Chamber and committees

Would you agree with the STUC, whose argument is that we should raise taxes to pay for that?

Would having the proposed council not push that process forward?

John McKenzie, you have also said that, especially when it comes to firefighters, more people might be entitled to benefits. Do you have any thoughts about what that might cost?

In that case, may I move to Mr Corbett? I think that you are arguing that more women and more teachers would be due benefits. Assuming that the total benefit figure of £78 million stays the same, could it be allocated better?

Yes—we are also just about outwith time, I am afraid. Thank you very much for that.

I will start with a few points that have already been raised. You said that we need to have a more fundamental review at some point. If, theoretically, there was a general election and a change of Government in January, could we start the fundamental review in February?

That is helpful, and I am sure that we will return to it in the future.

When it comes to how things have been done, the last time that the fiscal framework was set up, everything—as far as I could see—was on the table. John Swinney, I think, came back and told us what was happening and we debated it. However, this time, a limited amount was on the table. Obviously, something has changed.

To go back to VAT, you said that both Governments would have to agree either for the idea to be dropped or for it to go ahead. Is that the case? Could Westminster impose it on us?

On the bigger picture, I take your point—many of the experts from whom we heard at last week’s meeting were also quite positive about the agreement and about the use of the IPC method for the fiscal framework. However, I still have some concerns. First, we always seem to be competing with London. Our economy has to keep up with the rest of the UK. On the whole, we keep up with most parts of the UK, but every part of Europe struggles to match London. Is there not a fundamental bias against us?

Secondly, figures were mentioned at last week’s meeting in relation to Barnett that showed how our finances are being squeezed as a result of that. It was suggested that whereas, in the past, we got 129 per cent of rest-of-UK spending, we now get about 125 per cent of that spending, and that figure will probably fall to 120 per cent; it might even fall to 115 per cent.

If we put all that together, are we being squeezed in the longer term? Is that what we have got ourselves tied into?

I accept that, although the 13 per cent risk at the higher end of your estimate could still happen once in every seven or eight years.

Finally, the idea of there being a Scotland-specific shock and making provision for that has now been dropped. Can you say anything about that?

I am reassured that that is on the table and that we will be looking at it in the longer term.

I have a couple of specific questions. We have been told by some that the £600 million resource borrowing might not be enough, because the forecast was that the adjustment might have been greater than that—thankfully, that was not what happened.