Chamber and committees

You have kind of underlined what I was thinking. So, 1.7 per cent would be the absolute minimum or the best situation—however you want to look at it—whereas, as you say, 10.1 per cent is where we are more likely to be.

What would 1.7 per cent mean for us? I think that you gave us a figure, but what would we have to raise income tax or cut expenditure by to get 1.7 per cent?

I will come back to you on that, but I will let Mr Black come in first.

I am sorry to interrupt you. Do you agree that, often, people give their views and then the Government, the committee or whoever says, “We have heard and considered your views, but we disagree with them”, yet people think that they have not been heard at all?

Right. Just to clarify again, on the 1.7 per cent, you say that we are relatively insulated.

That is helpful—thank you.

On migration, we are getting less than 5 per cent of UK migration. Perhaps you are the wrong people to ask this, but why is that the case and can we do anything about it?

Mr Black, can the Fraser of Allander Institute measure kindness?

Okay. My final point is, I think, linked to that to an extent. You say that you assume that

“the age distribution of income tax revenues remains constant”

and that

“an older tax payer base would partially offset the fall in tax revenues”.

They might be forced to take a lower-paid job.

Does that need to involve a bit of the decision-making process, as well as the actual decision?

That makes sense to me. We could go on a long time. I do not know whether either of the other witnesses would like to come in on that point.