Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not accept that there is nothing that the UK Government can do about, for example—

Yes, I can do that.

First, I put on record my apologies for being late and for keeping people waiting.

In line with the request from the FPA Committee, we provided comparative information in the budget document to show the latest approved budget position, which is the autumn budget revision. I am very happy to reflect on what more needs to be done.

There has been a recognition of the improvement in the position from last year, but there are still issues around in-year transfers. Some of that is quite difficult to resolve, because the issue will sit within a policy and the money will transfer in-year. We have baselined further funding, but if there are more improvements to be made, I am happy to work with the FPA Committee on what those should be.

You know my ambition on the fiscal framework. Previously, the scope for change was very limited, albeit that we got some adjustments. We absolutely want there to be a more ambitious review of the fiscal framework, but, despite our communication with the Treasury being better, I do not get the sense that it is keen to have a fundamental look at the framework. We will keep pursuing that issue as well as issues relating to migration policy and many of the other levers that will be really important to the Scottish economy, but that will require us to face in the same direction on those issues, and, so far, that has not been the case.

I have sympathy with the principle of the issue. We were concerned about the unintended consequences of crofts being captured, so it would need to be done carefully. The data issue remains problematic. I am happy to come back to you, Ross, with an update on where we have got to on that, if that would be helpful.

We are very conscious of that issue. The SFC analysis looked at some of that, but I suspect that it will do more. It looked at some behavioural changes, and we have been cognisant of that in relation to the Scottish child payment. We consider any research or evidence that suggests that there will be a cliff edge.

Bear in mind that the two-child cap is a penalty on families with more than two kids, which means that the universal credit system does not at the moment recognise the costs of children beyond two children. We believe that that is—

I take your point. On 4 December, alongside the budget, we published a memorandum detailing borrowing policy and guidelines, which includes an update on progress towards a future Scottish Government bond issuance. I recognise that, as you say, it is quite high level. The initial phase of due diligence has been completed and we need to take a number of things into consideration. For example, market conditions, which are very topical, must be taken into account, and a compelling value-for-money case must be made. The next stage of due diligence work will consider all of that in more detail.

I will update Parliament over the course of the financial year, but we will proceed with caution and take all the issues into account. The current circumstances are one of the issues that will be considered as part of that due diligence work.

Jennie, do you want to add anything?

Again, I can do so at a high level and perhaps come back with further evidence from social security colleagues. The social security system, which was supported by all parties, was designed to be fairer, easier to access and more humane. That has encouraged families to apply for child disability payment rather than discouraging them.

Another issue is relative levels of disability. I will correct this if I am wrong, but I think that there are slightly higher rates of disability in the population for various reasons—perhaps that applies more on the adult disability side.

The discussions are on-going and I have the next round of them on Thursday. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I think that that will be the fourth engagement that we have had.

Some of the engagement, not just with parties but with stakeholders, was reflected in what was contained in the budget statement. There is always a balance to be struck between what you put in the budget statement and what might be held back because of the budget issues that you anticipate. We very much front loaded the budget statement with the key planks of our investment and priorities.

The discussions are very positive. I will not divulge the detail, but you will have heard Opposition politicians talk in the chamber about their priorities, so the areas on which they might want us to go a bit further will be no surprise. It is not about fundamental unpacking of and replacing the budget statement. The work is around the edges—for example, if there is a view that we need to go a bit further on something. Those are the types of discussions that we are having. They are very positive, which is a good thing. I have said from the start that I want to try to build the broadest support for the budget that I can. That would be a good thing in the current political climate.

You will be aware that any distribution formula changes come COSLA: The 32 local authorities decide what the distribution formulas are. We do not arbitrarily change distribution formulas that will change the way that—