Chamber and committees

I will make a brief last point in relation to that. As I am sure that you will remember, in the 2010 to 2018 period, it was not unusual for the UK Government to announce sudden expansions of capital finance. We used to have to find shovel-ready projects. However, that seems to have fallen away. Do you not expect there to be any movement in relation to that?

That is, in some senses, disappointing, but I would hope for something even within the constraints of a technical-led review. It used to be said that the grant-aided expenditure formula for local authorities in Scotland was understood by two people. I think that half that number understand the fiscal framework, and it would be good to see that expanded, if possible.

On the general area of tax and resources, you mentioned a generally improving tax position. Research was published last night showing that there has been a 79 per cent increase in council tax in England, whereas in Scotland we are on average at about £300 or £400 less than what is paid in England, so we have a pretty competitive position across the tax take. Have you done any analysis on whether the generally higher public sector wages in Scotland are driving that increase in tax revenues? We have also had generally lower unemployment in Scotland, certainly over the past year or so. I realise that some of that is quite recent, although, again, evidence that has just been published shows, I think, that the increase in wage growth in Scotland was 8.4 per cent as opposed to 7.1 per cent in England and Wales. Is that driving the increased tax take?

Good morning. Some of the questions that I was going to ask have been asked by Michelle Thomson and others. However, I will revisit, first, the fiscal framework. From what you have said, deputy first minister, the negotiations—about which, I know, you cannot go into detail—seem to be in the undergrowth and on the detail of the framework.

I wonder whether there are more fundamental issues. My view is that the fiscal framework has failed over time. Michelle Thomson talked about its impenetrability: people cannot possibly understand it. It is a bit like the UK tax code in that it is so complex. That cannot be good for transparency and accountability. Is that being looked at?

Secondly, the very basis of the framework, whereby expenditure in England is decided and then—literally consequentially—Scotland gets a share of that, seems to me to be totally counterintuitive to what devolution is meant to be about, which is recognising the differences in different parts of the UK.

Are those more fundamental issues being examined, or is the review really only about how the detail of the framework is working?

Thanks for that. However, there is obviously a relationship between private and public sector wage growth and the economy.

My final question goes back to the point that Michelle Thomson raised in relation to the 14 per cent cut in the capital budget that we will see by 2028. I have been a critic of the £2.5 trillion of debt that the UK Government has accumulated, but most economists agree that debt that is incurred as part of capital expenditure is beneficial for an economy. That being the case—you may have answered this when responding to Michelle Thomson’s point—is an argument being put to the UK Government that the current capital constraints are not serving the UK and certainly not Scotland? Beyond making the general point to it about how damaging an austerity budget is, on the capital side, is there any sign that the UK Government would be willing to move on that?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I know that there will be rising anxiety on the Tory benches, but it is just to say that I could not vote and that I would have voted yes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am aware that, under rule 13.1 of the standing orders, it is permissible for members to make personal statements, conditional on your agreement and, of course, subject to scheduling by the Parliamentary Bureau. So, in the interests of checking that parliamentary procedures are followed correctly, I ask whether you would grant Douglas Ross a personal statement, if he asked you for one, to allow him to correct the record and to explain why he pursued a misleading line of questioning in last week’s session of First Minister’s questions.

We know that the Conservatives will oppose virtually any measure addressing climate change but, last Thursday, while questioning the First Minister, Douglas Ross attempted to discredit the new low-emission zone in Glasgow. He stated:

“Homeless Project Scotland was refused an exemption to use a refrigerated van within the restricted area.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2023; c 11.]

He went on to heavily imply that the LEZ was condemning the charity to being unable to do the work that it wants to do. Of course, he failed to clarify that Glasgow City Council had, in fact, given an exemption to Homeless Project Scotland so that it could continue its work. [Interruption.]

—allied to the evident and appalling toxicity within the Tory group, which was exemplified yesterday by the disgraceful language of Murdo Fraser, who attacked through personal abuse a member of the Parliament, is, in my view—[Interruption.]

Additionally, after the end of First Minister’s questions, Douglas Ross proceeded to share his misleading assertion further on social media and, to date, has not removed that post.

That disingenuous conduct—[Interruption.]

That behaviour is, in my view, by design tarnishing the reputation of this Parliament. It has even been reported today that Stephen Kerr wants to leave this Parliament to go back to the gentler environment of Westminster. [Interruption.]

Presiding Officer, I seek your advice about how we can ensure that Opposition leaders such as Douglas Ross do not knowingly mislead this chamber. Can you inform Parliament whether Douglas Ross has made any attempt to correct the record or seek your permission to make a statement so that he can explain why he thought that it was acceptable to pursue a misleading line of questioning during First Minister’s questions?