Chamber and committees

Mr Findlay is standing in front of me arguing for a reduction in taxation. The problem with what he and his colleagues bring to the Parliament is that that would involve a reduction in public expenditure.

Some of the data that has been published is illustrative of the economic impact of the budget. The information from the Resolution Foundation indicates that, over the course of the UK parliamentary session, there is likely to be about half a per cent increase in average household incomes as a consequence of the measures that have been taken in the budget. That will leave a lot of people feeling that their living standards have not increased in any meaningful fashion over the course of the parliamentary session. That reinforces the point that Michelle Thomson made, and the Labour Government will have to explain that to the public.

The point that I was making is that there are tax choices to be made, and I am one who has argued for taxes to increase. We have actually increased taxes, and there was a way in which the UK Government could have done that, by asking people on higher incomes to pay more in taxation. That would have generated about £20 billion of revenue and would have avoided some of the damaging tax increases, such as the one that is going to undermine the competitiveness of the Scotch whisky industry. I understand why the Scotch whisky industry and business are aggrieved at the Labour Government, because they were promised economic stability, but they are not getting that from the Labour Government.

I have sympathy with the Labour Government in the United Kingdom in that it has inherited an entirely unsustainable set of circumstances in the public finances, because of the absolutely menacing agenda of the Conservative Government for 14 years. It is the ultimate deceit for Mr Findlay and the Conservatives to criticise those of us who must take difficult decisions to clear up the mess that the Conservatives have created.

I understand all the issues that Mr Marra puts to me. The complication here is that there is a due process to be gone through, which involves the possibility of a tribunal. I understand that the issue is going to tribunal, which is a material part of the process of determining the issues. I know that that is cold comfort to anybody who is affected by the matter, but it is the process that we have to go through to determine on the issues. If there is anything further that can be added to that, I will consider whether there is a case for it.

Willie Rennie is familiar with the fact that I, too, have constituents who are affected by the issue. I engage with them in my constituency capacity.

On the question of engagement with Police Scotland, what I said to Liz Smith was an attempt to be helpful in that respect. I would expect the Government to provide Police Scotland with whatever information it is looking for in relation to its inquiries. If there are deeper anxieties, I am happy to meet Willie Rennie, Liz Smith and any other members who wish for me to intervene on the question. I am happy to do so if there are any outstanding issues following my answers today.

Mr Sarwar is very, very excited today. I have the sense that he doth protest too much. There are many welcome measures in the budget. I am particularly pleased that a reliable source of funding is being made available for the victims of the infected blood scandal—both those affected and infected—because I have constituents who have demonstrated tenacious leadership in ensuring that that injustice was corrected. I think of my constituent Bill Wright whenever I think of this issue. I am very pleased—and it is to its credit—that the Labour Government has done that.

There are many welcome measures in the budget. For example, I argued that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to change the fiscal rules. During the election period, she said that she would not do that, but I have obviously been very persuasive in getting her to change the fiscal rules so that we can get more investment—the very investment that Mr Sarwar talked about. It is important to invest in our infrastructure and our housing stock and to ensure that this country’s competitiveness is enhanced by that investment.

I welcome all those things. However, Mr Sarwar will have to try to convey some of his enthusiasm to people other than me—people who are living in poverty and the children of families who will move into poverty because the two-child cap has not been lifted. The Resolution Foundation estimates that, by next April, an additional 63,000 children will be affected by the failure to lift the two-child cap. There will be pensioners who have lost their winter fuel payment who will not be greeting with enthusiasm the points that Mr Sarwar is making.

Mr Sarwar has to recognise that—

Russell Findlay misconstrues the remarks that I am making. It is up to the Labour Party to defend its position.

I will set out my analysis of the horror show that the Conservatives have inflicted on this country through their management of the economy for the past 14 years. It is an absolute horror show that the Conservatives have inflicted on our public services, on working people in this country, on people with any vulnerability and on anybody who is paying a mortgage. Every one of them has been punished by the incompetence of the Conservative Government. Mr Findlay—I know that he does not like this—was one of those who told me that I had to follow in Liz Truss’s footsteps. Thank goodness I never did that in any of my decisions.

I say to Russell Findlay that we have taken decisions to increase tax in Scotland because we wanted to invest in our public services. That investment has improved our public services to meet the needs of people in Scotland. We have faced the reality. If Mr Findlay wants to stand here and defend spending cuts to the people of Scotland, he is welcome to do so. I will not follow in his footsteps.

I have no intention of doing that, because the process has been properly conducted, and information—[Interruption.]

I do not think that it should be a surprise that a Government that, in its policy position, is supportive of renewable energy developments has taken a decision to authorise a renewable energy project.