Chamber and committees

I think that we made it clear that we have to follow UK Government policy because we do not have the money to retain payment on a universal basis.

I will certainly reflect on your points as part of the budget process.

A lot of the evidence about who is coming to Scotland and what is driving behaviour and growth in tax revenue has been produced externally. We can put some thought into how we can provide links and references to that evidential base alongside the tax strategy, so that people can have reference points to what lies behind it.

Part of the due diligence involves the value for money test. Because of changing market conditions, we cannot be definitive about that until we are at a point of issuing a bond. We would need to see what the market was, what the interest rates were and how all of that would compare with conventional borrowing.

Value for money is not the only test. One of the reasons that the investor panel recommended such an approach was the signal that it would send about investment on a global stage, which is quite an important thing in itself. However, I can assure you that, as part of our due diligence, the value for money test is absolutely critical, although we are still at quite an early stage.

I do not know whether Lucy O’Carroll or Jennie Barugh has anything to add.

I think that our system is progressive, but the UK’s system is certainly not, to judge by the bands down south.

Those who are on lower incomes are assisted by our tax system. The figures that I shared with you about the growth in tax revenues and the fact that we have net migration of taxpayers into Scotland are evidence—albeit that I do not say that everything with the system is perfect—that some of the claims about flight and so on have not come to pass. However, we are not complacent, and we need to make sure, which is why we are developing the tax strategy and why we have worked with HMRC to keep a close eye on emerging trends, so that we can address them if required.

We have not decided yet about the block grant adjustment. We will make that decision in due course, as part of our budget considerations. It is one thing to devolve the power; however, if the funding is not devolved the benefit is, in effect, half devolved.

If I remember correctly, the fiscal framework enables us to defer block grant adjustments: that is part of the fiscal framework. The question for us is to ask what makes sense, which is why those discussions are on-going. We will be fully transparent once decisions are brought to a conclusion.

My understanding is that, this winter, the winter fuel payment will be made to Scottish recipients by the Department for Work and Pensions. That will continue. The year after that, it will be issued through Social Security Scotland. A whole new system would have had to be set up for universal payment through Social Security Scotland. That could not be done. It was going to go ahead, but it is now not happening because we do not have the £160 million to deliver it. The payment will have to be delivered like for like with what is delivered this year by the DWP, because of timing. I think that that has all been set out to the Parliament.

We would get the £160 million, and the payment would have been administered through Social Security Scotland. However, that funding was to come on an on-going basis. It is not, now. If we were to defer the block grant adjustment for a year and pay the benefit for one year, we would have to set up a whole system to pay that benefit universally, with absolutely no chance of its continuing.