Chamber and committees

Thank you. Matt Bailey, I can see that you want to come in.

What, then, is different in governance terms? That suggests to me that, because a pause could put in place, a pause was put in place. In other words, the Government scanned the horizon and looked at where it could do that. What was different about the two deals?

Susan Aitken, given the dispersity of the geography of your area, do you agree with that statement that the deals have brought a sharpness of focus?

I thank the cabinet secretary for that statement and for the SNP Government’s continued support of Scots.

A number of mitigations were already in place to alleviate Tory Westminster austerity, and, today, additional measures have been taken to alleviate UK Labour austerity. Personally, I am heartened to see the growth plans for housing, enterprise agencies, digital connectivity, artificial intelligence and robotics, skills, roads, the invest to save fund, capital spend, offshore wind and supply chain and, most of all, the protection of ScotWind funds.

Which areas does the cabinet secretary believe will add most to ensure that Scotland’s economy prospers and make this Scottish budget a budget for growth?

I was going to ask about the fiscal framework, in which the IFS had quite a key role. You raised some concerns at the time around limits, noting that,

“rather than link the limits to inflation, it would make more sense to link them to the amount of revenue and social security spending at risk, which will typically grow faster than inflation.”

With the benefit of hindsight, what further recommendations might you have made, and do you still stand by what you said at the time?

Good morning. I have a mix of questions as well, given that we are nearly at the end of the evidence session. I will start almost at the beginning. You have been quite critical about the extent to which you really see the UK budget as a budget for growth. Indeed, you suggest that the OBR thinks that

“the Budget will eventually boost output in a sustainable way, but only from 2032”.

We have also heard commentary about the front loading.

Given that wider context of really limited growth—of course, Brexit is in the room as well—and the limitations on the Scottish Government, on which David Phillips is obviously an expert, having done the work on the fiscal framework, in what ways can the Scottish Government really focus on making its budget one for growth?

Yes. You make a fair point about the budget being demand led and the implications of that.

A third aspect, which my colleague Liz Smith asked about earlier, is data. I have asked questions before about the lack of Scotland-specific data. I am thinking about inflation in particular. A lot of interesting geopolitics is going on that could impact on oil and gas, and Scotland’s economy has a reliance on that. We also have changes to national insurance contributions that could affect interest rates. What appetite is there in all the relevant institutions to make advances by starting to collect Scotland-specific data?

I do not disagree, but I think that we would struggle to get to £262 billion.

The idea of boosting the Scottish sample size is one that I have taken up directly with the ONS.

My final question is one that I tend to ask every year. I am not up to date with the latest statistics, but we know that the cost of corruption has a fairly significant impact on UK GDP. A figure of about £262 billion each and every year for money laundering and so on was being touted three years ago. What is your thinking on that? A while ago, at the start of this year, the UK again dropped down the Transparency International corruption index, but corruption continues to take a significant amount off UK GDP.

David, I may have asked you this last year or the year before, but to what extent do you take account of the cost of corruption, given the constraints on public finances? Do you have any thoughts on that?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would like to raise a concern about the admissibility of amendments that were lodged ahead of today’s stage 3 proceedings on the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. Amendments 21 and 22, on winter heating assistance, which were lodged by Paul O’Kane on behalf of the Labour Party in Scotland, would make a significant demand on the Scottish budget by seeking to extend, by statute, winter heating assistance to some individuals of pensionable age. That would require the Scottish Government to cover the costs of the United Kingdom Government’s cut to the winter fuel payment.

My concern is that the amendments were deemed admissible but without giving any regard to the financial memorandum that was published to support scrutiny of the bill. I therefore seek your guidance on how we can better assess the financial impact that such blatantly political amendments may have on legislation, giving due regard to how they interact with financial memoranda.