Seòmar agus comataidhean

[Inaudible.]—and everybody for the barking that came out of nowhere.

Thank you for that, Ed. Do you have anything to add, Guto? That is my only question.

Thank you for that—although my question was actually about what the limitations of the current arrangements are, rather than the benefits. Perhaps you would like to fill in on that. What are the limitations of the fiscal levers that the Scottish Government has in influencing the tax base? That was my question.

Thank you for mentioning those fundamentals.

I will let you move on now, convener.

Good morning. I am finding this evidence session very enjoyable so far, and I thank the cabinet secretary for highlighting the complexity of the process of money being allocated, drawn down and spent, and how that expands from one financial year to the next. Of course, that is all about financial asymmetry, but I also want to explore our own asymmetry.

I had the chance to glance through the report by the three Davids entitled “Options for reforming the devolved fiscal frameworks post-pandemic”, which recommends:

“Given that devolved governments cannot really exercise full control over health policy in the absence of appropriate economic support measures, a feasibility study into making furlough-type support available on a geographical basis should be urgently undertaken and published.”

You also correctly alluded to the fact that things have moved rapidly since some of the recent data came out. Do you have any indication yet of UK Treasury thinking about what type of financial support, such as furlough, could be available if and when the anticipated peak of the current Covid crisis hits us in mid-January?

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for the fulsome information—[Inaudible.].

I want to go back a bit and get a better understanding of the breakdown of the additional resource implications, which the convener probed earlier. You have described how the additional Brexit resource cost has gone down as we have moved out of the transition. However, I want to better understand your forecasting for the additional costs in terms of the full-time equivalent head count and the costs that have been triggered by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. In particular, I would like to hear about some of the funds that are being spent directly in Scotland by the UK Government. Perhaps you allude to that in your submission when you talk about

“where the UK Government makes decisions which have a direct impact on devolved areas.”

What specific additional head count, whether triggered by the internal market act or any additional funds, such as the levelling-up fund, have you forecast in your budget for this year? I am not sure whether that is a question for Jackson or David.

It looks as though there are no takers.

I have one more question, which follows on from the point about risks. You correctly highlighted some of the implications around resource funding and for capital funding for the future—in particular, the risks to the national infrastructure mission for local and regional infrastructure.

From a risk perspective, that links directly with economic growth, and productivity is also thrown into the pot. Have you had a chance to give any more flavour to that risk, where there is direct investment by the UK Government in local and regional infrastructure? You might not have had such a chance—my question is simply on the back of the previous discussion in which we were focusing on resource.

That seems ridiculous. That concludes my questions, convener.

I appreciate that it is extremely complex; I absolutely understand that. Thank you for the figures. It is useful to have them on the record.

Given the uncertainty about that and what looks to be an increased provision, do you see a point coming at which you would seek to charge back to the UK Government the costs incurred by the Scottish Parliament because we are, in accounting terms, in uncharted territory in which the new environment may come to be seen as special and beyond our normal operating environment? Have you considered the possibility of charging back or having that discussion? If not, would you consider that?

I have probably asked a question that nobody has thought about, but it may well come to that point if the head count and the additional cost are deemed to be significant.

I want to ask Jackson Carlaw a wee question. You mentioned tax in the light of the additional security requirements for members. What assurances can you give that the tax treatment vis-à-vis benefit in kind will be completely aligned between members of the Scottish Parliament and members at Westminster? You might not have been alluding to that. I apologise if you were not, but I wanted to ask that question.

You are carrying considerable risks. As a new member, I am not sure whether that is commonly understood.

I would like to move on to the medium-term financial strategy, in which you highlight a number of risks. One of those is the risk of

“Fundamental changes to the operation of finance in devolved policy making as a result of the UK Internal Market Act”.

Earlier, we heard from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which has made provision for the scrutiny of changes triggered by that by creating an additional 21 jobs. That has a real cost implication, which the SPCB has done projections on.

Have you quantified that risk, beyond what is in your report? You have highlighted the risk, but what is the probability of its occurrence and what would be the implications if it occurs? It strikes me that the financial implications—from the point of view of real spend and of risk—are not yet sufficiently understood. Can you add some further colour to that?