Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that good and quite detailed answer.

I do not know whether this is typical, but I know of a constituent in their 50s who refused to have AstraZeneca and instead wanted Pfizer, which, although approved for his age group, was being used for other age groups, and another younger person who went to a drop-in centre, got Moderna for his first jab and now cannot find anywhere that will promise to give him the same for his second. Those two people could be fully vaccinated if there were a bit more flexibility but, of course, we do not want to be too flexible. What is your reaction to that situation?

I will touch on the role of the JCVI. On the whole, we followed its advice pretty slavishly, as all the UK countries did, until we got to the 12 to 15-year-olds, when there seemed to be a bit more wriggle room. As I understand it, the chief medical officers decided that bringing in the education considerations would lead to a different decision. Does that change the relationship with the JCVI or was it an exception? How are we looking at it?

I want to return to the question of the different vaccines and their impact. A suggestion was made some time ago that it might be beneficial to mix vaccines so that people got two different ones, or that the third shot should be different from the first two. Are we any further forward on that?

I suppose that my question was about how we mop up the remaining people.

I am in favour of the prudential framework as well. Do we have any indication from Westminster that it would be willing to discuss that kind of thing when the fiscal framework is reviewed?

I move to the part of the fiscal framework outturn report on social security. I confess that I find some of it quite complex, but if I understand the figures correctly, the forecast in the 2020 budget was an expenditure of roughly £3.212 billion and the outturn was roughly £3.262 billion—around £49 million more. Many changes have happened—we have not taken on some things quite as quickly as we had hoped, and Covid must have had an impact. Is it too early to say what is happening with the social security system, or do you think that we will struggle to stay within our social security budget?

There is a lot in there that we could explore further. However, I will move on to the other point that I want to raise, which is about the recent national insurance increase at Westminster. I believe that it is to be called the health and social care levy. Are we clear about exactly what Scotland will get from that or how it will work for us?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. There are many areas to discuss, but I want to go back to the issue of inflation, which has already been mentioned.

We have had some discussion with our advisers about short-term inflation. That could include, for example, people with savings rushing out to buy the same kind of car, which would leading to a shortage of such cars and prices going up. Presumably, though, that sort of thing would come down. Something like the gas price, however, could stay higher for longer. Moreover, with wages, could a shortage of staff inevitably lead to inflation? If so, what impact would that have on Scotland and the Scottish budget? After all, if hotels and shops start paying higher wages, we will have to pay nurses and everyone else higher wages, too. Do you feel that inflation is a major problem or is it, in fact, quite minor?

Thanks.

I move to capital expenditure and borrowing. The fiscal framework outturn report shows that we are increasingly nearing our limit on borrowing, which I think is £3 billion. The forecast is that we will be at 82 per cent of that limit by the end of 2023-24. Will that cause problems? Assuming that the fiscal framework is not revised, which is a separate question, what happens if we hit that limit?