Chamber and committees

However, if the person who was involved challenged that, would you find it hard to prove?

Thank you.

Absolutely. That is right.

I will press you on that point. You say that the borrowing capacity has increased, which it has, but we thought that we were going to have a £700 million adjustment. Thankfully, we will not have a £700 million adjustment, but if we had done, the new borrowing limit would not have covered it. Is that correct?

I certainly accept that that is positive, but it still worries me that certain things were not on the table and that a wider review was not on the table. I feel that there is a fundamental problem, even with the index per capita method. Our population is struggling because Westminster will not allow extra immigration into Scotland. We compete pretty well with all the regions of England apart from London and the south-east. Earlier, you said that, when it comes to inward investment, we are second only to London and the south-east. However, we are always second to London and the south-east. Therefore, it seems to me that, when we compare our economic growth with England’s, we are comparing ourselves with a country that is dominated by London and the south-east. Call me pessimistic, but I struggle to see how we will ever be able to compete with them, so we will always be financially disadvantaged.

I will move on to one or two other points. The committee had a useful away day in Largs, when we listened to local people’s ideas about the budget. Everyone accepted the fact that we face difficult financial times. There was a degree of openness—in the group that I was in, certainly—to a little more means testing and a little less in the way of universal benefits. When we pressed people, we found that they were not suggesting means testing to access the NHS or schools. What is your thinking and that of the Government on how we can get the balance there? Currently, some things are means tested, and some things are universal. How do we get the balance right on that?

We have been told by witnesses that the public sector landscape is cluttered, given the number of organisations. Some of the individuals and organisations in Largs brought that up as well. Another issue that has been raised with us is that although individual organisations can make savings, that is not really reform. The police would never have combined into one organisation without a central Government push. How much is the Government thinking of pushing for the kind of reform that would involve reducing the number of bodies?

We are still hoping that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or others will come to the committee to explain some of the fiscal framework process to us. We have been having difficulty with that.

Deputy First Minister, I take your point that we will have another session on the fiscal framework, but if you do not mind, I want to ask you a few questions about it. If you want to come back to us at a later point, that would be okay.

We were all a bit surprised about how quick the whole process was. We had thought that the previous report would have been published, that there would have been outlines for a review and that it would have gone backwards and forwards. I was certainly caught by surprise when it was all agreed. I remember that, the previous time, it was John Swinney who was negotiating. The draft framework was put to Parliament and the Conservatives said that we should accept a poor deal, but John Swinney carried on arguing and we ended up with a better deal. Can you explain the timeline of what happened?

That has worried the committee previously, and I think that we will look at that. Are there any updates that you can give? Can you say anything about timelines?