Seòmar agus comataidhean

Colleagues are clearly keen to come in, so I will ask my final question, which is about the social justice, housing and local government portfolio. I noticed that, in that area, 96 per cent of the increase in spend over the next four years will be on social security. Half of that increase is related to further devolved welfare benefits and half is related to choices that are made by the Scottish Government. Given the paucity of resources and the fact that, for example, the police will face a zero budget increase at a time of rising cybercrime, and that various other areas will have to deal with fixed budgets, is it the best use of public money to spend an extra £1.2 billion on benefits? What will be the impact to the wider economy of that spend and of removing people from poverty, which is clearly what that spend is about?

Yes, but when you talk about private funding, you are not talking about businesses; you are talking about home owners having to invest significantly in transforming their houses.

Thank you for that. I think that we all realise how incredibly complex that is. It is a tribute to you that you are able to produce forecasts as accurately as you do, given those issues.

As inflation goes up, even with increased pay rises, we could end up with significant fiscal drag, which is concerning many people. In figure 4 of your report, you talk about the implied income tax net position. What do you believe the impact of fiscal drag will be on disposable income?

Why is your £591 million figure different from the Scottish Government’s £400 million figure?

If an employer such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities were to say to unions that local authorities were happy to provide workers with a 2.4 per cent pay rise—I do not think that it is even offering that—because that equated to the GDP deflator, then straightaway there would be difficult discussions. Is the GDP deflator still an appropriate measure to use for forecasts?

Thanks—I appreciate that. We have many more questions that we could ask, but time is against us and, as Ross Greer has pointed out, the cabinet secretary is waiting to come in. We have another evidence session to begin.

I will wind up the session by formally thanking Dame Susan Rice for all her phenomenal work over the years and her leadership, wisdom and insight, which have proved invaluable to the committee. Like John Mason, I was here at the very birth of the SFC, and it is great to see how it has developed and flourished over the years. I am sure that it will continue to do so.

I will see you tomorrow, Dame Susan, at the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, which starts at 8 am—with bacon rolls, just for those who are not already sold on the idea of attending. The committee will take a break until 11.25.

Thank you very much for that opening statement.

It is significant that you have very little room to manoeuvre. I think that the committee appreciates that fact, but we will ask questions about the Scottish Government’s choices and the reasons for making them.

First, some outside organisations have expressed an element of frustration about the detail that has been provided. I know that you will want to make it clear up front that this is not a budget but a resource spending review. However, the concern is that we have received only level 1 and level 2 funding figures, and organisations are obviously wondering where they fit into some of the decision making that is taking place.

Thank you.

I asked that very question of the Scottish Fiscal Commission representatives—not today but the last time they were here. Their view was that that would have no impact on spending in fact. However, I would say that the child poverty budget line, as distinct from social security assistance, is projected to increase from £34 million to £97 million, so that is a significant increase, but it is only a fraction of the £2.4 billion increase in social security spend.

Yes, I can see him champing at the bit.