Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not think that it could have had forecasts on the implications of its tax decisions. It had forecasts on the condition of the UK Government economy and public finances. I understand that some forecasts from the OBR were made available when the Chancellor assumed office on 6 September. I do not think that OBR forecasts were commissioned of the particular changes that were made but I am absolutely certain that forecasts would have been run within His Majesty’s Treasury and that the Treasury would have told ministers about the damage that was likely to be done. I can only assume that ministers decided to ignore that.

I have had a couple of conversations with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on those questions. The United Kingdom Government is very keen that we develop a proposition in Scotland that is comparable to what is being taken forward in England. The secretary of state has indicated to me that he fully understands that many of the characteristics, aside from the national insurance contribution benefits, are, in essence, on devolved questions.

I have agreed to explore what those zones might look like. Mr Mason puts some pretty fair points to me about the concept of investment zones. I suppose that the critical question is, do they generate real new growth or are they, in essence, providing for displacement? If they are providing only for displacement and there is an erosion of the tax value, the growth estimates that the UK Government is putting out will not be realised as a consequence. We have to make some very sensitive judgments about that, but we are engaging constructively in that discussion with the UK Government.

We are looking at all those questions as we assemble our judgments on the position that we have to resolve in relation to our tax proposals in the budget. We will set out our position to Parliament as part of the commentary on the budget and the judgments that we think are relevant at that time.

In relation to dialogue with the Scottish Fiscal Commission, I had a discussion with its chair quite recently in which we reflected on those uncertainties, but not with any certainty of our own about the information that might be available to us. My officials are in regular discussion with the Scottish Fiscal Commission to ensure that, as far as possible, we are in a position to satisfy our full obligations on the provision of information. As I said in my opening statement, I am wholly committed to ensuring that we carry out that exercise properly and fully, as is envisaged by statute and by agreement with the Scottish Fiscal Commission.

There is a bit of a moving picture as to the information that we might have available to us. We will only have answers to those questions based on whatever material is published by the United Kingdom Government and the certainties that it would have. As things stand, based on conversations that are now about two weeks old, I am fairly confident that we will not have a United Kingdom Government budget before we have a Scottish Government one. We will therefore be dependent on the information that comes out from the further fiscal statement that is expected in the next few weeks.

On potential revisions, we have set out the resource spending review, which is an indicative direction of travel on public expenditure based on the comprehensive spending review and our assessment of appropriate block grant adjustments. Obviously, the review does not translate into a budget, which is the exercise that we are about to undertake for 2023-24. If there is a change to the content of the UK Government’s spending plans for the next financial year—which, as I said in my previous answer, I fear will be the case because of the unfunded tax cuts and the market turmoil that is being experienced—that could have an effect.

The committee will be familiar with the fact that the choices that are made by the United Kingdom Government can have different impacts on our budget. A significant reduction in social security expenditure will not necessarily have a direct impact on the Scottish Government’s budget, although it certainly would have an indirect effect on the challenges that we face. However, reductions in English departmental expenditure, such as on health, education and local government, would have a direct impact on public expenditure in Scotland.

The committee will also be familiar with the fact that ministers are obliged to balance the budget, so we would have to take decisions based on the appropriate balance between taxation and public expenditure in the light of the data that had become apparent and the block grant adjustments that would follow from that.

We have seen that risk over the past 10 days. Mortgage products have had to be withdrawn from the market because they will be fiscally unsustainable for lenders, because of their expectations of where interest rates will head. There is market disruption.

People who had a reasonable expectation of getting a mortgage at one level of interest rate now have to face perhaps double that interest rate, which has an effect on those people’s capacity to borrow. That has been followed by a perilous moment of collapse for the pensions market as a consequence of market uncertainty.

The moral of the story is that the events of a week past Friday—undertaking substantial changes in the fiscal envelope without appropriate forecasts to show how they are sustainable—should never be repeated, because there is a direct connection between those decisions and the market chaos in which the Bank of England has had to intervene to safeguard pensions.

Let us think about that for a moment. Mr Mason and I come from a political stable that has often had to set out our views on how we deliver sustainability and pensions. Well, the United Kingdom Government came perilously close to destroying the pension entitlement of thousands of people because of its recklessness.

Forgive me, I am not absolutely familiar with whether we are obliged to do that through statute—now that I think about it, I think that I legislated for that, so I think that we are obliged to have that in statute. It is a good thing to have a forecast and that is why we should do it.

I invite Mr Mason to wonder what outrage there would have been if I had stood up and said, “I am not going to bother with a Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast”. I can think of some people who might have expressed outrage if I had done that.

To be candid, if I were to ignore an SFC forecast, it would not have quite the consequences of a UK Government ignoring a fiscal forecast, not taking a fiscal forecast or not doing the job properly. We have seen the damage that has been done and our economic prospects have been set back significantly as a consequence of that behaviour.

We would have to have necessary agreement with the Treasury about any revisions to those limits. Obviously, those are issues that we pursue with the UK Government.

There are two points there. First, we must be pretty realistic about the fact that the mini-budget, far from fuelling growth, has actually undermined it. The disruption to the housing market alone as a consequence of that fiscal recklessness will be significant. There is plenty evidence of impact there.

You asked about recent dialogue on the proceeds of crime. It is a while since I have dealt expressly with that. To ensure that I can give the committee an accurate answer, I had better respond to the committee in writing about that.

The last discussions that we had on that were some time ago, because of some of the challenging issues around the devolution of air passenger duty. To my knowledge, those issues have not yet been resolved.

If Mr Lumsden is waiting for me to announce a reorganisation of local government boundaries, I shall save him from the worry. That will not be a part of what we look at.

Once I complete this committee session, I am going to take part in a Cabinet sub-committee on joint priorities with local government. Many of the issues feature in that discussion.