 Rwy'n gweithio i'r next item of business, ac mae'n dweud i Dirk Mackay o'r UK spring statement—implications for economy and public spending. The cabinet secretary will, of course, take questions after his statement, so I would encourage all members who wish to ask a question to press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible. I call on Dirk Mackay, the cabinet secretary, for finance. Last week, the UK Government delivered its 2019 spring statement, which provided us with the latest economic outlook for the UK. The Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its forecast of UK GDP growth for 2019 from 1.6 per cent to 1.2 per cent, representing the slowest annual growth since the end of the financial crisis. The OBR cites falling levels of business investment as underpinning much of the downgrade, noting that the UK has performed the worst on non-housing-related investment compared to any other G7 nation since the EU referendum in 2016. Those already downbeat forecasts do assume that there will be an orderly withdrawal from the EU on 29 March, with a transition period lasting until December 2020. That means that, in reality, the economic outlook could be even weaker. The UK Government's chaotic approach to Brexit has already caused investment to fall, and the next phase of uncertainty will mean further damage. The OBR has stated that uncertainty related to the Brexit process sees business investment fall for the second calendar year in 2019, its weakest performance since the financial crisis. I am clear that all forms of EU exit will harm Scotland's economy, but leaving the EU without a deal could lead to a potential shrinking of Scotland's economy by up to 7 per cent, a drop in exports by up to 20 per cent and reduced business investment by £1 billion in 2019. Such profound economic impact could result in an increase in unemployment of around 100,000 in Scotland, more than doubling the current record low unemployment rate, and push the Scottish economy into a deep recession similar in scale to the financial crash of 2008. However, we do not need to await the final outcome on Brexit. We already know that Brexit has damaged our economy. The Institute for Financial Fiscal Studies has said that there is a consensus that the economy would have been about 2 per cent bigger had the Brexit vote not occurred, meaning that, without Brexit, the deficit would have been smaller, jobs and investment would have been higher, and there would have been more funding available for public services. Amid Dybring's uncertainty, the Chancellor should have used the spring statement to provide stimulus to the economy and clarity on future funding. Sadly, he did neither. So, he navigated a period of economic uncertainty. It is vital that we take bold action to support the Scottish economy to grow. A significant milestone in the establishment of the Scottish national investment bank was reached three weeks ago with the introduction of the legislation that will underpin it. The introduction of the bank will help to transform and grow Scotland's economy and help to protect Scotland from the consequences of the UK's exit from the EU. However, I continue to await confirmation from HM Treasury that it will provide the bank with similar dispensations enjoyed by the British Business Bank and Green Investment Bank, which would allow it to hold modest reserves and operate at the level of ambition that we would expect. It is equally disappointing that the Chancellor failed to guarantee all future EU funding to Scotland, worth over £5 billion in this current EU budget round. Due to the UK's chosen route for exiting the EU, the UK will lose access to much of this funding. To date, there has been no certainty that those funding streams will be replaced, with commitments on agriculture, fisheries and structural funding all remaining unclear. It is crucial that the UK Government urgently commits to replacing all EU funding streams in full and ensure that funding decisions that have been taken by Scottish ministers continue to be taken by Scottish ministers in the future. There must be no power grab from Westminster. The Chancellor's 2018 autumn budget promised an end to austerity, but last week's spring statement confirmed that the UK Government has once again failed to deliver on this pledge and to properly invest in public services. Despite the Chancellor boasting that he had £26.6 billion worth of fiscal headroom up from £15.4 billion in the autumn budget in October to increase spending and end austerity in 2020-21, while still meeting his fiscal rules, he has chosen not to invest any of that money in vital public services. Instead, the Chancellor has chosen to hold that money back willfully, depriving our public services of resources and compounding the economic harm of the self-inflicted mess of Brexit. The spring statement takes us no further forward in our understanding of the financial outlook for public spending in Scotland. The Chancellor referenced his forthcoming 2019 spending review, but only committed to proceeding with it if a deal on Brexit can be secured. The Chancellor talks of the end to austerity but offers only vague references to future real-terms growth and resource budgets that are no more than the reiterating the same tired lines that we have heard before. That offers nothing more than the funding that is already committed to health and no expected real-terms growth and wider resource budgets to address the decade of near 7 per cent real-terms cuts to the Scottish block grant. We know the scale of financial challenge that the years of austerity have brought, and we know that our public services are seeking additional investment, and we know that the Chancellor has had room available, and yet he still does not commit. There is no doubt that the Scottish budget will face very challenging decisions as part of the spending review, and if there is no real growth in our budgets beyond health consequentials, even where funding has been announced from which Scotland might benefit, it is scant regard for a right to expect clarity on the implications for us. The announcement of £1.6 billion of funding for stronger towns was made with the details of allocations by regions across England, but I have been unable to ascertain how that proposal is to be funded and what that means for Scotland, if anything. We will continue to push for our share of funding and will resist in the strongest possible terms any attempts by the Tories to bypass the Scottish Parliament and undermine the devolved settlement. Last week, I received no clarity on the impact of the UK Government's spending announcements from the spring statement on the Scottish budget, and we continue to see decisions from the UK Government which undermine and discredit the existing UK funding framework. In 2017, the UK Government provided an additional £1 billion to Northern Ireland as part of the confidence supply agreement between the Conservative Party and the DUP. Recently, it allocated another £140 million in Northern Ireland's 2019-20 budget, and this weekend, the Chancellor indicated that he could not rule out more money for Northern Ireland as part of the Brexit negotiations. Those funds were allocated directly to devolved matters, and it is completely unacceptable that those decisions did not result in additional consequentials for Scotland. The UK Government's actions mean that Scotland has lost out on equivalent funding of more than £3.3 billion. Although I do not be drugged, Northern Ireland, the exemption from austerity, Northern Ireland is not alone in facing fiscal challenges. Perhaps the Tories in this chamber will explain why their party is exempting Northern Ireland from austerity but not Scotland. With only two weeks until the new financial year, we also still await confirmation from the UK Government on the detail and extent of the additional funding that we will receive to meet the increased employer's pension contribution costs across public sector pension schemes. That does not allow public sector employers in Scotland adequate time to plan and manage the implications of that change effectively. Those changes are a direct result of UK Government policy, and any shortfall will effectively be a further cut to the Scottish budget. The uncertainty around the outlook for Scotland's public finances and economy remain no clearer following last week's spring statement. It is clear that the views and interests of the devolved administrations are not a primary consideration in the UK Government's management of public finances or in its management of Brexit. We cannot completely protect Scotland from the recklessness of the UK Government, but the decisions that this Government has taken and will continue to take ensure that we protect what matters most to Scotland. That is why the people of Scotland have entrusted us to focus on the delivery of our public services and the economy. I thank the finance secretary for advance sight of his statement. Despite the miserable picture that has just been painted, what the spring statement actually told us is that the UK public finances are in much better shape than anyone previously predicted, with tax receipts up and deficit reduction well ahead of target. For years, the SNP told us that the Government would fail in its financial strategy. It is not about time that the financial secretary admitted that he got this wrong and he congratulated the chancellor on the success of the UK public finances. The finance secretary refers to the issue of Brexit. Is it not the case that the way to remove uncertainty for the future is for members of the House of Commons to vote for the withdrawal agreement? That is the advice coming from senior figures in his own party. His former deputy leader, Jim Sillers, and his former cabinet colleague, Alex Neil, who I do not see in the chamber this afternoon, should he not be listening to the good advice of the elder statesmen in his party and getting behind the Prime Minister? Finally, what the spring statement tells us is that there are Barnett consequentials of £68.5 million coming to the Scottish budget. That is on top of £148 million in Barnett consequentials, which came just in January. If he cannot tell us today how that additional money will be allocated, when is he going to tell us? First of all, I have had no confirmation in relation to the Barnett consequentials, because he could offset elsewhere. We are still waiting in the detail for that. Of course, I will inform Parliament in the usual channels. In terms of the UK Government's performance of the UK economy, hasn't Murdo Fraser realised that the economic forecast on GDP has been downgrading for the UK economy? That is before we even get to the chaos of Brexit at the hands of the UK Government. In relation to vote for the Prime Minister's deal, are you allowed to vote for the deal? Is it returning to the House of Commons, as the Speaker changed his mind? In relation to support for the Prime Minister's deal, even the people sitting behind her do not support the Prime Minister's deal, never mind asking anyone else to support for that. In essence, what the spring statement has led to is a clarity that the UK's economic performance is subdued, has been downgraded and is absolutely at extreme risk from a no-deal Brexit. Any Brexit is damaging to Scotland's economy, and it is clear that the UK Government is damaging to Scotland overall, ignoring our voice, undermining us, giving other parts of the UK a competitive advantage, and, all at the same time, a short-changing and ripping-off Scotland. On that subject, the Scottish Tories are totally silent. James Kerlates will be filled by Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. I agree with the cabinet secretary about the aspect of a chaotic Brexit. It is a scandal of gigantic proportions stemming from a failure of leadership from the Prime Minister that 10 days from exit day there is absolutely no clarity about what is going to happen around Brexit. Previously, the cabinet secretary has indicated that a no-deal Brexit would mean that the Scottish budget would have to be changed. That would have dramatic consequences to spending lines agreed by the Scottish Parliament. Will the cabinet secretary publish Scottish Government analysis of different Brexit scenarios in order that people are fully aware of the potential impact on the Scottish budget? Mr Kerlates asked a very fair question. It is my understanding that we have published the range of scenarios in terms of the positioning from the Prime Minister's deal in terms of the long-term impacts, economic impacts of that and the impact on his fiscally in terms of no-deal Brexit. We have published short, medium and long-term impacts of that. I am happy to look and see what further information the Labour Party might find useful. All forms of Brexit harm our economy. We have expressed how the Prime Minister's deal would harm our economy. We have shown very clearly how no-deal harms Scotland's economy. Is it not worth considering that, as we enjoy record low unemployment in Scotland today at a record low of 3.4 per cent, I am sure that the Labour Party would welcome that. Unemployment would more than double in terms of a no-deal Brexit. I will look at what further information we have that the Labour Party might be interested in, but I know that James Kelly is united with us in trying to ensure that the people have their say that we can avert Brexit and take the mishandling out the hands of the Conservatives. I am sure that Mr Kerlates needs no further convincing. I am still struggling to figure out what the point of last week's spring statement was, buried as it was under the news of yet another cycle of Brexit chaos at Westminster. The cabinet secretary tells us that it takes us no further forward in terms of understanding Scottish public finances. Even the chancellor himself does not have any clarity about how much fiscal headroom he is going to have, because he does not know what is going to happen in the coming weeks. Given that the OBR has warned that the outcome of the next few weeks will determine whether there is a major or a catastrophic shock to the UK economy. Arn't we just going to be here again in a few more weeks time once we know whether it's revoke, delay, no-deal cliff edge or whatever the other options are? Aren't we going to be back here in a few weeks time with the UK Government having to produce an emergency budget or an update to their budget and the Scottish Government having to respond to that? That rather depressing analysis from Patrick Harvie is probably correct and true that the UK Government is in a chaotic mode right now and will probably have to return with an emergency budget if there is a no-deal Brexit. So they don't know what they're going to be. What clarity we've got from the spring statement is that the DUP is probably heading for another bung. The chancellor has fiscal headroom that he could use to invest in public services now, that the financial and the fiscal and the economic outlook is subdued and whilst other parts of the UK are being bought off in terms of the Prime Minister's vote, Scotland is being sold out. Willie Rennie is to be followed by Angela Constance. The finance secretary rightly complains that Scotland has not received funds to match those for English towns and Northern Ireland, but with 35 MPs and the heft of the Scottish Government surely this begs a crucial question. Why has the finance secretary been so ineffective at lobbying the UK Government on the behalf of Scotland? Because of unionists like Willie Rennie, our futures in the hand of such Conservatives in London, which we would rather was not the case, having to go with a bedding bowl to Westminster, we would rather be making the decisions here in relation to our finances, our economy, grow our economy, our fairer social security system and stay within the European Union. So yes, I would rather not have to plead with a right-wing chancellor but make the decisions here in Scotland, but it's a unionist that has put us in that position, nobody else. Angela Constance is to be followed by Dean Lockhart. The cabinet secretary has outlined the various bungs that the DUP has received from an increasingly desperate Tory Government. Does he agree with me that it is utterly shameful for Ruth Davidson's Tory MPs to back money for Northern Ireland to keep themselves in office but repeatedly vote to deprive Scotland's public services of the funding that they have received? I certainly do agree with that and for absolute clarity, the figure that we would be entitled to if the formula had been used properly, the equivalent funding that we would gain is around £3.3 billion to Scotland, a substantial amount, and that's by how much Scotland is being ripped off. Dean Lockhart is to be followed by Stuart McMillan. In his statement, the cabinet secretary mentions cuts to public services and an uncertain future for Scotland's economy. If he gets his wish of independence, he will have to cut spending in Scotland by £13 billion a year. For the sake of certainty, can you confirm where the spending cuts of £13 billion will come from? The growth commission, of which I was a member, has shown how we can stimulate and grow our economy if we had all the levers of an independent country, and there would be reductions in certain places such as trident nuclear missiles. Yes, this Government would not choose to spend resources in that fashion. We have set out a comprehensive paper on how, with the powers of independence, we can grow our economy and ensure that we enjoy the benefits that other independent countries have. The Tories do not even know how they will get through next week. Never mind the prospects of an independent Scotland. We can deliver those advantages for Scotland and, even within the devolved settlement, try and stimulate our economy, provide stability and certainty as well. This has all been undermined by the UK Government mismanaging the finances and putting our economy at risk through the way that they have handled Brexit that led us up the garden path, shortchanging Scotland, ripping off Scotland while deploying bungs for everybody else. Stuart McMillan is followed by Pauline McNeill. According to the OBR, the UK Government is deliberately delaying moving people on to universal credit through managed migration in order to avoid costs associated with transitional protection. As a cabinet secretary, I think that forcing people to move over to universal credit through natural migration is a DWP cost saving exercise at the expense of low-income families. That analysis is correct. I understand that it will save the UK Government around £200 million over the next five years, clearly harming many of the most vulnerable in our society. Of course, that money should have been invested in supporting low-income families in the fashion that Stuart McMillan has suggested. Pauline McNeill is followed by Emma Harper. The Equality and Human Rights Commission published new research showing the combined impact of changes to tax social security and local authority services will result in an increase of child poverty by 80,000 by 2021. With only 0.1 per cent of the budget targeted at low-income families, what is the Scottish Government's big idea to prevent this further rise in child poverty? We are using the tax system in a more progressive way. The report that Pauline McNeill refers to acknowledges that the Government and the Parliament has been trying to mitigate the decisions coming from Westminster. There has been mitigation in terms of tax policy and social security policy as well. My point is that we could go further in building that fairer society if we weren't beholden to the UK Conservatives, who I've just pointed out are not giving us the necessary extra resources but in essence deploying the resources to buy off others for the vote in the House of Commons. We have a range of policies that are tackling child poverty, including expanding childcare, investing in housing. There's real terms increase for local government. We're building that social security system and we've got a fairer progressive tax system as well. We didn't pass on tax cuts for the richest in society and there's a range of specific measures around low-income families. That's a package of support that shows that we can mitigate so far but we can't completely mitigate against the UK Government's ravages of those most vulnerable in our society because we have neither the resources or the competence in some areas to do it. That's why we need full competence over tax and social security to be able to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Emma Harper, to be followed by Bill Bowman. I've written to those involved with the Borderlands growth deal of discussions, the funding for which was announced in the spring statement to ensure that Galloway and West and Frees area of my South Scotland region is not left behind and actually benefits from this inclusive growth deal. Therefore, I ask the Scottish Government for a commitment that the Galloway and West and Frees area has been part of the discussions for projects outwith the principle 5 projects such as the Waterfront redevelopment in Srinrar. As was discussed earlier, it would certainly be welcome if the UK Government was allocating more for the Scottish end of the Borderlands growth deal. The infrastructure secretary leads on that issue, but I understand that there are on-going discussions for local partners to take forward the very specific proposals to get to the signing of the Heads and Terms by late June, early July. I think that there is still room for further discussion to ensure that projects are included. Bill Bowman, to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. The cabinet secretary says that the spring statement offers no expected real terms growth in wider resource budgets to address the decade of near 7 per cent real term cuts to the Scottish block grant. Is this correct, as Spice has confirmed, that the UK block grant for Scotland has gone up by £1 billion since 2010? Does the cabinet secretary accept that his figures are wrong and acknowledge that the block grant for Scotland has in fact been increasing over the past decade? It might not surprise Bill Bowman for me to say that my figures are absolutely accurate and correct. It is true to say that Scotland's resource discretionary block grant has been reduced by £2 billion. There has been that rip-off to Scotland. It has been expressed time and time again. Even recently, I have welcomed the increase in NHS Barnett consequentials. That is to be welcomed, but the truth is that it has been offset in terms of reductions in other portfolios, which gives us the challenge of funding other services within Scotland. My figures are absolutely correct and I would ask Bill Bowman to visit the figures and to start to lobby his masters in London to ensure that Scotland gets a fair deal for this country. Kenneth Gibson is to be followed by Neil Bibby. Can the cabinet secretary set out what Barnett consequentials the UK Government should deliver and will deliver in relation to the stronger towns fund? How much comparable EU funding, which the Tories are desperately trying to end, is currently invested in Scotland? First of all, it is important to say that the UK commitment for those towns that will benefit is to somehow compensate them for leaving the European Union and the structural funds that they would have joined, which I have to say is substantially more than the sums that the UK Government is committing to those areas that are beneficiaries. I can confirm that we have had no detail of any consequentials coming to Scotland from the stronger towns fund and we would want to see that detail to ensure that Barnett has not been bypassed, that we get our fair share, but as it stands right now, I have confirmation of nothing in terms of the stronger towns fund. As I say, looking at the UK context, it is already far less than areas that would have enjoyed through the structural funding that came from the EU. That is a matter that I will continue to press the UK Government for clarity for and to ensure that Scotland gets a fair share of resources. Neil Bibby is to be followed by John Mason. The Fraser of Allander Institute in its Scotland in 2050 report today pointed to positives in the economy, but it has also warned that Scotland will continue to lag behind competitors unless we focus more on exports and infrastructure investment. It has also rightly identified that action is required to address low productivity and the skills gap. It wants to see a national strategy focusing resource and investment on activities with potential growth and a policy at all levels that is longer term in its objectives. Does the cabinet secretary agree with the report and what will the Scottish Government do to address the issues that it raises? I agree with those individual themes, and that is exactly why we are taking them together. We are focusing on exports, but we are about to launch our export strategy. On infrastructure, we have made a commitment about raising the levels of infrastructure spend. Even in the budget, of course, we committed to record sums around infrastructure spending, housing, transportation and connectivity. On productivity, for example, I have set out a range of actions that will support progress on productivity, such as working with the private sector around productivity clubs. Many of those are features of the economic action plan that I want to absolutely get on with, and that is why there was dedicated funding in the budget that was approved just recently. John Mason I wonder whether the cabinet secretary agrees with the Joseph Rowntree foundation that the spring statement has really failed in the area of continuing the benefits freeze, which is leaving children and families some £560 worse off on average, equivalent to three months of food shopping for an average low-income family. Cabinet secretary I think that it's unfair that, again, the most vulnerable in society are paying the price for the economic mismanagement by the UK Government. Therefore, the benefits cap and the freeze is unnecessary when you know, as announced at the spring statement, that the chancellor actually has the financial headroom to lift the cap. It's a pernicious policy to continue with it. It's damaging communities, and it's very hurtful to those who are facing the household pressures of having benefits frozen. This is now a willful choice at the hands of the chancellor rather than a fiscal necessity, and he can change course. Thank you very much to all members for their contributions. That concludes our statement on the UK spring statement.