The members who are here this morning are the hardy few.

They are a bit like the shepherds in the Christmas story: the poor souls who are still at work when everyone else has gone to rest or to play.

I will dwell on the Christmas theme this morning, because the Christmas season is typically associated with generosity, gift-giving and largesse.

Given the generosity of recent budget settlements, Christmas is perhaps a fitting time for the Parliament’s budget debate.

The budget is certainly in keeping with the Christmas spirit, with every department getting more.

However, perhaps as we look ahead to a tightening fiscal climate we should move the annual budget debate to January to engender a climate that is more conducive to belt-tightening, tough choices and restraint.

In the days before Christmas, our task, like that of the shepherds of old, is to be watchful, but not for stray wolves or stars: we must be watchful about whether the budget represents the best possible shepherding of Scottish services.

I start, as I must, with the Opposition and the alternatives that are before us.

The poor Conservatives are, of course, destined always to be the Scrooges in the Christmas story.

They object to budgetary gift-giving in principle, and we were not disappointed this morning.

They are about to fight an election on cutting taxes and cutting spending.

Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con): As politicians, we can all be generous, but we are generous with other people’s money. That is what we are talking about.

Ms Alexander: Give me a moment and I will come to that.

For the Conservatives, gift-giving is guaranteed to end in all areas that are not health and education—transport, crime reduction, the environment and many other worthy causes are under threat.

Indeed, if the Conservatives were to win the general election, Santa’s loaded sleigh of this year would be downsized to a small stocking by next year.

To dwell on Mr Gallie’s theme, I can say without fear of contradiction that at no point during the almost 300 days since the spring budget heralded both largesse in budget gift-giving and belt-tightening efficiencies, have I seen or read a single solitary SNP press release acknowledging that there might be a case for efficiencies, far less offering a single suggestion about how they might be achieved.

The silence has been as eerie as any silent night.

In the spirit of the season, I think that we have just heard the first and only example of  SNP efficiency.

It is Scotland’s Government—the coalition—that is uniquely committed to both serious gift-giving and significant efficiencies.

Before Christmas comes advent, which is the season when the light emerges from the darkness.

This year, we in the Finance Committee took advent rather seriously.

With the expert help of Arthur Midwinter and the clerks, we tried to throw our own light on some peculiarly Scottish darkness.

At this point, I can hear some colleagues—perhaps including the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform—hoping that I will just leave things there.

Of course, I am tempted to do so, but the whole point of advent is to prepare the way for the wise men.

This year, the wise men—and wise women—in the Scottish Executive have followed not a star in the east but our friends in the south.

Not in some bleak midwinter but in the balmy days of summer, we pledged—to our colleagues in Government, to the people of Scotland and to ourselves—that we would commit to an efficiency programme that was “as ambitious” as the UK Government’s and which would “seek to secure comparable or greater gains in efficiency.”— [Official Report, Written Answers, 27 October 2004; S2W-10531.]

That simple spending review promise was no fluffed line in an interview; it was considered, consulted upon, ratified by the Cabinet, made to the country and repeated to the Parliament.

It is a promise that we have still to keep.

This Christmas, nine months after it was clear from the basic arithmetic that Scotland would need to find almost £2 billion a year by the end of the process if it was to stay in step with the rest of the UK, we are still committed to only half the efficiency gains that have been promised elsewhere.

Even our most ambitious aspirations, which I endorse completely, take us only three quarters of the way there.

In an answer to a parliamentary question that was hurriedly answered last night after hours, the Executive has stated that

“it would serve no useful purpose to draw a direct comparison”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 22 December 2004; S2W-12912]

with other places.

If comparisons “serve no useful purpose”, why did we in Scotland choose at our own hand to make promises in comparative terms that mentioned that we would match savings elsewhere and release as much for front-line services?

Does any of that matter?

After all, it is Christmas.

Do the people of Scotland want their politicians to be watchful about who said what and when? In one sense, they probably do not.

Do they care that, when we tot up every ha’penny of promised savings, we are still £700 million “light”, which means that we are not yet committed to trying to save the equivalent of one and a half Scottish Parliament buildings over the next three years?

I suspect that it is not that the people of Scotland do not care, but that they just do not know.

That is why we need to be watchful on their behalf.

The issue is not simply about some lack of clarity in reporting or an arid accounting convention, but about our convictions and what we believe in.

It is about our willingness to come to the chamber to defend those decisions as right in principle.

We need to explain to Scotland why we have chosen to commit ourselves to only half, and to consider only three quarters, of the efficiency savings that are planned elsewhere.

We need to explain why it is right in principle not to use the spending review and budget process as the way to move resources into the front line and why we are not making Scottish departments and Scottish ministers individually responsible for planned shifts to the front line.

I end by encouraging the Executive to be inspired by the light of Christmas to keep its summer promises.

As long as we are committed to just around half of what is promised elsewhere, there is a risk—and it is only a risk—that we will get only half the benefits of the reforms.

The fear is that, whereas elsewhere there will be electronic patient records, appointment bookings and prescriptions, we will get only half the benefits that will come from such reforms.

In schools up and down the country, the hard-pressed teachers who are trying today to finish up for the new year do not want just half the benefits of less reporting and form filling.

They want all the benefits.

On our streets, Scots want all the benefits of the full 1,000 extra police officers that could be released for front-line duties rather than just 500.

On Christmas night, the shepherds’ watchfulness was repaid.

I hope that the watchfulness of the Finance Committee and of the Parliament will be repaid by an Executive that not only tells out the good news—it is very good news—about its budget plans, but resolves to say what it means and mean what it says.

In politics, saying what one means and meaning what one says is the equivalent of carrying the light of Christmas into the New Year. The members who are here this morning are the hardy few.

They are a bit like the shepherds in the Christmas story: the poor souls who are still at work when everyone else has gone to rest or to play.

I will dwell on the Christmas theme this morning, because the Christmas season is typically associated with generosity, gift-giving and largesse.

Given the generosity of recent budget settlements, Christmas is perhaps a fitting time for the Parliament’s budget debate.

The budget is certainly in keeping with the Christmas spirit, with every department getting more.

However, perhaps as we look ahead to a tightening fiscal climate we should move the annual budget debate to January to engender a climate that is more conducive to belt-tightening, tough choices and restraint.

In the days before Christmas, our task, like that of the shepherds of old, is to be watchful, but not for stray wolves or stars: we must be watchful about whether the budget represents the best possible shepherding of Scottish services.

I start, as I must, with the Opposition and the alternatives that are before us.

The poor Conservatives are, of course, destined always to be the Scrooges in the Christmas story.

They object to budgetary gift-giving in principle, and we were not disappointed this morning.

They are about to fight an election on cutting taxes and cutting spending.

Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con): As politicians, we can all be generous, but we are generous with other people’s money. That is what we are talking about.

Ms Alexander: Give me a moment and I will come to that.

For the Conservatives, gift-giving is guaranteed to end in all areas that are not health and education-transport, crime reduction, the environment and many other worthy causes are under threat.

Indeed, if the Conservatives were to win the general election, Santa’s loaded sleigh of this year would be downsized to a small stocking by next year.

To dwell on Mr Gallie’s theme, I can say without fear of contradiction that at no point during the almost 300 days since the spring budget heralded both largesse in budget gift-giving and belt-tightening efficiencies, have I seen or read a single solitary SNP press release acknowledging that there might be a case for efficiencies, far less offering a single suggestion about how they might be achieved.

The silence has been as eerie as any silent night.

In the spirit of the season, I think that we have just heard the first and only example of  SNP efficiency.

It is Scotland’s Government-the coalition-that is uniquely committed to both serious gift-giving and significant efficiencies.

Before Christmas comes advent, which is the season when the light emerges from the darkness.

This year, we in the Finance Committee took advent rather seriously.

With the expert help of Arthur Midwinter and the clerks, we tried to throw our own light on some peculiarly Scottish darkness.

At this point, I can hear some colleagues-perhaps including the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform-hoping that I will just leave things there.

Of course, I am tempted to do so, but the whole point of advent is to prepare the way for the wise men.

This year, the wise men-and wise women-in the Scottish Executive have followed not a star in the east but our friends in the south.

Not in some bleak midwinter but in the balmy days of summer, we pledged-to our colleagues in Government, to the people of Scotland and to ourselves-that we would commit to an efficiency programme that was “as ambitious” as the UK Government’s and which would “seek to secure comparable or greater gains in efficiency.”- [Official Report, Written Answers, 27 October 2004; S2W-10531.]

That simple spending review promise was no fluffed line in an interview; it was considered, consulted upon, ratified by the Cabinet, made to the country and repeated to the Parliament.

It is a promise that we have still to keep.

This Christmas, nine months after it was clear from the basic arithmetic that Scotland would need to find almost £2 billion a year by the end of the process if it was to stay in step with the rest of the UK, we are still committed to only half the efficiency gains that have been promised elsewhere.

Even our most ambitious aspirations, which I endorse completely, take us only three quarters of the way there.

In an answer to a parliamentary question that was hurriedly answered last night after hours, the Executive has stated that

“it would serve no useful purpose to draw a direct comparison”-[Official Report, Written Answers, 22 December 2004; S2W-12912]

with other places.

If comparisons “serve no useful purpose”, why did we in Scotland choose at our own hand to make promises in comparative terms that mentioned that we would match savings elsewhere and release as much for front-line services?

Does any of that matter?

After all, it is Christmas.

Do the people of Scotland want their politicians to be watchful about who said what and when? In one sense, they probably do not.

Do they care that, when we tot up every ha’penny of promised savings, we are still £700 million “light”, which means that we are not yet committed to trying to save the equivalent of one and a half Scottish Parliament buildings over the next three years?

I suspect that it is not that the people of Scotland do not care, but that they just do not know.

That is why we need to be watchful on their behalf.

The issue is not simply about some lack of clarity in reporting or an arid accounting convention, but about our convictions and what we believe in.

It is about our willingness to come to the chamber to defend those decisions as right in principle.

We need to explain to Scotland why we have chosen to commit ourselves to only half, and to consider only three quarters, of the efficiency savings that are planned elsewhere.

We need to explain why it is right in principle not to use the spending review and budget process as the way to move resources into the front line and why we are not making Scottish departments and Scottish ministers individually responsible for planned shifts to the front line.

I end by encouraging the Executive to be inspired by the light of Christmas to keep its summer promises.

As long as we are committed to just around half of what is promised elsewhere, there is a risk-and it is only a risk-that we will get only half the benefits of the reforms.

The fear is that, whereas elsewhere there will be electronic patient records, appointment bookings and prescriptions, we will get only half the benefits that will come from such reforms.

In schools up and down the country, the hard-pressed teachers who are trying today to finish up for the new year do not want just half the benefits of less reporting and form filling.

They want all the benefits.

On our streets, Scots want all the benefits of the full 1,000 extra police officers that could be released for front-line duties rather than just 500.

On Christmas night, the shepherds’ watchfulness was repaid.

I hope that the watchfulness of the Finance Committee and of the Parliament will be repaid by an Executive that not only tells out the good news-it is very good news-about its budget plans, but resolves to say what it means and mean what it says.

In politics, saying what one means and meaning what one says is the equivalent of carrying the light of Christmas into the New Year.