Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am aware of the debate. I just wanted to be very clear that, when you talk about the winter fuel payments, you are talking about the adjusted means-tested amount.

If you were to request a block grant adjustment for the full amount, which you could do, that full amount—the amount of money that would have been made available, without means testing—would still be available to the Scottish Government, albeit that it would have to be paid back.

Had you not prepared to do that?

I am simply asking questions about what has been done and what options you have looked at. You have made it clear to the committee, and publicly, that your hands were tied and there was nothing that you could do. I accept that there is a fiscal impact, because the money would have to be paid back. I am just trying to get an idea of what has been done. You are suggesting that when the UK Government made the decision, all the work stopped, but you would have been ready to deliver the benefit.

Obviously, if a majority of the costs of delivering the benefit have been spent, it makes the decision to pull back different.

You said that you have not ruled out deferring the block grant adjustment for the full amount. If that is the case, and you are not going to deliver winter fuel payments other than through means testing, are you suggesting, therefore, that that money will be utilised in other parts of the budget?

I appreciate that. The terminology that you just used is the type of terminology that is often used when we are trying to look at how money is being spent, but let us be clear. If the Scottish Government requests a block grant deferral for the full £160 million and is not delivering a non-means-tested winter fuel payment, that means that the money is being taken this year—albeit that it is to be paid back—but it is being spent in other parts of the budget.

But it is being used to cover spending in other parts of the budget—it is not being spent on the winter fuel payments for which it was intended.

I want to pursue the issue of imperfect taxes before I move on to my main points. When I met some local businesses in hospitality and leisure tourism in Fort William, they were concerned about the visitor levy tourism tax and the VAT implications. The way that it is being set up, VAT will be incurred on top of the levy, so, in essence, businesses will be taxed twice. Is that something that you are concerned about? Do you think that that is fair? Are you taking any action to remedy that?

We have known that this is happening since the UK Government made announcements—whenever that was—in particular, on winter fuel payments.

You told us that you have a deadline of the end of this calendar year, but that suggests that this year’s winter fuel payments will not be made. Are they ruled out?

I am sorry; can you clarify? Had the UK Government not made that decision, who would have paid that full amount? How would that have been administered?

I recognise that. I am just interested in the costs, and what is being spent—