I thank the Minister for the statement. I was encouraged when I saw the title of it, 'Update on fiscal impacts of COVID-19'. I've been pressing her for something along those lines for quite some while. I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed in the contents. I had hoped that we might be able to give estimates or updates about what the impact, for instance, would be on land transaction tax of our having locked down the housing market for harder and longer in Wales than in England, but there came none.

I also wonder: is there a danger that the Welsh Government is exercising power without responsibility? Is the fiscal framework such that it can simply, as the First Minister boasted earlier, lock down earlier and harder and presumably longer than the UK Government does for England, on the basis that the UK Government then has to pay for the economic impact of that differentially in Wales? Is that the strategy? To what extent will we feel any impacts through the Welsh rates of income tax, given the fiscal compact and how that's been negotiated to mitigate changes to that, at least in the near term?

I also think there's a danger to fall back simply on saying that only the UK Government has the macro levers. The Minister said that, but the Conservative spokesperson also concurred, and then boasted about devolving tax-raising powers, having first promised not to do so without a referendum, which wasn't mentioned. But the Welsh Government doesn't want to use those powers, we're told. Are you expecting the UK Government to use those powers? If so, would you think they should raise taxes or cut taxes in light of what is happening?

We borrowed, as a country—the United Kingdom—£36 billion in August 2020. The Office for Budget Responsibility gave its forecasts—this was back in July; it might be higher now, I don't know—but they said this year we were going to be borrowing an estimated £322 billion. That's twice what Gordon Brown borrowed at the worst of the last recession in 2009-10. Is that sustainable? You say the UK Government has the levers, but actually it's just borrowing the money. At the moment, it's managing to get the Debt Management Office to sell those gilts, but largely on the understanding that the Bank of England is going to be printing a similar amount of money to buy them back from investors. At the moment, inflation is quiescent and able to generate that magic money tree, so to speak, but will that continue? And if inflation stops being quiescent, what is going to happen? Do you want to see interest rates be raised by an independent Bank of England, or them stop printing that money in order to stop inflation rising, or do you want to see UK Government order them—and I think this would require the UK Parliament, not just the UK Government—to abandon or at least suspend that inflation target? These are really serious questions, and I don't think it's good enough just to say, 'Ah, well, the UK Government has the macro levers' and for us not to consider them. 

A couple of very specific quick questions, if I may. You mentioned a £4 billion consequential versus £0.5 billion of repurposing. Is that the right balance and order of magnitude less almost what we're doing here, compared to what's being done by the UK Government? And you mentioned an additional £320 million, but you don't then give any split as to whether that's repurposing or consequential, or a combination and, if so, what it is. You mentioned £15 million for digital learning. That's a relatively small sum in the scale of education and what's happened. You mentioned £60 million more for construction, including energy efficiency. I think energy efficiency is one of the best ways of limiting carbon emissions in terms of the impact you have for the amount of money you spend, but you then went on to say you were spending £14 million on decarbonisation. Is that additional to and separate from what you've said about energy efficiency, and shouldn't those two things better be looked at in the round?