Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Stewart Hosie

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call SNP spokesperson.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I have a constituent with a number of shops. He has seen his four-weekly energy costs rise from £12,000 last October to £27,000 today. Moving on to lower tariffs, but with the reduced energy support, he will still see that £12,000 every four weeks doubled, to £24,000. What advice would the Minister give to my constituent? How would he find the £140,000 off the bottom line in a business already operating on tight margins?

[James Cartlidge]

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he was there when I gave the statement about the new scheme. I was clear with him about the fiscal position overall. He is welcome to write to me on that specific case. Obviously, I cannot comment on the detail of that individual case. What I can say is that we continue to put in place up to £5.5 billion of support with the energy bills discount scheme. That is a significant intervention and it remains a universal scheme with targeted support for the most energy and trade-intensive sectors.

[Stewart Hosie]

Therein lies the problem: this will go to high energy users. The Federation of Small Businesses described the changes as “catastrophic” and

the beginning of the end for tens of thousands of small businesses”,

the British Chambers of Commerce said that

“an 85% drop in the financial envelope of support will fall short for thousands of UK businesses who are seriously struggling”,

and UKHospitality criticised the sudden and sharp drop in support, estimating the move would cost that sector £4.5 billion in the next 12 months. Why does the Minister think they were all wrong and he is right?

[James Cartlidge]

As I said to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), we were clear when we created the scheme to support businesses with their energy bills that it had to be time limited because of the generosity of the support—£18 billion over six months. We were absolutely transparent about that. But we have maintained a universal scheme covering businesses, charities and the public sector. Yes, it is less generous, but it remains significant. As I said, he is welcome to write to me with the specific case he raised.

IMF Economic Outlook

Debate between James Cartlidge and Stewart Hosie

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I suppose that it is apposite that there is an urgent question on a potential recession on the third anniversary of Brexit.

The IMF has said that the economy of the UK—the only G7 country facing recession—would face a downgrade reflecting, it says, tighter fiscal and monetary policies and the still high energy retail prices weighing on household budgets. There is no getting away from it: with even sanctioned Russia forecast to grow, that is a gloomy prognosis. Given that the Government expect to meet their own new fiscal rule on public sector net debt by a paltry £9 billion in 2027-28, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s own strictures mean that there is no fiscal headroom to provide more support. Is this not the time, therefore, to reduce the energy companies’ investment allowance, which allows them to reduce the tax that they pay by 91p in the pound, to start to generate a meaningful windfall tax that is required to further support households and small and medium-sized enterprises—two of the main drivers of the IMF forecast for the economy—which will otherwise see their energy costs rocket this year?

[James Cartlidge]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about tight fiscal monetary policy. We are faced with inflation; it is higher in the UK than in 14 countries in the EU. Inflation is a global challenge, so he is right: we do need to have that stance. Obviously, we want to get inflation down. The cost of energy bills is precisely why, this winter, a typical household in the United Kingdom will have received £1,300 of support, £1,400 in cost of living payments, and the energy price guarantee, estimated by the OBR to be worth £900 for the typical household. That support is provided to every single part of the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Gentleman’s specific suggestion—to be fair, he is making a specific fiscal proposal in relation to the allowance—will hurt one particular sector: the North sea and investment in UK energy. Does he know what the long-term answer to this is? It is not supporting families—we are doing that very generously at the moment—but energy security, investing in nuclear and in the North sea as part of our transition to net zero.

Alcohol Duty

Debate between James Cartlidge and Stewart Hosie

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the Father of the House for his question—I do not think that I will ever get another that mentions both elasticity and high-strength cider; it was an interesting combination of points. He made a very good point about wine. I have enjoyed engaging with all the main alcohol sectors, mainly in November, in the run-up to the making of this decision. As he knows, we are requiring all wine between 11.5% and 14.5% ABV to be treated as though it were 12.5% ABV for the purpose of calculating the duty rate. That will apply for 18 months, so there is a transition. We have to ask ourselves: if that were made permanent, would it not undermine a regime that is ultimately based on taxation by strength? I understand my hon. Friend’s point and will continue to engage with the sector on it.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I welcome the statement. I have long supported an alcohol content duty regime, and I hope that it delivers the fairness that the sector needs. As a gentle aside, may I say that we did not need Brexit to bring in this regime? The UK could have applied for a derogation, but it chose, over decades, not to do that.

I have some technical questions. The previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), announced a one-year freeze on alcohol duty in “The Growth Plan 2022”; that was due to cost £545 million in 2023-24. The current Chancellor scrapped that, but anticipates an additional yield of £1.3 billion in 2023-24; that was in the autumn statement 2022. First, how can a one-year freeze cost £500 million, while its cancellation in the same year suddenly generates £1.3 billion of additional yield? Also, we have been told that the freeze is being reintroduced and will last until August. How much will that cost the Exchequer?

The proposals following the post-2021 Budget consultation have been reported as having a modest cost of only £25 million next year—that was in the autumn statement Green Book. But this statement seems to suggest that the cost to the Exchequer of the draught beer relief scheme alone will be £100 million a year. Will the Minister explain what the net cost of this measure will be either to the Exchequer, or to the industry? As things stand, the numbers are not clear and in some cases do not add up.

[James Cartlidge]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman supports the principle of the reform package that will come into place next August. I hope Members across the House can do so. The cost obviously depends on what decision is made in the Budget next year. That is a matter for the Chancellor at the time. We know that that will be on 15 March, so there is not too long to wait.

The right hon. Gentleman made the point that it was not necessary to leave the European Union to make these changes. To be clear, EU law does not allow member states to differentiate beverages on qualitative characteristics such as whether the product is on draught. EU law actively discourages any attempt to support the on-trade through the duty system. That is also true for a system based on ABV; by and large, that would have been very difficult as well. The fact is that this is a radical reform and it has been made possible by Brexit.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Debate between James Cartlidge and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I am glad that the Minister mentioned short-term turbulence as a result of the Brexit decision—the Chancellor has already spoken about that. The Minister is a pragmatic politician, so if that short-term turbulence turns into medium or long-term problems in two, five or 10 years—not least because of the absence of trade deals with the world’s biggest trading bloc—I hope that he will turn on the pragmatic tap even more strongly than he has perhaps tried to do in the Treasury so far.

This debate is about the fiscal charter, so I will run through a small bit of history and make some other comments. When the coalition Government first introduced the charter for budget responsibility, the fiscal mandate was for a cyclically adjusted current budget to be balanced by the fifth year of a forward-looking forecast period—that was similar to the plan laid out by the Labour shadow Chancellor earlier. As the Library has helpfully pointed out—it has helped a great deal with this debate—that plan was shortened to the third year of the forecast period in the December 2014 charter update. That also focused on the current balance, which is the difference between Government revenue and current, rather than capital, expenditure. Focusing on the current Budget was designed, at least on paper, to protect public sector capital investment, which is important.

A number of speakers have mentioned capital investment today, but the real problem is that capital expenditure forecasts, and real capital investment, have been rising and falling over the past few years like a yo-yo. There is concern that the National Infrastructure Commission was designed not so much to facilitate investment and drive it on, but rather to delay some of it further—but I digress.

The previous mandate used a measure of the budget balance adjusted for the economic cycle to allow the flexibility to run a deficit during recessions and a surplus during booms. The fiscal mandate was accompanied by a supplementary debt target. Originally that was for public sector net debt to fall as a share of GDP in 2015-16, but that was moved to 2016-17 in the December 2014 update. That target, of course, was not met—one of a number of broken promises by the Government in the previous Parliament, in which debt, deficit and borrowing targets all failed to be delivered as promised in 2010.

That brings us to the current charter for budget responsibility and the fiscal mandate. The charter sets out the OBR’s role, how it performs its duties, and the required content of its publications. It lays out the Government’s fiscal mandate, supplementary debt target, and essentially the cap on welfare spending. The OBR assesses and reports on progress against those targets in the economic and fiscal outlook. Just in case anyone has forgotten, the current fiscal mandate target is for the public sector’s overall budget—public sector net borrowing—to be in surplus by 2019-20. Once a surplus has been reached, the target is for a surplus to be achieved every year. Frankly, that is impossible if we are to manage the economy in a sensible way. The other target is the supplementary debt target, where until 2019-20 the fiscal mandate will be supplemented with a target for public sector net debt to fall as a percentage of GDP in each year. Those targets, as the Chief Secretary said, will apply unless the OBR assesses there has been a significant negative shock. That is, in effect, where we are today.

If annual real growth in the economy is less than 1%, the OBR will judge there to have been a significant economic or negative shock and the economy will be out of what it calls “normal times”. If the OBR judges that a negative shock has occurred or will occur, fiscal targets will be suspended. That is the nub of the problem with these rules. If the OBR looks backwards over a 12-month period before confirming that growth was less than 1%, that might mean that changes to monetary or fiscal policy may not be delivered or enacted as quickly as they should have been to minimise the problems of a slowing economy. Likewise, if the future forecasts are overly optimistic—quite a common phenomenon in this place—necessary changes to fiscal or monetary policy required to protect jobs and growth might be delayed longer than they should be. In essence, the charter and the rules are a policy for inertia, rather than a policy for action.

Part of the charter requirements are that, should the rules be suspended, the Treasury must set out a plan to return the budget to surplus, including temporary fiscal targets. That plan must be approved by a vote in the House of Commons. One of the last acts of the previous Chancellor was to appear to suggest a suspension of the rules. I think he said—the Chief Secretary can correct me if I am paraphrasing this incorrectly—that the automatic stabilisers would be allowed to function and that corporation tax would be subject, potentially, to deep cuts. If that was the plan, it was not very detailed. I have not yet heard of any temporary targets and Parliament has not yet voted. We are about to go into recess and there is no vote on the horizon. I think that that tells us all that the charter is not fit for purpose and that the rules in place for when promised targets fail are not even remotely being adhered to. It would be better, I think, not simply to suspend the charter, but to rip it up and start again. I am rather less concerned with a plan and a charter to deliver an arbitrary surplus. More important is a plan to deliver real economic growth.

It is worth pointing out that over the past six decades or more, budget deficits have been the norm. Surpluses have been very rare. Since 1955-56, the UK’s public sector budget has been in surplus for only eight years. The last surplus was 15 years ago. The OBR suggested that the UK was set to return to surplus by the end of the decade, but that now looks unachievable—another broken promise. There is, however, a bigger problem than a surplus rule, which the OBR described, in civil service code, as

“ambitious relative to the fiscal performance of past governments”.

I will translate that, Mr Deputy Speaker: it means the Government will not meet their targets. The bigger problem is that it is designed to suck consumption out of the economy before recovery is secured. The scale of that, even as recently as the 2016 Red Book, is breathtaking: not just cutting £10 billion a year more than is necessary to run a balanced economy, but by 2020-21 cutting spending by £50 billion a year more than is necessary to run a balanced current budget.

We know where the cost of this austerity falls: it falls on the poorest in society. How do we know that? The Government have told us. As the cuts and tax rises have risen, so has the ratio of cuts to tax rises, placing the burden of austerity and an arbitrary fiscal target squarely on the backs of the poorest.

This mandate is now collapsing around the Government’s feet, along with the much-vaunted and never-delivered long-term economic plan—a plan that is a bit like a unicorn: everybody knows what it looks like but no one has ever actually seen it. [Laughter.] I used that in a previous speech, but I did not get a laugh that time. It has been said that fiscal rules can be applied in other ways, but the previous Chancellor and, I presume, the current one believe that the current level of public sector debt is too high and that running a budget surplus is the only reliable way to reduce it.

The Treasury Bench has argued that high levels of debt are too risky and too damaging for the UK, leave the UK vulnerable to future economic shocks and squeeze out other public spending through high debt interest payments. At face value that is fine, but there are other credible and fiscally responsible ways in which the deficit can come down and debt can fall as a share of GDP.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman is making a detailed and, in his own way, cogent argument, but—[Laughter.] It was meant to be a compliment. The key word, however, is “investment”, and my view is that investment needs to come primarily from the private sector. He talks about the benefits of getting debt down. Surely one of the key benefits is the confidence it builds in the economy among those big international companies that we want to invest in the UK.

[Stewart Hosie]

I agree that confidence will come from a reduction in debt as a share of GDP and a real reduction in the deficit, and I have no aversion whatsoever to genuine, substantial private sector investment. Unfortunately, in the current climate, because of the Brexit decision, there is a bit of a hiatus—substantial investment is being put on hold and might be lost. Trust me, in the competitive international world, every other country in Europe will be saying, “See that £10 billion you were putting into the UK—bring it here.” They will be saying that in Germany and France, and when we are independent, we will be saying it in Scotland too. This is when the UK Government should be stepping in to make sure that any gap in essential investment is filled.

On the alternatives, others have pointed out that the UK can run deficits and allow the ratio of debt to GDP to drift down over time, arguing that the value of debt can be eroded through economic growth. We have not heard a lot about growth. For many years, the mantra from the Government was: growth alone will not solve the problem. I happen to agree, but there has been no plan for growth at all. Instead, we have had almost a fetish and obsession with austerity and cutting debt, irrespective of the growth consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this timely debate. Although the Chamber is not as full as it could be, this is an incredibly fundamental debate on the key issue of the moment.

I start by congratulating the Front-Bench team on their promotions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) as the new Financial Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke) as Chief Secretary. I attended a school in Hertfordshire and represent a Suffolk constituency, while he represents a Hertfordshire constituency and was educated in Suffolk. The East Anglian Daily Times was particularly excited by his promotion as a son of Ipswich. I congratulate both of my colleagues again.

I am proud of this Government’s economic record. As the Prime Minister said when she opened a fantastic performance at Prime Minister’s questions today, we have record employment once again, we have an 11-year low in unemployment at 4.9%, and we know that the deficit has been cut by two thirds—an incredibly significant achievement that cannot be underestimated. I was reassured by the Prime Minister when she said that we still aim to live within our means. That was her key point when asked about austerity by the Leader of the Opposition. I was reassured, too, by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary when he said that the Government are still committed to fiscal discipline, which is so important.

As both the shadow Chancellor and the shadow SNP spokesman have said, we have been looking at this change in the fiscal target as regards a surplus. As they said, the interim fiscal mandate was for the public sector’s overall budget, more correctly known as the public sector net borrowing, to be in surplus by 2019-20 in normal times. That target was to apply unless the OBR assessed that there had been a significant negative shock. Understandably, therefore, there has been a lot of discussion about why this change, putting back the time for meeting this surplus, has come about. I found the Chief Secretary’s explanation reassuring—and the word “reassurance” is key.

My understanding is that when the British people made the decision on Brexit, it was in many ways a shock for the country. Just as the Bank of England Governor came on our television screens to reassure, talking about the steps he would be prepared to take to ensure confidence was maintained in the UK economy, so has the Chancellor of the Exchequer come forward as a reassuring presence, saying that he is prepared to take any necessary steps. I view this as part of an overall package. As the Chief Secretary said, it is of course monetary policy that has the primary responsibility when there are shocks to the economy. We have heard about the possibility even of a cut in the base rate from 0.5% to 0.25%. I see the decision about the surplus as part of the reassurance that the Government are prepared to take steps and react to circumstances.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that monetary policy is the first port of call when there is a shock. If it were deemed to be necessary, however, to invoke some kind of fiscal measure—whether it be a stimulus or anything else—does not the hon. Gentleman agree with SNP Members that the rules are so flawed that we have to wait until the autumn before the Government can even get a green light to make fiscal policy changes that might be necessary now?

[James Cartlidge]

I agree on the importance of monetary policy, and once again the hon. Gentleman makes a cogent point in his own way. Fiscal policy has been compared to a blunt instrument. It is not easy for the Government and the Treasury suddenly to make things happen in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. We need to wait on the figures. I understand that there are reports in the media today that the Bank of England’s agents have said it is business as normal out in the country despite Brexit, and I am very reassured by that. Let me be frank: I campaigned to remain. I was concerned about the economic impact of leaving, and I still am concerned. I always felt that the biggest potential impact would be on inward investment, but I think it will take time for us to see whether that is the case.

UK Economy

Debate between James Cartlidge and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the shadow Chancellor and the Chancellor for their tone so far. We will support any necessary and constructive measures to bring back confidence and stability, particularly to the markets. The shadow Chancellor was right to say that we cannot hide and that we must have a robust critique of what the referendum outcome may mean. Unusually, the vast majority of the criticism that I do make today will be directed not at the Chancellor, but at those who led the Brexit campaign, who once again since that referendum are absent from this Chamber.

We will support the motion before us, although that is rather superfluous, given that there will now be no vote. We agree with much of it, particularly in respect of the decision to rip Scotland and the UK out of the EU and the huge and real risks that that poses to the economy, to jobs and to prosperity. Those risks were brought about in part by the decision to hold the referendum, but much more importantly by the failure of those advocating Brexit to have any plan if they won. It is worth noting that when we had our first independence referendum, it was based on a 650-page White Paper, a detailed plan and a clear prospectus for what would happen. What the Brexit campaign leaders—the Lord Chancellor and the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—had prepared was a few scribbled notes on the back of Nigel Farage’s fag packet. It really was not good enough.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the first referendum. He will recall that the big issue there was the currency that would be used by an independent Scotland. In the Bill being drafted, is it the assumption that Scotland would no longer use the pound and would have an alternative currency?

[Stewart Hosie]

We had better fix the problems caused by the Brexit decision and then, if we find ourselves unable to secure our place in the EU by any other means, the hon. Gentleman will be more than welcome to scrutinise whatever plans are brought forward.

Trade, Exports, Innovation and Productivity

Debate between James Cartlidge and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

Indeed it does. The quotes from businesses when it was announced were extremely clear. They are happy to seek bank funding and to use their own resources, but when they are undertaking what may be slightly risky innovation and R and D, they have an expectation of a little help from Government. If that is a grant, the work can proceed and the thinking can go ahead. If it is a loan that requires to be repaid, that might just tip the balance in favour of the risk being too great, which will drive down innovation even further.

The reason innovation is so vital, particularly in manufacturing—and why it is so important to encourage it—is that as it has fallen as a share of R and D investment over the past 20 years, manufacturing exports, jobs and output have also fallen. One can see the speed and length of that decline. Manufacturing has gone from making up 30% of the economy in the 1970s to less than 10% today; from accounting for more than 20% of all jobs in the 1980s to only 8% today; and from making up a quarter of all business investment in the 1990s to barely 15% today.

We see the reduction in global export market share in the OBR’s most recent fiscal forecast, in which it falls throughout the forecast period to the end of this Parliament. What is more worrying is that the figures in the November forecast were marked down in every single year from those in the July forecast. Everything is going in the wrong direction. The complacency from the Government and the limited plan they have are simply no longer enough. That is why we need an unrelenting focus on innovation in manufacturing in relation to trade and exports.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome this debate and the hon. Gentleman’s focus on rebalancing the economy, which is undoubtedly a huge issue. However, when we talk about rebalancing the economy, we have to remember that because the recession in 2008 was a financial recession, it was inevitably followed by monetary policy hitting the floor, perpetuating higher house prices and all those other things we wanted to avoid, but which were an economic necessity. That being so, does he regret the role his party played in advising Royal Bank of Scotland to purchase ABN AMRO, which ushered in the huge financial crash and brought down our financial giant?

[Stewart Hosie]

There is a historical disconnect here. The fight over ABN AMRO was between the board of RBS and the board of Barclays. One of them called it wrong and one of them got lucky. I suspect that my input and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends had precisely no bearing whatsoever on Mr Goodwin’s decision to persuade his board to buy ABN AMRO. The suggestion is quite extraordinary.

I have said that we need an unrelenting focus on innovation in manufacturing in relation to trade and exports. Although manufacturing has suffered the largest falls, it still accounts for 44% of all UK exports because the deficit in trading goods is so large. Any Government who are serious about rebalancing the economy and correcting the trade deficit in goods must have a laser-like focus on encouraging innovation in manufacturing, as well as on supporting existing exporting businesses.

This debate is about more than innovation, manufacturing and exports; it is about boosting productivity. That is vital because—this is undisputed—both Scotland and the UK sit only towards the top of the third quartile of advanced countries by GDP per hour worked. We are below many smaller European countries and, importantly, below major competitors such as the US, Germany, France and even Italy. I am pleased that Scottish output is now 4% higher than pre-crisis levels. That is a good thing, but clearly there is substantially more to be done, not least because UK productivity growth is at 1.3% a year, which is barely half the level of the 2% pre-crisis rate.

Scotland has an economic plan based on four principles to boost productivity: investment in education and infrastructure; internationalisation and encouraging exports; innovation, which, as we have discussed, is essential; and—in many ways the most important aspect—inclusive growth. The latter point is vital because we know from the numbers—we have all seen them—that the UK lost 9% of GDP growth between 1990 and 2010 because of rising inequality. We are concerned that that mistake is being repeated by this Government, with their arbitrary surplus fiscal rule, which is requiring them to cut far more than is necessary to run a balanced economy and denuding them of the resources that are needed to tackle inequality and maximise economic growth.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Debate between James Cartlidge and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

May I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, whom I genuinely like, that we voted against the fiscal charter on 13 January? Whether he liked it or not, it was his party that voted with the Tories. I am pleased that it has changed its position, but I think on balance it might be better to focus on this matter, where the Chancellor and his party are on rather weak ground, rather than on some internecine struggle.

Before I move on to the fiscal charter, I want briefly to ask the Chancellor about the consequences for Scotland. He knows that under the Scotland Act 2012 Scottish Ministers now have limited borrowing powers, so can he confirm that there is nothing in the charter that will limit the exercise of those statutory powers and that, irrespective of whether or not the UK is borrowing, Scottish Ministers will remain free to borrow up to the agreed limits?

What the Chancellor has done, of course, is insist that the economy not only breaks even, but runs a current account surplus that will hit £40 billion by 2019-20. He announced in July that, in order to do that, additional welfare cuts would total £33 billion in this Parliament. Cuts to essential capital expenditure would total another £5 billion in this Parliament. Essentially, he is cutting £40 billion more than is necessary to run a balanced current budget, and almost all of it will be paid for by punishing the poor and stripping the capital budget of another £5 billion.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can tell me why he is going to support the economics of the mad house.

[James Cartlidge]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman very clearly. He talks about punishing the poor, but last week the Office for National Statistics showed that the number of workless households is at the lowest level on record. Does that not show that our strong economy is delivering not only stability, but social justice?

[Stewart Hosie]

I am absolutely delighted when workless households get one or more people into a job and have the opportunity to better themselves, but what I am not prepared to tolerate is people who work harder than us having £1,300 a year cut from their tax credits, which stops making work pay.

Essentially, the Chancellor is cutting £40 billion more than is necessary to run a balanced budget, by cutting £30-odd billion from welfare and £5 billion from essential capital expenditure. As ever, these plans are dressed up in the argument that there is no choice. These are always political choices, and he has made the wrong one.

What we need more than anything is growth, and Governments cannot cut their way to growth. To get growth we must narrow the inequality gap. The UK lost 9% of GDP growth between 1990 and 2010 as a result of rising inequality, so it is irrational and counterproductive for the UK Government to be making the same mistakes all over again. To do that at the same time as raising inheritance tax thresholds and cutting tax credits is to take from the poor and give to the rich.

We campaigned against austerity during the election, and we did rather well on that basis. We will continue to hold to our position. Indeed, a modest real-terms increase in Government expenditure would have protected the poorest from the cuts, protected the Scottish budget and ensured that capital spending across the UK was not subject to more cuts while essentially still seeing the deficit fall and debt come down as a share of GDP. That is the option for the UK fiscal mandate suggested by the Scottish Government. It is credible, responsible and fiscally sustainable, and above all it is fair.