���˿���

I accept that, if any complaints are received, it has to be acknowledged that there have been complaints—I do not think that there is any issue with that; indeed, it has been part of the demand that has been made of us in terms of transparency, and it is the point that lies at the heart of Mr Lumsden’s question. In a scenario in which we receive a complaint and it is not upheld, we would disclose that a complaint has been received. If we were to say that the complaint had not been upheld but it was not clear whom it was against, there would be a question mark across all current and previous ministers in that process.

There is a very careful balance to be calibrated here in deciding what information should be available in such circumstances. I do not think that there is any dispute about the fact that, if a complaint has been made and upheld, a certain amount of detail should be disclosed, but with protection of the names of complainants and witnesses. The committee is alighting on an issue for which there is no absolutely certain answer.

I will go back to the point that Liz Smith raised, to which I did not respond in my earlier answer, about what the approach says to people who might think about becoming involved in politics. We are of course all familiar with the degree of public commentary that can go with the work that all of us are involved in, and that adds to the mix.

It will be handled by the Scottish Government’s propriety and ethics directorate, which was established in autumn 2021 to ensure that we have in place all the proper procedures and processes that members of the public would reasonably expect the Government to have for the handling of such matters.

We have seen that risk over the past 10 days. Mortgage products have had to be withdrawn from the market because they will be fiscally unsustainable for lenders, because of their expectations of where interest rates will head. There is market disruption.

People who had a reasonable expectation of getting a mortgage at one level of interest rate now have to face perhaps double that interest rate, which has an effect on those people’s capacity to borrow. That has been followed by a perilous moment of collapse for the pensions market as a consequence of market uncertainty.

The moral of the story is that the events of a week past Friday—undertaking substantial changes in the fiscal envelope without appropriate forecasts to show how they are sustainable—should never be repeated, because there is a direct connection between those decisions and the market chaos in which the Bank of England has had to intervene to safeguard pensions.

Let us think about that for a moment. Mr Mason and I come from a political stable that has often had to set out our views on how we deliver sustainability and pensions. Well, the United Kingdom Government came perilously close to destroying the pension entitlement of thousands of people because of its recklessness.

Forgive me, I am not absolutely familiar with whether we are obliged to do that through statute—now that I think about it, I think that I legislated for that, so I think that we are obliged to have that in statute. It is a good thing to have a forecast and that is why we should do it.

I invite Mr Mason to wonder what outrage there would have been if I had stood up and said, “I am not going to bother with a Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast”. I can think of some people who might have expressed outrage if I had done that.

To be candid, if I were to ignore an SFC forecast, it would not have quite the consequences of a UK Government ignoring a fiscal forecast, not taking a fiscal forecast or not doing the job properly. We have seen the damage that has been done and our economic prospects have been set back significantly as a consequence of that behaviour.

We would have to have necessary agreement with the Treasury about any revisions to those limits. Obviously, those are issues that we pursue with the UK Government.

There are two points there. First, we must be pretty realistic about the fact that the mini-budget, far from fuelling growth, has actually undermined it. The disruption to the housing market alone as a consequence of that fiscal recklessness will be significant. There is plenty evidence of impact there.

You asked about recent dialogue on the proceeds of crime. It is a while since I have dealt expressly with that. To ensure that I can give the committee an accurate answer, I had better respond to the committee in writing about that.

The last discussions that we had on that were some time ago, because of some of the challenging issues around the devolution of air passenger duty. To my knowledge, those issues have not yet been resolved.

I do not think that it could have had forecasts on the implications of its tax decisions. It had forecasts on the condition of the UK Government economy and public finances. I understand that some forecasts from the OBR were made available when the Chancellor assumed office on 6 September. I do not think that OBR forecasts were commissioned of the particular changes that were made but I am absolutely certain that forecasts would have been run within His Majesty’s Treasury and that the Treasury would have told ministers about the damage that was likely to be done. I can only assume that ministers decided to ignore that.

I have had a couple of conversations with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on those questions. The United Kingdom Government is very keen that we develop a proposition in Scotland that is comparable to what is being taken forward in England. The secretary of state has indicated to me that he fully understands that many of the characteristics, aside from the national insurance contribution benefits, are, in essence, on devolved questions.

I have agreed to explore what those zones might look like. Mr Mason puts some pretty fair points to me about the concept of investment zones. I suppose that the critical question is, do they generate real new growth or are they, in essence, providing for displacement? If they are providing only for displacement and there is an erosion of the tax value, the growth estimates that the UK Government is putting out will not be realised as a consequence. We have to make some very sensitive judgments about that, but we are engaging constructively in that discussion with the UK Government.

We are looking at all those questions as we assemble our judgments on the position that we have to resolve in relation to our tax proposals in the budget. We will set out our position to Parliament as part of the commentary on the budget and the judgments that we think are relevant at that time.