Chamber and committees

Yes, I think that the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations said that retrofitting homes for energy efficiency would cost about £6 billion. It is one of the long-term issues that we will have to deal with.

I am keen to let members ask their questions, and I am aware that, with a panel of four witnesses, it is often hard to make sure that everybody gets an equal chance to respond, so my final question is for Polly Tolley.

In your submission, you talk about non-repayable grants and council tax rebates being popular. I suppose that giving people additional funds is always popular. You also talk about the need for advice provision to be protected and, if possible, enhanced as a preventative measure. Again, prevention seems to be a fundamental part of what we are hearing.

You have set out your position in your paper but, for the record, will you give a bit more detail about how much additional advice provision you would like there to be? You have talked about a £16 return for every £1 that is invested in core services.

You touched on the removal of the £20 a week increase in universal credit that was brought in during the pandemic. Will you say a little bit more about the impact that that will have?

On the point that Mr Robertson made about planning, I once read an article by a retiring chief executive of West Lothian Council, in which he was asked how the council was able to attract a disproportionate amount of investment, given that, post-mining, it had been one of the poorest authorities. He said that the council had a strong focus on turning round planning applications—saying yea or nay to them—within four weeks, which gave it a competitive advantage over other local authorities. Therefore, the point is well made.

This morning, members of the committee received a detailed letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy. No doubt colleagues will ask questions about that in the second session. She says in that letter:

“there is logic for publishing the MTFS alongside the Scottish Budget and thereby basing it on the updated SFC and OBR forecasts. Publishing it before the OBR October forecasts would mean having to use OBR forecasts from March, the effect of which would be to give a misleading sense of the fiscal outlook.”

Does the commission agree with that statement?

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I think that some members are having a wee bit of difficulty in hearing you clearly. Perhaps we can make some technical adjustments. If that is not possible, we will have to soldier on. Please bear with me for a minute.

I have been advised that broadcasting is trying to improve communications but that we should plough on in the meantime. I hope that you will be able to hear me, cabinet secretary. I will try to enunciate and to not sound as west of Scotland as I normally do in asking these questions, you being a poshie and all that. [Laughter.] You will probably be able to translate what Daniel Johnson is saying much more clearly than I could.

Thank you. SPICe produced an interesting document, which you might have seen mentioned in the press. It says that because of the Scottish Government’s tax policy, some £500 million was raised in taxation, but only £148 million benefited the Scottish budget due to block grant adjustments. We have an explanation from SPICe, but will you talk about that a wee bit?

I thank members of the committee.

I have a couple of questions to wind up with. One relates to capital budget. Raw material prices are growing by between 5 and 15 per cent a year. You said that the agreement with the Greens would not threaten the delivery of Scotland’s capital projects that are already committed to but, clearly, if there is significant pressure on the capital budget because of inflation, that may make it more difficult to deliver some of those projects. What discussions have you had with the UK Government regarding an uplift to the Scottish Government’s capital programme budget?

Straight in at the deep end.

We will hear from two sets of witnesses today. The first panel is from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, with whom we will discuss a number of recently published reports, including the commission’s economic and fiscal forecasts. Members have received copies of those reports, along with a private briefing paper from the financial scrutiny unit and the Scottish Parliament information centre.

I welcome from the Scottish Fiscal Commission Dame Susan Rice DBE, chair; Professor Alasdair Smith, commissioner; and John Ireland, chief executive. We will also be joined remotely by Professor Francis Breedon, who is also an SFC commissioner. If members have any questions for Professor Breedon, or if Dame Susan wishes to bring him in at any point, they should make that clear so that our broadcasting operators can activate Professor Breedon’s microphone.

I intend to allow 75 minutes for the session. Before we open up to questions from members, I invite Dame Susan Rice to make a short opening statement.

That will mean that more people become higher-rate taxpayers.

Politics moves very fast in Scotland, and we now have the co-operation agreement between the Scottish Government and the Green Party, with ministers, including Patrick Harvie, a former member of this committee, being appointed this afternoon. What work has been done on the implications of that for the public finances? For example, the number of affordable houses to be built to 2032 is to increase from 100,000 to 110,000, although that will happen at a time of labour and skills shortages; £500 million is to be invested in a just transition fund for the north-east and Moray; and there is to be a fair fares review to provide a realistic alternative to car use and increase investment in active travel and public transport. Given the likelihood of the funding for those measures impacting on other Scottish Government policies and programmes, can you take me through the process of how the agreement will work as you take the budget forward?