Chamber and committees

I rather think that the member makes my point for me, because it is still referenced as just that—a convention, which is therefore inherently weak.

Labour’s pre-election commitment to give £150 million of so-called levelling-up funds to the Scottish Office, therefore bypassing the Scottish Parliament, is warning enough that Labour is not to be trusted to look after Scotland’s interests. The avoidance of scrutiny, accountability, good governance, efficiency and effectiveness and a lack of respect are just some of the reasons why bypassing this Parliament is poor. [Interruption.] I might take another intervention in a little while.

I take what Daniel Johnson says in good faith, but the problem is that the Labour Party in Scotland has no power, and that is the way that it has always been. This example of disrespecting this Parliament is also not an aberration, given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced an attack on pensioners by taking away their universal winter fuel payment—something that Labour’s own research said could kill up to 4,000 people and would represent the

“single biggest attack on pensioners in a generation”.

Christine Grahame made it clear that this massive policy change has been made without consultation with any of the devolved administrations. Labour did not even consult charities and others who might have to pick up the pieces. Therefore, I suggest that an arrogant culture has been allowed to develop around the UK Internal Market Act 2020, and, given that, if there is to be any substantive change, I will be looking at the real meaning of that.

When the UK Internal Market Bill was being debated, some thought that the Sewel convention might come to this Parliament’s aid, but, as the optimists now realise, the Sewel convention is just that—a convention, with no legal effect. There is, therefore, no need for any UK Government to respect the views of this Parliament, and they often do not. It is a pity that the respective branch offices—for that is what they are—of Labour and the Tories—do not either. Ultimately, that is a huge disrespect to the people of Scotland.

I am sure that the First Minister wishes that we, like independent Ireland, had the issue of how to spend a surplus of around €8.6 billion. Little Ireland, disdained by the UK commentariat after some property exuberance pre-credit crunch, has come back with bigger tiger teeth. Taking the opportunity to replace the UK as a gateway to Europe and pitching well above its weight in the world, it is unique in wrestling with a surplus challenge. Meanwhile, the UK economy, which is one of the hardest hit of all the large advanced economies and the slowest to recover from the credit crunch, was economically badly prepared for the Covid pandemic and has struggled since.

No optimism can be seen coming from the new UK Labour Government. That it has adopted the Tory fiscal rules, which are made up anyway, underpins the fact that austerity is a policy choice. The Labour Government has fully embraced the idiocy of Brexit, and the only thing that we can be certain of—contrary to what we heard when Labour was last in power and told us that things could only get better—is that things will absolutely get much worse.

We should never forget that that is the backdrop against which we are required to operate in Scotland, where we must be grateful for the capital expenditure crumbs that represent a 20 per cent reduction in the moneys that are available to invest and grow our economy, and where the revenue budget has not taken account of the height of consumer prices index inflation, which reached 18.9 per cent over the past three years.

What of today’s programme for government? I am very aware that it has been drawn together in the most difficult of times. The UK budget will not come out until the end of October, and the final amount that will be available for the Scottish Government will not be known until February 2025, so I celebrate what I have heard today is in it. I am pleased that it targets key areas rather than taking the broad-brush approach that was adopted previously. I am especially pleased to see its focus on economic growth. I welcome, of course, the signing of the Falkirk growth deal, the focus on a just transition for Grangemouth and the fact that the resources will now be made available to allow Creative Scotland to open the open fund. The investment in the Techscaler programme is also very important.

However, what is most pleasing to me is the £600 million for affordable housing and the further £100 million for mid-market rent homes. I note with interest the comments on stage 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which make me optimistic as they recognise the need for developers to have a clear line of sight on future margins and their return on investment. I really welcome that.

Returning to Ireland, I note that the intention of the Government there is not to spend its surplus—it plans to save for the future. On that note, I again gently express my concern about ScotWind funds being used for revenue. I fully accept that the finance secretary will protect as much money as she can, but I note that the imperatives of moving to net zero and of growing the economy both hinge on using that money, ideally by crowding in private investment and potentially by the Scottish Government taking a golden share to reach the £1.5 billion that is set out in the statement.

I merely pointed out that the macro economy resides with Westminster. Craig Hoy made a point about the Scottish Government’s budget. The Scottish Government has to operate to a fixed budget, yet the UK Government has consistently borrowed massively, to the extent that the ratio of debt to gross domestic product is now 88.8 per cent. How is that for fiscal rectitude?

As things stand as regards our understanding of those ifs, we are light years away from being able to definitively state that there will be Barnett consequentials as a result of that UK Government policy. That is what I am trying to get at.

You illustrate the complexity of the issue, which can probably go only one way. To counter that complexity—I think that my colleague Ross Greer was getting at this—assumptions should be stated, where that is possible and feasible. The more planning, the better, even though we all accept that the only certainty is that, ultimately, all plans will be wrong. However, from a behavioural perspective, we need to try to track things.

On that point, I note that we will not have a medium-term financial strategy, and we do not anticipate that we will have an updated infrastructure investment plan. That seems to me to be counter to the dawning realisation that everyone has had that we are in the position that we are in because of a failure to plan—or, rather, to scenario plan. Given that pay policy informs the MTFS, what are your thoughts on planning and what we need to do in that respect?

I have a couple of wee questions to finish off. First, on the question that Liz Smith raised earlier about VAT on private schools, I want to make sure that I have all my ifs in a row. If that policy is enacted, if the money is spent on education in England and Wales and if it goes on public sector education spend—in other words, if it is not used to enable private companies to set up education-type bodies—only at that point could it result in Barnett consequentials. I accept that we would not know the detail of that, because of what you said in your earlier commentary. I am trying to flesh out all the ifs. There would be Barnett consequentials only if the money that is raised is spent on publicly tractable public sector funding for education. There could be a scenario in which the money that is raised is nominally spent on education provision or services, but it cannot be Barnett consequentialised, if there is such a word.

I note that the Scottish Government intends to use up to 100 per cent of ScotWind moneys available from year 2023-24—£460 million—to fund day-to-day resource spending. Given that that is a one-off bounty, the original intention was for it to help to develop vital supply chains and infrastructure in our renewables sector. It could also have been used as a tool to crowd in private capital.

However, the term “up to” is key. Will the cabinet secretary set out the circumstances in which those vital one-off funds can and will be protected and invested to create future wealth for Scotland, such as through a sovereign wealth fund? Will she also outline her intention for the remaining £200 million that is available in 2024-25? Is that also being earmarked for day-to-day spending?

I note with great interest the cabinet secretary’s comments, and I await with optimism updates in the coming days. However, does the cabinet secretary agree that, to a certain extent, this situation has arisen because of a wider financial picture, in that the Scottish Government awaits with great interest the United Kingdom Government’s final budget at the end of October and will not have its own funding tied down until February 2025? To what extent has that played a part?

The Scottish pubs code adjudicator, Sarah Havlin, has recently been appointed for a three-year term. Will the delay to the regulations have any impact on the operation of her office?

Good morning, convener. Similarly, my entry in the register of members’ interests is up to date, but I note that I am an ambassador for the Westminster all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, and I own a couple of buy-to-let properties. I am not sure that either of those things are relevant, but it is better to be on the safe side.