Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would it be fair to say that, if financial transactions budgets do not change and do not increase again, and if capital investment from the Treasury does not increase, that would make all of your jobs much more difficult and it would be much more difficult to grow the Scottish economy sustainably?

Okay. What about the critics?

The strategy is long term, and everything is about delivery. How are you monitoring whether that strategy and the missions that you have set yourself are delivering for companies and for the people of Scotland?

It would also be much more difficult to lever in private investment if we do not have that kick-start money from the UK Treasury.

Not in real terms.

I do not think that amendment 6 would be completely unreasonable if Parliament had full control over finance, which we do not. All roads lead to Westminster, as Wes Streeting said during the election campaign.

I am quite sure that the cabinet secretary would wish to support the amendment in other circumstances. Of course, under her watch, devolved benefits have increased by more than inflation recently. However, we have to recognise that the UK Treasury still holds the purse strings. There have been some surprises of late, and there might be more to come, given that the Prime Minister has said that things are only going to get worse.

The reality is that the cabinet secretary and I have no idea what future block grant provision will look like. We would be asking the Scottish Government to ensure that everything rose by the rate of inflation, not knowing whether we would get the block grant required to be able to do that. That is a simple fact. I point out again that, as a supporter of the union, Mr Balfour is quite happy for the UK Treasury to hold those purse strings. I am not, but, while we live in that world, the amendment puts the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government in an almost impossible position, because they do not know what future financial provision there will be from the UK Treasury.

I recognise that the amendment was lodged before the UK Government’s decision to slash winter fuel payments. In itself, amendment 5 means an extension to the social security system, which I am not against.

Mr Balfour talked about mitigation. Again, I am not agin mitigation; we have mitigated a lot of cuts in the Parliament previously. However, it annoys me when advocates for the union, such as Mr Balfour, come here with the expectation that the Scottish Government should be able to extend, expand and mitigate when the resources are not coming from the UK Treasury. Let us face facts. The cabinet secretary is going to have to deal with some of these issues, knowing fine that £160 million that she expected has now been pulled by the UK Treasury.

I get the points that Mr O’Kane and Ms Clark have made about further exploration of all this; it needs to be done. We also need to be blunt with the UK Treasury about the scenario that we now face.

Ms Clark talked about consequentials. I believe that we should always interrogate consequentials to see what can be done with them. In this case, however, we are facing negative consequentials, with £160 million being pulled out of the Scottish Government’s budget with a snap of the fingers. That is not good enough.

I think that committee members, instead of talking about expansion right now, have to look at the cards that we have been dealt by the UK Treasury and the Westminster Government, and recognise that we cannot mitigate the impact of every single decision, in particular when £160 million has disappeared just like that.

Will Mr Balfour give way?

We do not mirror everything that is happening south of the border. For example, look at the investment in the Scottish child payment and the fact that benefits here have risen above inflation, which has not happened south of the border.

However, we also have to deal with the realities. As I said earlier, Mr Balfour is a supporter of the union. That is up to him, but he also has to recognise that the actions of the UK Treasury have implications for spend here in Scotland. When £160 million disappears, that does not leave much room for manoeuvre, and it certainly does not leave any room for the expansion of benefits or for further mitigation. I think that Mr Balfour has to deal with that reality.

But that decision making has an impact on the Scottish Government’s fiscal position, Professor Roy.