintain an overview of how public money is being spent and to hold public sector leaders to account for the use of this money. Although the committee is not directly involved in the budget scrutiny process, that debate presents an opportunity to reflect on some of the themes emerging from our work in session 6, which might be of interest to other committees and is intended to help inform the discussion today. I would like to start by highlighting a recent and indeed on-going scrutiny of the Auditor General's 2020-21 audit of the Scottish Government consolidated accounts. That report sets out the challenging operating environment that the Scottish Government was working in last year, as it responded to the significant threats that the pandemic posed to lives, public safety, jobs and the economy. The report goes on, however, to state that the Scottish Government now needs to be more proactive in showing where and how this money was spent and to show a clearer line from budgets to funding announcements to actual spending. Transparency in the Scottish Government's budget is critical for all committees to be able to fulfil their budget scrutiny role effectively. The Public Audit Committee looks forward to exploring how the Scottish Government intends to improve its reporting in that area in due course. A further theme that has been drawn to the committee's attention is the importance of long-term funding decisions. For example, during our scrutiny of Scotland's Colleges 2020, Colleges Scotland stated that colleges make lots of short-term decisions that are often not the best financial decisions. If the sector could be afforded a multi-year funding settlement, that would go a long way to allowing us to be much more strategic and would be better use of the public purse. The committee notes the call made by the Scottish Funding Council for the Provision of Multi-Year Financial Settlements for Colleges, a call that is supported by the Education, Children and Young People Committee. The committee awaits, with interest, to see how the Scottish Government intends to take forward this call. The committee also held a round-table evidence session on Audit Scotland's most recent work on child and adolescent mental health services. We heard that it is vital that improvements are made to track whether the significant investment in this area leads to improved outcomes for children and young people who need that support. Finally, I would like to briefly mention our scrutiny of the Auditor General's recent report on sustainable alternatives to custody. The report highlighted that the Scottish Government has yet to achieve its objective of ensuring that people convicted of criminal offences increasingly receive community-based sentences where appropriate instead of going to prison. The Scottish Government's reducing re-offending policy acknowledges that community sentences are more effective at preventing re-offending than prison sentences. However, community justice funding makes up less than 5 per cent of overall justice funding, and there has been little change in recent years. The committee considers that this is an area where there is scope for the Scottish Government to review its budget to ensure that it is sufficient to achieve its policy objectives. The areas that I have highlighted today will, of course, be of interest to other committees. The Public Audit Committee is keen to work collaboratively on issues where there is a shared interest and looks forward to doing so, to support and indeed help and contribute to the budget scrutiny process in the years to come. Presiding Officer, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate as chair of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit. The SCPA's role is to scrutinise Audit Scotland's budget and accounts, and we have responsibility for appointing three non-executive members to Audit Scotland's board, choosing the chair and appointing Audit Scotland's accountable officer. Last Friday, we published our report on Audit Scotland's budget proposal for 2022-23, recommending that Parliament approves that budget. I intend to spend the next few minutes highlighting the key issues in our report. Audit Scotland is seeking parliamentary approval for £11.63 million of its resource spending for 2022-23, with the rest of its funding, some £19.2 million, coming from fees that it charges to those at Audits. In relation to the funding for which parliamentary approval is sought, Audit Scotland is seeking an additional £573,000 compared with last year's budget. That increase arises from the costs of undertaking the national fraud initiative, the additional responsibilities arising from financial devolution and from an increased number of public bodies whose audit work cannot be charged for. Audit Scotland's budget, such as those of other public bodies, has been prepared in the context of significant uncertainties, such as Covid-19, the timing of UK and Scottish Government budget last year and the costs of goods and services since the UK left the EU. As part of its budget for 2021-22, Audit Scotland sought an additional £2.1 million to implement a strategic improvement programme and a multi-year recovery plan from the disruption of the pandemic in 2020. The additional funding was approved by Parliament and much of it has been subsumed into Audit Scotland's budget bid for 2022-23 through the recruitment of 33 additional staff. Given that, the commission was keen to explore with Audit Scotland how much of the additional funding for the current financial year and for 2022-23 relates to the impact of Covid-19 and how much of its expenditure will be recurring over a number of years. Responding, the Audit General for Scotland explained that although Audit Scotland had not attributed the percentage of the roles that relate to the global health emergency or the percentage that relates to previously agreed and committed investment, it is clearly the case that the majority of Audit Scotland's recruitment of auditors during 2021-22 has been related to the Covid-19 pandemic and the public audit response to that. Audit Scotland plays an important role in auditing the Covid-19 spend that has taken place across the public sector. The Audit General has previously reported that greater transparency in showing where and how additional Covid money was spent will enhance reporting to the Scottish Parliament and the public and help to strengthen accountability and scrutiny. Therefore, although we have welcomed the quarterly updates on how additional funding has been spent in 2021-22, we have recommended that Audit Scotland budgets in future also provide more detailed identification of what is specific Covid-19-related funding. We have also recommended identification of the extent to which any requests for additional funding are for recurring or non-recurring expenditure, including in relation to any proposed use of the management contingency. We also recognise that the pandemic has brought added uncertainty to Audit Scotland's financial planning as they seek to manage planned development work, alongside responding to the impact of the pandemic on existing work. Greater transparency in identifying where is Covid-19 spending and what is non-Covid-19 related remains vital. Those are areas that the SCP will return to again when we consider Audit Scotland's annual report on accounts and future budget proposals. We look forward to discussing those areas further with Audit Scotland. I thank all members today for engaging in this important debate. Indeed, I thank all members of the committees and the committee clerks for their scrutiny. Indeed, the Parliament's scrutiny is an essential part of the Scottish budget process. The Scottish Government welcomes the contributions by all the committees. Indeed, today, although it is perhaps the least contentious debate that we will have on the budget, it serves an important illustrative purpose, as well as providing that scrutiny by indicating the breadth of competing demands and priorities that must be balanced through the budget process. As we have highlighted, this is a challenging budget due to the loss of UK funding for Covid-19 in 2022-23. In simple terms, £3.7 billion of Covid-19 funding, which was included in last year's budget bill, has now been removed from the Scottish budget. That loss is a challenge to manage when the effects of the pandemic remain with us. That is why the budget has required difficult choices. I appreciate that members will have their own views on what the priorities of the Scottish budget should be, and I welcome the opportunity to debate them through the budget process. In addition, as part of this, it is important that the budget scrutiny process includes recommendations on where spend can be reduced, in addition to where spend should be increased. Overall, I am confident that we will reach a consensus position on what is best to support the people of Scotland. The Scottish Government is clear on its priorities, and that budget delivers on free, key priorities for Scotland, tackling inequalities and progressing our national mission to tackle child poverty, taking action to tackle climate change challenges, securing a just transition to net zero and investing in our economic recovery. To help to tackle inequalities, the budget is committing over £3.9 billion for benefit expenditure, providing support to over 1 million people in Scotland, money that will go directly to the people of Scotland who need it the most. The budget delivers on our commitment to double the game-changing Scottish child payment to £20 a week from April 2022 at a cost of £197 million next year. A Scottish child payment is the most ambitious child poverty reduction measure in the UK and has already reached around 108,000 children under six with £10 a week payments. It is essential to help to reduce inequalities in Scotland. In addition to funding the doubling of the payment, we will continue to deliver the child bridging payments worth £520 in 2022 for every child in receipt of free-scale meals on the basis of low income until the full roll-out of the Scottish child payment to children under 16 years by the end of this year. The 2022-23 Scottish budget goes further to tackle inequalities and we will continue our action to close the education attainment gap through investing £200 million. It is part of a commitment to provide £1 billion over the Parliament to address the poverty-related attainment gap. To help to support people more widely, the budget delivers funding of £18 billion for the health and social care portfolio. That includes more than £1.6 billion for social care and integration, laying the groundwork for our national care service, and excessive £1.2 billion for mental health services, taking forward our commitment to ensure that mental health funding increases by 25 per cent over the Parliament, and £147.6 million to address the twin public health emergencies of drugs deaths and the harms from alcohol, including £61 million specifically to address the national tragedy of drugs deaths as part of our commitment to invest £250 million over the lifetime of this Parliament. Given that a number of speeches have referred to the strong advice of Audit Scotland that there should be a clear line of sight from spending decisions through to outcomes, it has been a regular feature of Audit Scotland's reports that there should be more transparency to the way that the Government is spending money. What will the Government be doing this coming financial year to see that that kind of feedback and criticism is not there in subsequent years? I thank the member for his contribution and note Bible's comments that he made in his capacity as a convener of the education committee. Indeed, I would note the comments of the convener of the Finance and Public Administration made at Kenneth Gibson, who rightly suggested the important need for linking between our desired outcomes in the national performance framework with budgeting decisions, so that is something that we will continually reflect on and seek to strengthen within our budgeting process. I want to continue by saying that the budget is billed on a record level of front line health spending in Scotland, which is £111 per person, 3.6 per cent higher than in England. That is delivering significant investment for our health service and social care at a time when we have relied on it more than ever. Of course, one of the signal challenges that we face, a generational challenge, is climate change. Through the budget, we are investing £2 billion across the Scottish Government to deliver a just transition to net zero and a climate resilient Scotland. With a combined net zero energy and transport portfolio budget, as the cabinet secretary noted in her opening remarks of over £4.4 billion, we will spend over £3.4 billion on transport across Scotland, including investing more than £414 million to support essential bus services and concessionary bus travel across Scotland, delivering on our commitment to expand our concessionary bus travel scheme to young people under 22. We will spend £429 million for Scotland's environment and forestry, to protect and restore nature, including our peatlands, to expand Scotland's forests and to tackle the causes of climate change and biodiversity loss. As part of our net zero action, we will ramp up our delivery of the heat and buildings programme to make our homes and buildings warmer, greener and more energy efficient, including the doubling of the home energy Scotland scheme to £42 million and increasing warmer homes Scotland funding to £55 million to help support the fuel poor through the heat transition. Of course, all of our ambitions have to be built on the bedrock of a solid economy, and so that is something in terms of supporting economic recovery that runs through this budget. Over £1.75 billion of the finance and economy budget will support our economic response with a firm commitment to build a net zero wellbeing economy and to protect and create good quality green jobs across every region of Scotland. To conclude, I am grateful for the comments and contributions of all members this afternoon. Of course, we will reflect on them carefully. I look forward to the further debates in Parliament, and I look forward to the chamber backing the budget at stage 1 when it comes forward tomorrow. I now call on Daniel Johnson to wind up. Mr Johnson is closing for the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Mr Johnson, if I could just ask you to pause for a moment. Just bear with me a moment please. We just want to make sure that we can hear you, so if you could just bear with me a moment. Can you hear me better now? That's lovely. Thank you. If you could be good enough to begin again, Mr Johnson, I'd be very grateful. I'm very sorry to disappoint members. They now could actually have to listen to me, but perhaps it would be more interesting than watching my mouth move and not hear any of my words. However, I concur with Stephen Kerr at the beginning saying a somewhat strange speaking in a debate wearing a different hat as the deputy convener of the committee. What I would hope is that, while the tone of my remarks may be somewhat more subdued, that the substance remains largely the same. Indeed, can I begin by repeating the thanks of the convener, both to the clerks, to Mary Sparge, our adviser and to Ross Burnside from Spice and indeed to all my fellow committee members for their work on our report? However, what I was struck above all else in this important debate that forms part of the budget process was the degree of consistency and agreement on fundamental points. I was perhaps most surprised by the number of committees referring back to Christie. Indeed, encouraged by that, is that a topic that our committee has reflected on and is very keen to focus as part of its on-going work. Ultimately, it is in all of our interests and an overarching priority that we ensure that the spending is effective and that it is spent on things that prevent negative outcomes. I was also struck by the number of speakers that spoke about the need to focus on inequality and poverty. I take great encouragement from the fact that that seems to be an overarching priority from all committees, regardless of the party persuasion of the convener who is speaking. That is clearly a priority for this Parliament. I take huge encouragement from that. Perhaps one of the most surprising topics that I saw as a common thread was that of data. Whether it was from the health committee or the social security committee, indeed, there is a clear theme that we have to understand what is going on if we are going to spend our money correctly. I would again reflect that that is a theme that the economy, sorry, the finance committee is keen on. I was also struck by Mr Kerr's comments about the need to focus on outcomes. Ultimately, I think that that is an important element of all our spending. I quite agree with the points on education. If we are going to achieve our aim of eliminating the poverty-related attainment gap, focusing on outcomes is critically important, but I think that that remains true across all spending. I would also like to briefly highlight Clare Baker's comments about the need to focus on growth. I will mention that later. Ultimately, if we are going to have a successful economy and successful public services, addressing those issues impacting on long-term growth is an overarching imperative mission for us all. The convener spoke earlier about some of the broader issues that arose during the course of our pre-budget scrutiny, including the need to prioritise policy interventions that can make the most difference to long-term issues such as inequalities in poverty. One that positions prevention, reform and the national performance framework outcomes at the heart of the Government's spending plans. I look forward to looking at some of those issues in more detail in the committee's forthcoming in twice. For now, I want to focus on specific findings in our pre-budget report that relate to the impact of Covid-19 on Scotland's public finances. Indeed, I would reflect that that was probably the one core theme that was reflected in all the contributions today. Unparalleled levels of public funding have been provided to sustain the pandemic response from our public services and to support businesses impacted by restrictions. At the time that we published our report, £13.6 billion has been spent on Covid response in Scotland in the current and preceding financial year. A further £0.5 billion is expected as a consequence of the UK autumn budget. The Omicron variant at the age of 2021 brought with it more restrictions in the need for more financial intervention to support businesses. At this level of funding, it is critical that there is clarity and transparency regarding how those funds have been used—a point raised by the Public Audit Committee and by a number of other contributors. Although the committee accepts that that can be challenging and that it may be difficult over time to lineate between Covid spend and day-to-day spend as the situation normalises, that point remains an important one. The committee therefore asked the Government to commit to providing transparent and timely information on all Covid allocations that allow proper treatment of where and how effectively the money is being spent. It also allows us to learn any lessons for the future. In response, the Government said that it would continue to provide updates on Covid allocations. However, the Auditor General for Scotland has since repeated his calls for more openness and transparency in this area. We heard that the early months of the pandemic—HM Treasury—had provided a funding guarantee of in-year funding to devolved Governments, which brought more certainty to budget planning. With no such guarantee in place in 2021-22, the Scottish Government was in the uncertain position of having to allocate spend in Scotland without knowing whether the full amounts announced by the UK Government would be spent and therefore if they would flow to Scotland. That, we heard, had made budget management much more challenging. We therefore asked the UK Government to commit to a similar guarantee if the fiscal situation rapidly develops. Longer term, we have called on the two Governments to look at whether funding guarantees could be a better way of managing devolved plans. We also highlighted issues that we think should be considered as part of the upcoming review of the fiscal framework, based on the experience of the pandemic. While the framework broadly worked as intended, we heard the remain areas of concern. The health and economic impacts were largely the same across the UK, and additional funding arrangements were made available, such as the aforementioned guarantee and extra in-year Barnett consequentials. We have called for a review to look at how the fiscal framework might be strengthened to withstand a situation where a future health or economic shock impacts disproportionately on one part of the UK rather than the UK as a whole. The latest forecast from the Scottish Fiscal Commission suggests that Scotland is laggard behind the UK on a number of indicators that might bring more urgency to the issue. Some sectors, including hospitality, retail, leisure and travel sectors, have, as we know, been disproportionately affected by Covid, with some building up significant levels of debt in the process. We therefore asked the Scottish Government to consider how it might best support those sectors to recover, rejuvenate and grow in the wake of Covid. We note the Scottish Government's intention to continue some relief for the retail and hospitality and leisure sectors for the first three months of 2022-23. The economic outlook is looking better than forecast at the start of last year. Forecasters have revised upwards their expectations for growth over the next five years, following stronger than predicted growth in the first half of 2021, supported by the vaccine roll-out. The economy is expected to run to pre-pandemic levels by the second quarter of 2022. However, there are some worrying signs. As I highlighted earlier, Scotland appears to be trailing the rest of the UK in terms of economic performance. In particular, the Scottish Fiscal Commission report highlighted that employment growth and wage growth in Scotland are lagging the UK average. The SFC also stated that Scotland's income tax receipts are forecast to fall behind block grant adjustments, which will have a significant impact on Scotland's future fiscal sustainability. In our pre-budget report, we asked the Scottish Government to support the Scottish Fiscal Commission in its preparatory work for the production of a fiscal sustainability report. That would be produced in each session, and we look ahead to the next 30 to 50 years. Given the latest forecast, we think that the report could be an essential identifying longer-term trends and allowing a change of direction to reverse trends where needed. In closing, I support the motion in Kenneth Gibson's name and on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration. I respect very much the chair and the instructions that we receive from you, but I would like to raise what I consider to be quite a serious issue in that I was provided with a note during the course of this debate to say that I would not be permitted to speak in this debate, despite being a member of the committee. I feel quite strongly that, despite the fact that the committee conveners are extremely important people in this Parliament and have a very important role to play in this kind of debate, it is also the case that committee members—indeed any member of the Parliament who would like to contribute to a debate and has been accorded that facility by their whips office—should be permitted to do that. I say that because I think that it is a very important point about the democracy and the running of this place when it comes to scrutiny, because it is very important that members should be allowed to participate as a member of the committee, and I think that the views that I am expressing just now are shared by the members of the committee. We are the people who are on the front line of seeing all the evidence that comes into this kind of debate, and therefore I would ask the Presiding Officer to consider in the future whether it is appropriate to have only conveners speaking in this kind of debate. I thank Ms Smith for her point of order. There was discussion on the format of this debate at the Bureau this week. The convener's debate is a requirement understanding orders, and it is part of the budget process. I can share those details with you, and its point is to enable committee conveners to highlight the cross-party work of their committees in scrutinising the budget proposals. The stage 1 debate tomorrow, of course, is an opportunity for speeches to be made across the chamber. However, I have heard the members' comments, and I think that it is important that we keep our practices and procedures under review. We are about to conclude the debate on committee's budget scrutiny, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business. That is consideration of business motion 2937 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak on the motion, and the question is that motion 2937 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of nine parliamentary bureau motions, and I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 2938 to 2946. The question on those motions will be put at decision time. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 2901 in the name of Kenneth Gibson on committee's budget scrutiny be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed, and I propose to ask a single question on nine parliamentary bureau motions. Does any member object? The final question is that motions 2938 to 2946 in the name of George Adam on approval of SSIs be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed, and that concludes decision time, and we'll now move on to members' business.


Stop it sassy sassy. I'm not at you sassy. Don't eat the planet Stop it Please be a good girl. Do you want to be high?


SCP-447. A green sphere, which produces a green slime. SCP-447-2, which has many useful properties. It is edible, lubricant, and improves fuel efficiency. However, SCP-447 cannot come in contact with a dead body under any circumstances. The dangers of allowing SCP-447 or SCP-447-2 to come in to contact with dead bodies are documented. To summarize, initial effects include beta-punched pero5 directive. Research on this subject is forbidden upon pay of immediate termination or demotion to Class D. The useful properties of SCP include effective lubricant, disinfectant, fuel catalyst, multi-purpose medication, coolant, adhesive. However, the SCP may not be used for any practical purpose, and even the small risk of it coming in to contact with a dead body is too great a risk. Secure, contain, protect.


Hey there friends, thanks for checking in today. We're looking at a new release from Taurus. It's called the Taurus Defender 856 Ultralight last year they introduced the 856 and that offered six rounds in the cylinder prior to that the Taurus 85 a very popular pocket carry revolver that they came out with the 856 But people said I wanted one with a longer barrel Perhaps a three inch barrel would be great and they met that demand this year with the Defender 856 And here it is. I'm very excited to have this in my hands. I reviewed them at Shot Show I was impressed with what they offered. They have different grip Combinations they have a wood grip made by Ultamot They have a VZ grip and then they have this whole grip right here And it does offer a nice feel on the gun three finger contact that that pinky finger rests on there very comfortably and it's a 38 special with a Six round cylinder and it is plus P rated But the main difference here is the three inch barrel and the front sight it's made by Ameriglo It has an orange outline, but it is a night sight and that really sticks out there Compared to the ramped-up front sight with the 856 And I even said back then if you had a black background, you know, it's kind of hard to pick up They corrected that with this night sight and I think that is a nice touch But people love the Taurus revolvers and I love the 856 But I'm super excited about this because that little inch difference on the barrel makes a big difference in terms of Accuracy and I'm looking forward to that. So let's check that out as with Taurus revolvers the cylinder rotates counterclockwise All right standard double-action trigger pull that we are used to the single action I'm measuring right around six and a half pounds. So it's not a feather trigger But it's still a very short trigger travel I'm gonna take a look here already mentioned the six rounds. We'll look at the forcing cone and the yoke There we have the firing pin the timing hand and The bolt stop right there So we're familiar with these but we're not familiar with the three inch barrel And I like to hold grips although the the wood ultimat grips and the VZ grips are super cool, too Now the MSRP on this is 429 and These are just being released. We'll have to wait and see what the gun store price is going to be But it does offer what most people love with a Taurus revolver and that's with the Spurred hammer it does have the six rounds. It is plus P rated and I think they look super cool Now this one is considered the matte finish Model they have other ones that are all black. They have other ones that are seracoded You may notice that the barrel the crane and the cylinder is a seracote tungsten gray And I think it looks really cool They have other color combinations and not quite those flashy colors that we have seen with the 856 You know with the the burnt orange and they have many different colors to suit many different personalities But this I think is super cool more of a standard kind of look to it The overall length on this is seven and a half inches And so it's gonna weigh a little bit more So we'll take a look at that right now It is unloaded the unloaded weight We're looking at One pound one and a quarter ounces. We move that to just ounces. We're looking at 17 and a quarter ounces. So I Measure that up with the 856 with the two inch barrel and it is two ounces heavier But here are six rounds 38 special and we're looking at 20 and a half ounces So that is like I mentioned two ounces heavier the loaded weight with the two-inch model is 18 and a half if you Want the three inch barrel that this offers? Then you're good to go. These should be making their way to your local gun store Any day any day now I would think because that's the way they roll You can see it does have the push button cylinder release And of course the six rounds and plus P rated now when I shot the plus P And I'll do that with this model as well with the 856 with the two-inch barrel It handled that additional recoil very well. I was impressed I wasn't sure what to expect because it is an ultralight model. Okay, so that's right there You can see it does have the torus logo that I think is cool It doesn't have the whole logo, but the ultralight model handles the plus P no problem I'm expecting increased accuracy, and I'm also expecting a More clear Site picture you can see that it does have the tunneled rear sight, and then it notches up there to give it a nice site picture I Think torus has a winner here You know many people love their revolvers They say their revolvers are top shelf and they keep kept the price down with an MSRP of 429 now Some of the other models with the Altamont grips the VZ grips you're looking at 30 40 $50 more This one is a working man's revolver, and I think it's going to be priced at your local gun store Very fairly, and I think a lot of people are going to like this. I certainly like it I really enjoyed it at shot show, but I enjoy it even more in my hands I cannot wait to take this to the range and that review is forthcoming If you like videos like this, please subscribe and share I always appreciate thumbs up button Thanks for watching and you guys be safe