Seòmar agus comataidhean

I found paragraph 30 of section C.1 of the supporting document quite interesting. You say:

“The minor differences between the Scottish Government underspend as reported in the Accounts (and discussed in detail by Audit Scotland) and underspend against HM Treasury budget aggregates arise through a number of reasons; differing accounting and budgeting treatment of capital expenditure, differences in the scoring of working capital for nondepartmental public bodies and different treatment of expected credit losses.”

Having what are, in effect, two different systems obviously makes transparency difficult. Have there been discussions about, or is any work on-going, to try to smooth over some of those differences to ensure that we have a uniform method of accounting?

I would be happy for you to write to Liz Smith on that, minister.

Minister, under section C, “Scotland Reserve and Funding Position Details”, you say:

“Despite this continually evolving, volatile position, reserve limits remain fixed. Those limits being a cap of £700 million with annual drawdowns normally restricted to £250 million for Resource and £100 million for Capital and Financial Transactions combined. As we are currently within a defined period of “Scotland Specific Economic Shock” (as set out in the Fiscal Framework) the annual drawdown limits are waived but the cap of £700 million remains.”

As I mentioned in the previous session, John Mason said only last week that the University of Glasgow has greater reserves than the Scottish Government is allowed to have. That gives some perspective. Can you tell us, because the previous witnesses were unsure when asked directly, when that three-year period of Scotland-specific economic shock will end?

What difficulties are the reserve limits creating for the Scottish Government in delivering on its budget?

Yes, I would certainly be happy with that, but I am not the one who is asking questions on this area—if Douglas Lumsden, Michelle Thomson and Liz Smith are happy, we can take that approach.

Thanks for that, Daniel.

I get tongue-tied myself. These things happen.

I agree, as I am sure everyone else would, that certainty is important, but as the Scottish Government does not always have certainty with regard to its own funding it is difficult to pass certainty on. Do you not agree?

Other members might want to focus on that point a bit more.

With regard to the overarching priorities in the review, you mention

“Meeting child poverty targets ... Addressing climate change”

and

“Securing a stronger, fairer, greener economy”,

and then go on to say:

“There is ... very little comment ... on the data and drivers behind these three priorities”.

What data and drivers do you feel should have been included?

That was very helpful.

In your submission, you say:

“there is no clarity on what a National Care Service will look like or deliver.”

What would you like it to look like and deliver?