Chamber and committees

In the judgments that we make, we need to bear in mind many of the factors that I have just outlined to you. The more homes affordable housing programme will be uneven from year to year, because of the nature and timing of particular projects over the course of the programme. It is a long-term, multiyear programme lasting at least five years, if not 10. Those numbers will vary from year to year, depending on the maturity of the programme.

The increase in capital grants to local authorities is a material point to consider in relation to the overall local government financial settlement, in which local authorities have a significant amount of flexibility in how they utilise the resources that are made available from the Scottish Government. It is important to consider all those issues in the round when we look at the financial capacity of local government to take the decisions that it has to take.

As the committee knows, I am required by statute—I do not complain about this—to use the numbers that are provided to me by the Fiscal Commission. That is the right and proper way to do it, and I cannot ignore what the Fiscal Commission says on those numbers. I see commentary into the debate that suggests material that I could not take into account, because it is not the Fiscal Commission’s view.

The committee has heard the Fiscal Commission’s view. I cannot ignore that—I have to take it into account. However, there is other analysis that suggests that, if Swinney just went off and did this, there would be much more money available. Unfortunately, that collides with the reality of the assessment put forward by the Fiscal Commission, which I cannot ignore.

That is perhaps the best way to convey that point, convener.

Yes.

I think that it is, and I have just explained why.

The point that Liz Smith is missing, which is the point that the First Minister was making, is that the financial arrangements for the financial year 2022-23 were largely set in a low inflation climate in the autumn of 2021. By the time we started to face the reality of 2022-23, inflation was galloping away from us and there was no subsequent adjustment of the financial year 2022-23 provisions from the UK Government.

I do not know whether we have information on a granular enough level to answer your question. I will take that away and see whether we can answer it. As far as I am aware, reconciliations that have taken place have not indicated much divergence from what was planned, but it would be better if I took the whole question away and provided the committee with a more substantive answer in writing.

For absolutely clarity, the first point that I will make is that the pay offer that is on the table, which has been accepted by some but not all of the trade unions, is for this financial year. We have not yet negotiated next year’s pay award. The type of calculation that Mr Johnson seeks to make involves information about the final cost, which is not yet clear.

I suppose that I can best respond to the question by saying that I have tried to maximise the resources that are available to the health service in the budget settlement by moving substantially beyond the consequentials to provide an uplift to support the health service. Secondly, I have tried to be as mindful as possible, within the resources that are available to me, of the pay demands and pay pressures. Thirdly, once we get into the next financial year, we will be operating within a largely fixed financial envelope, given that I will have taken the decisions on tax—or, rather, I have taken those decisions. Parliament must decide whether it wishes to endorse those decisions. If it does so, that will in essence fix our budget for 2023-24. We will then have to manage the range of pressures within that fixed financial envelope.

Some of the changes that Mr Johnson puts to me will arise from the changes in the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Government. For example, in 2020, we were in the foothills of establishing Social Security Scotland. In fact, I am not sure whether were even there.

That remains the Government's intention. It has largely driven a number of my responses, which have been designed to set out to the committee that, in the budget arrangements, there will be consequences that will have an impact on the size and scale of the workforce.

Returning to a point that I made in response to Mr Greer’s questions, I note that the shape of the financial outlook in the years to come does not encourage a view about expansion. Comparatively speaking, we are facing two less challenging years in the first two years of the spending period and two tough years in the latter part of it. That is a different shape to what was envisaged in the resource spending review, but it remains relevant in that, previously, it looked as though we would be facing two years of acute challenge and two easier years. That position has been reversed, but we will still have to face those realities and budget provision will dictate a large measure of that.

There is obviously scope for us to explore many of these questions. Prior to the budget, there was a call from some—not all—stakeholders for the Government to use its powers effectively and comprehensively. I believe that we have done so; I also believe that we have done so in a context that is credible, deliverable and in balance. Some of the other proposals that I have seen would have had quite a negative effect on the Scottish tax base, on the Scottish economy and on Scottish society, and some of them I quite simply could not take forward—it was not in my gift to do so.

I am confident that I have taken the steps that are necessary to the maximum of the scope that is available to me to take such steps.