 Ffawr, i chi unig i ddim yn fwy o'r 24 ym 2018 o gyfnodigodau Cymru. Ond, rwy'n gwedd i'n credu clywed o'r ffóon o'r silyn. The only item on their agenda today is to take evidence on the operation of Scotland's fiscal framework with Leistruss MP, who is the chief secretary through the treasury. Ms Truss is joined by Lindsay White, the director of personal tax, welfare and pensions at HM Treasury and Chris Maxstead, who is the devolution spending principle in the Treasury. We are quite tight for time today because Chief Secretary has to be available until 10.30, so we can keep our questions short and snappy. That would be helpful. Before we go to questions from the committee, can I invite the Chief Secretary of the Show wishes to make an opening statement and say that we very much appreciate her appearance before the committee today? Thank you very much, convener, and it's great to be here in the main chamber of the Scottish Parliament talking to the committee. I think that this is the ideal time to be talking about Scotland's fiscal framework. It's now 2.5 years since the Scotland Act 2016 reached royal assent, and that was the time at which the fiscal framework was agreed. Around 1.3 of the Scottish Government's budget is now determined by receipts raised in Scotland, and that will rise to more than 50 per cent once the Scotland Act 2016 is implemented in full. That means that the Scottish Government has far more autonomy to vary the level of tax and spending in Scotland. What devolution of tax powers means is more accountability for how they are used and also responsibility for how they are used. The arrangements that were agreed within the fiscal framework mean that the Scottish Government budget position is much more closely linked to decisions that are made here on how to grow the Scottish economy. With the devolution of tax powers comes accountability for how those powers are used and the responsibility for managing their effects. Of course, the Scottish Government also has the advantages of being part of a wider macroeconomic system. We agreed in the fiscal framework that UK-wide macroeconomic risks were best managed at a UK-wide level. Treasury ministers have a vital role in the stewardship of the Scottish economy in areas that are not devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I would point out that there has been some real success in the Scottish economy in recent years. 61,000 more businesses since 2010 and nearly 200,000 more people in employment. The Treasury will continue to share the benefits of the union across Scotland in all its work, from its tax policy on oil and gas to the on-going programme of city deals. Of course, there are various complexities in the fiscal framework and the process of implementing it continues. Two and a half years later, we are beginning to see some of the impacts of tax devolution, particularly as forecasts become outturned. However, I very much recognise that this is new territory and the UK Government is keen to support understanding of the implications of fiscal devolution and its contingent risks. We continue in our dialogue with the Scottish Government on that. Yesterday, I met Derek Mackay to discuss that in some detail. There are occasionally complexities and issues to resolve, but I echo Derek Mackay's comments when he was here in May. The UK Government is committed to working in partnership with the Scottish Government to make sure that fiscal devolution operates as it was intended in the recommendations of the Smith commission. I am very pleased to be here today to take any questions and further that discussion. We took some very interesting evidence yesterday from a range of people on the fiscal framework and its operations so far. I am sure that the chief secretary is aware that income tax powers between the UK Government and the Scottish Government operate in a much more of a shared space than it had previously. Therefore, the decisions taken by one Government can impact on the tax raised by another, but particularly in regard to income tax raised in Scotland. For example, decisions about corporation tax might drive decisions by higher income self-employed earners about how much or how little profit they take as income, or a reduction in corporation tax might encourage a greater level of incorporation. That could result in an unintentional impact on the level of income tax taken in Scotland. Under the fiscal framework, in these circumstances, the Scottish budget bears the risk. I could give some other examples, but that is a reasonable example. Given that type of potential outcome, I would be interested to learn the extent to which Her Majesty's Treasury shares information about their budget proposals before they are announced, and vice versa, so that both sides can assess just what the likely impact might be on each other's government's tax date. I know that that can be a difficult space for governments to be involved in, but it would also enhance some of that partnership that you talked about in your opening statement. There is a potential tension there. We need to understand that both Governments are talking to each other about their proposals, so I do not know what sort of reaction you have to that. First of all, the overall structure of the fiscal framework was decided as part of the Smith commission, which was, of course, an independent commission looking into those issues. Those issues were considered at the time. It is important to recognise that the package that was agreed was a package, and it recognised some of those complexities. The interaction between the Scottish economy and the broader UK economy, the amount of levers that the Scottish Government has to influence policy versus the levers that the UK Government has to influence policy—that is not just fiscal policy, it could also be policy on areas such as housing and skills that have an influence on businesses and the economy. Those issues were taken into account. We are, as I said, two and a half years into the fiscal framework. We are beginning to see the impact of income tax devolution, but I believe that this is a good period to be looking at how it is working and making sure that the mechanics are correct. Of course, we will have the review of the fiscal framework come 2021, just on the point that you make about budgets. Of course, quite a lot of the measures that we announce in budgets are consultations, precisely for that reason, to give the opportunity for businesses across the UK to comment on those budget measures but also for dialogue with the devolved administration. One of the things that I discussed in my meeting yesterday with Derek Mackay was how we can work closely together on the whole era of economic growth, what drives economic growth and how we can make sure that our policies are aligned. One of the reasons for not devolving corporation tax is the potential of tax competition and cross-border competition. At the same time, Scotland needs the freedom to pursue policies in various areas, and that is the whole purpose of further fiscal devolution. I think that we got to the right balance as a result of the Smith commission, but I think that regular dialogue is very important. I very much see my role as the Treasury Minister responsible for this area to have a strong interest in Scottish economic growth and make sure that I maintain that regular dialogue with Derek Mackay. That is helpful. Let me just press you just a little bit further on that. Corporation tax remains obviously a reserved matter. If there is a change to corporation tax or it could be personal allowances or other areas, there is a potential for the income tax take in Scotland to be either increased or reduced in those circumstances, and do they take that into consideration as part of their pre-budget planning? I would say that there are policies that can be pursued on either side of the border that are going to have an impact on income tax policy. Those are two very interconnected economies, so I recognise that there is an impact. In developing tax policies for the UK budget, we take into account a whole range of impacts, and we engage with a whole range of stakeholders, including from Scotland. The other thing that I would add is that, as the chief secretary said, the fiscal framework does anticipate that some policy changes by either Government might have a direct impact on tax receipts or welfare spending of the other. There is a process where either Government can raise those issues so that they are jointly analysed and they will be brought to the Joint Exchequer Committee between the chief secretary and Derek Mackay to work through any resolution that needs to be put in place. I hope that that framework can be robust, as it sounds. The rabbits out of a hat in budgets are a common experience that we are all aware of, and sometimes surprises come along that nobody has been consulted about or that indeed Governments know that. I know that that is about political choice, but I am just making sure that people are aware about the potential impact on the Scottish budget. Are you supplementary to that? I am confident that that is supplementary, given that the chief secretary to the treasury has spoken about how we are beginning to see the impact of income tax devolution. There is an acknowledgement that different policy choices can have an impact on either side of the border. I would be interested in your views about how, if you can envisage arguments for more coherent packages of power. For example, Scottish Parliament said that there are rates and bans for income tax. There is a divergence in income tax policy between the two Governments. I wonder if you have seen any arguments in favour of the Scottish Parliament also being able to legislate for income tax reliefs and personal allowances that the convener touched upon. If not, why not? It is an issue that we bump up against a lot as a committee about how things could just be more coherent and make more sense at a practical level. That is part of the discussion that took place during the Smith commission discussions exactly where does the line get drawn. The important point about the personal allowances is that it is linked to all kinds of benefits. There are issues. That was discussed in the context of the Smith commission. We got to the position that we got to when we are now essentially seeing how that works over the period of the next few years. Then there will be a review of the framework overall. I think that is the right approach. It is quite difficult to disintegrate different parts of that package. Ultimately, what the physical framework is about is that it is about the Scottish Government taking on more responsibility for tax-raising but also essentially taking on more of the variability in terms of tax revenues. If you change one part of that, you have to look at the whole package. I think that where the Smith commission got to was a reasonable place. Is it a complex system? Yes, it is inherently complex because these are two very integrated economies. The UK Government retains responsibility for the macroeconomic environment. The line has to be drawn at some point, so I am not sure that the line can be drawn anywhere where it would be completely clean. Here is the pure impact of what the Scottish Government is doing, and here is the pure impact of what the UK Government is doing. It is also worth recognising that, as a UK Treasury, when we do our budgets, we see vastly fluctuating forecasts from the OBR. A lot of our budget setting is influenced by international factors, so it could be something that is done in the European Union. It could be actions taken by the US on trade, the state of the Chinese economy. Trying to separate out these different impacts is very difficult. I think that where we have got to is a workable framework that so far has proved effective. Of course, when we get to the review period, we should look at the details of precisely how that operates. It is not set in tablets of stone, given that we are now beginning with the passage of time to understand more about the impacts. Do you have any sense of where the flexibility is to improve the mechanics and workings of the fiscal framework? My feeling is that we have not yet got the full mechanics in place. For example, on VAT assignment, that has not yet been done. No doubt we will come on to that later in the committee. We are just at the position of getting the first outturns on income tax. We are at early days in terms of where we are. I think that we need to let it all bed down to have a proper view of the operation before the review takes place. Good morning, chief secretary. You may not be aware that two members of the committee were members of the Smith commission. The two of us might not agree on that, but we agree that we do not want to reopen that whole discussion. I wanted to pick up a theme that was introduced by the convener, chief secretary. It is a theme that the Prime Minister has referred to as a tendency in Whitehall to devolve and forget, those are her words. Taxation on income as a result of the Smith commission package in the Scotland Act 2016 is a shared responsibility between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government. It is neither exclusively reserved nor is it exclusively devolved. How does the treasury ensure that, in the exercise of those shared responsibilities, neither officials nor ministers in the treasury forget about the bits of taxation on income that have been devolved? What steps have you taken inside the treasury to ensure that the organisation understands that this is a very significant responsibility that it, as far as Scotland is concerned, now shares with the Scottish Government? I think that that is a fair point that the Prime Minister made in the past. I certainly do not think that it reflects the way the treasury operates now, that we take our responsibilities very seriously in terms of that taxation co-ordination. My colleague Mel Stride is overall responsible for the taxation framework, so I know that he has discussions with Derek Mackay as do I. Of course, Lindsay co-ordinates from an official point of view, so maybe Lindsay could say a bit more about that. We take that very seriously as officials within the treasury. We have a standing devolution team, of which Chris is a member, which provides a central role and runs a capability building approach to ensure that all of the tax and welfare teams across the treasury fully understand the changes in the devolution settlement and the underpinning financial arrangements, so that we are making sure that we are taking into account the new structures in the way that we are developing tax policy. We do that through training programmes and looking to embed devolution very clearly through the structures and processes that we run for the budget. Beyond that, that is part of a wider civil service approach where we work in partnership with officials from all the Governments and the Devolved Administrations to ensure that the whole of the civil service is focused on building devolution capability. How much of that structure is quadrilateral in terms of the UK thinking about all three devolved nations and how much of it is bilateral and specific to Scotland? It is a combination of both. From the treasury perspective, a finance minister has a quadrilateral process that involves all of the devolved Administrations, and then we have bilateral processes. In the case of Scotland, that is the Joint Exchequer Committee, which is the chief secretary and Derek Mackay, supported by an official's process, as well as a number of working groups underneath that, which deal with the different elements of the devolution framework and the fiscal framework. Angela, I realise that you wanted to come on to the supplementary item. I am just conscious on my time here. If I get space later, I will come back. Alex, you wanted to cover issues of reconciliation. Thank you, convener. Good morning, chief secretary. A critical element of the committee's pre-budget scrutiny is to examine the impact of the reconciliation process on the subsequent Scottish budget. Can you confirm that reconciliation figure for the block grant adjustment following the publication of audited outturn figures for the Scottish Income Tax will be published by Her Majesty's Treasury by September 2019? As a sort of supplementary to that, yesterday, a committee became clear that the three-year lag in this process had presented its own issues. I wonder if you have any views as to how we could improve this process, either through the frequency of the reconciliations, or by introducing interim reconciliations? Maybe Liz, you could cover the exact date and then I can answer the question about the lag. I believe that published figures for reconciliation in relation to stamp duty and landfill tax have been published for this autumn budget. HMRC is responsible for outturn figures and then Treasury will continue the process of transparency around the block grant adjustments and reconciliation process for income tax, and for that assignment once that comes into place. On the subject of the lag in the forecasting versus outturn issue, HMRC shares all the data that it has with the Scottish Government, so it has the latest data. The issue with income tax is that, although PAYE data comes in relatively quickly, self-assessment data takes time to come through the system, and that is exactly the same issue that we face from an overall UK budget point of view, is that there is a lag in the system before the income tax returns catch up. That is why additional buffer has been provided to the Scottish Government to manage the timing differences between the forecast and the outturn that is being received. Tom, you want to cover areas of reserves and drawdown and other such relationship to forecasting and some of the risks that we bear? Indeed, thank you and good morning, chief secretary. My question pertains more generally to flexibility. We have, as things currently stand, an option of a £250 million drawdown from the reserve. The Scottish Government is required to set a balanced budget, but the fiscal framework was conceived in the pre-Brexit era. We now live in an era where the Expected Fraser of Allander Institute forecasts the loss of between 13,000 to 80,000 jobs. A consequence of Brexit and the Government of the Bank of England suggests that house prices could fall by up to a third in the event of a no-deal Brexit. In this post-Brexit era, is the fiscal framework as flexible as it needs to be to give the Scottish Government the maximum scope for managing any volatility? First of all, we are confident that we can secure a deal. There was a meeting of the Cabinet earlier this week discussing the issue, and we are very positive about the opportunity to secure that deal, which will achieve, among other things, frictionless trade. What the Bank of England Governor was talking about is making sure that the system is prepared for all eventualities. In no way is that the most likely eventuality. It is important to recognise that those negotiations and that deal that would result in frictionless trade would not see the types of impacts that you are talking about. If I could finish on the point that you make about flexibility, there is the £300 million buffer to deal with timing issues. There is the access to the Scottish reserve, as you pointed out. When the income tax devolution started, one of the issues was making sure that the forecasting was in line with the outturn. That was probably the biggest change, because we did not have the data. No one had the data on exactly which people were Scottish taxpayers. That data is now much clearer. The biggest change that we have seen in the difference between forecast and actual has already occurred. As you are aware, there are specific provisions for a Scotland-specific economic shock that would give the Scottish Government a recourse to additional buffers in the system. If there is a Scottish-specific economic shock, there is additional buffer room, and if there was a UK-wide economic shock for whatever reason, the fiscal framework because of the way that it has been set up effectively means that if there is a reduction in UK-wide tax revenues and a reduction in Scottish revenues, that will be accounted for within the block grant adjustment. In the case of a Scotland-specific economic shock that is covered by additional buffer, in the case of a UK-wide economic shock that works through the block grant adjustment system. You are entirely confident that whatever the eventualities come from the Brexit negotiations that the overall flexibility that exists within the fiscal framework will meet the requirements of the Scottish Government. You have no concerns at all regarding flexibility. That is right, yes. I know that it is hard to forget about Brexit, but can we just park that for a minute and look at the implications of forecast error alone in terms of the potential impact on the Scottish budget? Because some of the most recent figures for 1819 that were set is a base year, and because of forecast error that was shown already, there had been a £389 million impact on the Scottish budget. Yet, if you use the drawdown and the Scottish reserve and utilising the borrowing powers, there is only £520 million in there. If there is no shock, in normal circumstances, even with forecast error, we are up against the buffers in terms of flexibility. It is something that both the Scottish Government and the Treasury need to look at. The set-up of the fiscal framework is such that, if revenues—I agree with you about the forecasting issue, and there clearly were issues in the initial forecast, which has now been sorted out through the outturn process. However, one of the whole purposes of the fiscal framework is the Scottish Government taking more revenue risk. If tax income is not what was anticipated, that means that spending or alternatively adjustments to tax rates have to take place. Yes, there is the timing issue, which the buffer is designed to address. We have seen the buffer absolutely capable of addressing any timing issues that have thus far been identified. However, on the broader issue, the whole purpose of the work of the Smith commission was that more revenue risk is held by the Scottish Government, and that would not assess in exactly the same way. If we have a forecast from the OBR at a UK budget that does not bring in the tax revenues that are expected, we have to adjust our budget accordingly. That is an implication of no decisions taken either by the UK Government or the Scottish Government that relates entirely to forecast errors between the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the OBR. That would have resulted without any policy changes, without anything else. Just a forecast error would have resulted in that base year being £389 million down. If that had been the reality of the first year of it going live, we would have been up against the buffer of the reserve and the borrowing powers and that flexibility. I think that there is an issue in there that needs to be looked at by both Governments. I do not know Lindsay, if you want to come in on that. I think that it is important to be clear that the number that I believe that you are referring to is still a forecast number, so that will not be reconciled in the block grant adjustment until we have the out turn for income tax in 2019. It is for the reason that HMRC collects taxes for Scottish income that the Scottish Government does not have the flexibility to manage that in year, so we do not do that in year reconciliations ahead of the out turn. Of course, those forecast figures might move again before we do the reconciliation, as the chief secretary has alluded to earlier on. The Scottish Government has powers that it can use between now and the reconciliation to help to manage that, and in the event that there will end up being a forecast impact on the Scottish budget at the time that we do reconciliation, there are the borrowing powers that the chief secretary has alluded to as well. I think that I have probably got as far as I can with that one. Sorry to labour it a bit. We move on to VAT now. James, do you think that you were interested in that? Yes, I certainly was. Thank you, convener. Good morning, chief secretary. In terms of the assignment of VAT, it is obviously a body of work that is undergoing, and about the income tax position, there is going to be a forecast of VAT assignment carried out. Can you give some detail on the work that has been undertaken with regard to the methodology for that forecast and how robust it is? Well, thank you. The VAT assignment was agreed as part of the Smith commission and the fiscal framework. It was agreed that it would be a methodology. Since then, we have been working with the Scottish Government on that methodology. We will shortly be publishing that proposed methodology. It is essentially based on the work that we already do when we report the VAT gap to the European Union. It is a robust methodology. It is also used internationally. The way that value-added tax is divvied up between the Canadian provinces is another example of that methodology being used. It is a very robust methodology that is used extensively internationally. We have been working with the Scottish Government. I believe that we are in agreement. I had that discussion with Derek Mackay yesterday, so we will be ready to publish it very soon. I do not know, Linda, if you want to give more details on the precise methodology. Yes, I can. The assignment model looks at expenditure in Scotland compared to the UK, and it then works out an attributed VAT share for Scotland. The reason why we have to do that is that businesses do not currently have to disaggregate their VAT return by geographic area. We are using independent expenditure data from the ONS. Both Governments have agreed to commission an enhanced survey from the ONS to improve the data, which will be available through the implementation period. That model has been developed by experts in HMRC working very closely with the Treasury and with Scottish Government officials. As the chief secretary says, it has been developed in very close cooperation, and it will be jointly published by both Governments shortly. A couple of follow-up questions. I understand that the first forecasts are going to be produced later this year. Is that still the case? The methodology is going to be produced shortly, rather than the forecast, I think. We will have initial forecasts this year. At the autumn budget, the OBR will do a forecast for our UK VAT. Shortly afterwards, for the Scottish budget, the Scottish Fiscal Commission will forecast Scottish VAT receipts to inform the implementation year. Forecasts use the new methodology that has been developed. In terms of the issue of disaggregating the Scottish level of VAT, that is not done currently. How is that going to be worked out going forward? Obviously, that is crucial, not just to establish in the forecast but to make sure that the actual VAT figures are correct. That is why we have developed the expenditure model and the attributed share for Scotland. That is the methodology that is internationally recognised, as the chief secretary has said, rather than putting a significant cost on businesses to disaggregate it themselves through their VAT returns. I am not absolutely clear on that. That is in terms of the forecast. For the outturn, we attribute a certain amount of VAT to Scotland using, for example, sales data. We do not ask every single business to report what is that good sold in England or Scotland. It is a model that we are using to calculate it. That is internationally recognised. It is already used, as I mentioned, in Canada to separate out VAT between the provinces. It is used in terms of what we report to the EU on our VAT gap. Essentially, it is an estimate. It is a model. Does it track every single good and attribute it to a particular country? No, it does not. It is not, however, based on the reconciliation of actual receipts. It is based on survey data that your colleague mentioned. Is that correct? The other taxes that are devolved are based on the adjustments that were made on the reconciliation of real receipts, but that is not. That is right. It is a model to attribute the VAT to Scotland. It is not a way. It is not the actual receipts from the good sold. It is a different process of outturn and reconciliation from income tax, where, as in income tax, we are tracking individual taxpayers. Do you see, perhaps, moving towards proper reconciliation business receipts when we get the time and the opportunity? It would be an incredible burden on business, I think, to ask for every single item that is sold to be attributed to Scotland or other parts of the UK. It is important to recognise that that was agreed as part of the Smith commission and the fiscal framework, that there would be a model developed and a methodology. What we are doing shortly is publishing that methodology. The principle that we would have a methodology to attribute that VAT was established as part of the fiscal framework. The precise details of the methodology are the model that we are shortly about to release, which the committee will be able to comment on along with everybody else. During the Smith commission, there was some discussion about the full transfer of VAT powers and rates to Scotland, but that was ruled out as understood by one of your predecessors, Mr Gawk, on EU directives about different VAT rates within member states. Now that we are potentially in a different situation post Brexit, is that something that the Government might be willing to revisit at some future date? My view is that we have already got a lot on our plate with implementing the existing Smith commission proposals and the fiscal framework and making sure that that works. I think that we should focus on doing that now. It is also important to recognise that in terms of VAT, the Scottish Government does have significant levers over the amount of VAT generated in Scotland. It is very intimately connected with economic growth. I mentioned areas of policy such as housing policy, skills policy, planning policy. All of those things will affect VAT take. I think that we have the right balance. The important thing is to first of all get it done, so implement it properly. We have agreed with the Scottish Government the timelines for implementing VAT devolution. It is also important to be able to explain the principles as clearly as possible to the public. Would you be willing to rule it out at any future stage after it is bedded in? No Parliament can bind its successor. Emma, I think that you have the issues of VAT as well. Actually, Willie Coffey covered that, so I am okay, thanks. In that case, I think that Neil had issues around APD. The devolution of air passenger duty has been delayed by the Scottish Government and UK Government last year. One of the key issues for that delay was the lack of exemption for Highlands and Islands passengers. What progress has been made to address those concerns around the exemptions for Highlands and Islands flights? Could you give us an indication of when you think that air passenger duty is likely to be devolved? You are absolutely right that that is the critical issue on air passenger duty, the Highlands and Islands exemption. The issue is that the Scottish Government exiting the existing APD arrangements and establishing a new tax is the potential for that Highlands and Islands exemption not to fulfil state aid requirements. What we have said as part of the EU deal that we have put on the table is that we want to continue to be part of a state aid regime. We think that it is very important in terms of competition policy going forward, that the UK has a robust state aid regime. We are working with the Scottish Government. We have offered to help in terms of approaching the European Union, but I do not believe that we have currently been asked to do that on their behalf. I do not know, Lindsay, if you want to say a bit more on that. Yes, that is right. As I understand it, the Scottish Government is running a series of workshops with a whole range of stakeholders to explore the options that they have for the design of their new tax, with the view to ensuring that it can be compliant with the new EU guidance for a new tax. We will continue to work with them and engage with them as we develop the forward framework for the UK as well. Just to clarify, you said that the Scottish Government has not asked the UK Government to approach the European Union commission. No. It is the Scottish Government that is developing this new tax. I know that Derek Mackay appeared in front of the committee very recently to discuss the overall fiscal framework, but we have offered to assist and are working with the Scottish Government, but ultimately the solution will have to come as part of developing that new tax. In which case, we will go to Patrick. I am sorry if it is difficult in this particular format, but I will have to see who is all one then, so forgive me. Thank you, convener. I wonder if I could just come in with a follow-up to the question from Neil Bibby on APD. Have the Treasury suggested to the Scottish Government other possible work-arounds that would allow APD to be devolved whilst protecting the Highlands Islands discount? I believe that you suggested some ideas. Is that correct? But ultimately, it is a Scottish Government responsibility, so there is a limited amount that we can do. We are continuing to offer any support working with Scottish Government colleagues to develop the options, both Treasury and HMRC. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning. On that last point, perhaps the real explanation is that the Scottish Government just is not keen to implement a policy that will make its own budget process much more difficult. Moving on, I wonder if I could ask you to think a few years ahead towards the review process for the framework. You mentioned it a couple of times, and I am obviously aware that you would not want to be drawn at the moment on what the outcomes of that review would be. It is too soon to speculate, but the UK Government and indeed both Governments must have given some thought to the process for that review, for how it should happen, for the ways in which it needs to open up debate and dialogue not just between the Governments, but also involving parliamentary scrutiny, remembering the fact that 2021 is an election year here, and hopefully involving public scrutiny as well. Do you have any thoughts on the process that should be designed to take that review forward? We have not yet considered the process design. My focus has been implementing the existing arrangements and making sure that we have a good working relationship with the Scottish Government in terms of overall economic co-ordination. It is probably too early to set out the details of that at this stage. It is more important to make sure that the policy works. My point is that there is a review in due course, but when we are at early stages, there is really an implementation, I do not think that that is the right time. I suggest that there would be some advantage in starting to think about that now, partly in relation to the public understanding of how the framework works. We are in a period in which there are some fairly major disagreements between the two Governments and quite a polarised political climate more generally, where those disagreements can snowball quite easily. It is surely a process that tries to build greater public understanding of how this quite complex system works and an assurance that, when it is reviewed, it will be done in an open participative way. Surely that would help to address some of the confusion and some of the lack of understanding that exists in how the framework operates. First of all, I would not entirely agree with your characterisation of the relationship between the two Governments. I think that we have got a positive working relationship. There is a very good official relationship between the Treasury and the Scottish Government in implementing what is a complex settlement on various issues. I do not agree with the contention that there is not that dialogue taking place. From a public point of view, I think that explaining the current arrangement is more important than talking about the future review at this stage. I think that that is what will give the public confidence and help wider public understanding of what additional responsibilities the Scottish Government has taken on. It is one of the reasons that I am appearing before the committee today as I am keen to help that wider understanding and get that message across. What more do you think will be done to try to improve that? The public statements from the Joint Exchequer Committee are minimal? Yes. I think that now we have the income tax outturned. Now that the Scottish Government has set different rates of income tax, I think that that is becoming clearer to people. I am very happy to work with the committee if you feel that there is any more information that we can put out there or, indeed, suggest some clearer format. It is inherently quite a complicated issue. I am all for making it more clear. I do not know, Lindsay, if you have any thoughts on the work that we are doing to communicate it better. Do you want to explain to us how the Barnett formula works at the same time? We are publishing a lot of information. We publish annual reports on the implementation of Scotland Acts 2012 and 2016. We also supplement that with UK Government publication looking at the block grant adjustments. There is a Scottish Government publication that brings that together with Scottish Government receipts. Of course, the Scottish Government is best placed to explain that whole picture because it has both sides of the ledger, as it were. We, from the Treasury and HMRC, work very closely with Scottish Government officials in providing the right information and continually reviewing what information is helpful and included in all those reports. I am happy to take up with the Scottish Government how we jointly communicate those changes better to the wider public. I think that that could be extremely helpful. I would make the case that perhaps that should be on the agenda earlier rather than later, a discussion between the Governments and a discussion with the parliamentary committees about the way in which the future review should happen. You have mentioned the Smith commission on a number of occasions. I would make the case that that gull of a process working behind closed doors and on a breakneck timescale is absolutely a brilliant model of everything not to do when it comes to reviewing the operation of the framework in the future. Especially the closer we get to an election period in Scotland, the more difficult it will be to get a calm, cool look at those issues. I would suggest getting agreement on an open, collaborative and publicly participative process sooner rather than later. Angela Constance, you still had a supplementary question that you wanted to pick up on earlier. My apologies, convener. I might have missed this in the paper or in the presentation by the chief secretary to the treasury this morning. Do we have a timing for the review of the operation of the fiscal framework? I think that I heard you correctly when you said that it will be reviewed in due course. We do have timing. The Smith commission set out the timing and said that the review will be informed by an independent report with recommendations presented to both Governments by the end of 2021. In terms of compiling an independent report, how do you envisage both the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together to agree that independent process? As I have said at the moment, we are in 2018 and we are focusing on implementation of the fiscal framework. I think that once that is completed, we would work on the process of the review. Winter is coming, it might be 2018, but 2020 will not be that far away. It would be good, convener, if the issues of process were agreed early so that there was confidence and transparency all round in that process and that the review was therefore focusing on the substantive issues of the day, whatever they may be, as opposed to arguments about process or about the process late in the day. I take those comments on board. Some of the stuff that we learned yesterday and some of the areas that we probably need to be looked at in that review, the committee heard yesterday about the potential impact of demographic change on the size of the Scottish income tax base, in particular the issue of the relative size of the working-age population in Scotland. The working-age population in both the UK and Scotland, because the working-age demographics of Scotland are different to the rest of the UK and the population share is ageing quicker. I wonder if you would recognise that that might be something that needs to be done as part of that review, to look at that demographic impact and probably, in the light of whatever Brexit we have as well, because some of the information that we had yesterday showed quite clearly that the Scottish economy was dependent on that EU migrant workforce to help to feed our tax base. I think that it is something that we need to look at as we get into that review period. I wonder if you would agree with that. I make two comments. The agreement for the fiscal framework is the adjustment by index per capita for Scotland, which protects against population decrease risk, although clearly the Scottish Government would not get the benefits of population increase, so that is significantly different from the comparable methodology that is in place for Wales. That is an overall population process. I am just pointing out that, compared to other fiscal frameworks that we have got in place, the Scottish Government is protected against population size risk. On the point about demographics or relative to the tax taken in both countries, on the point about demographics, the Scottish Government has levers to influence the demographics of Scotland. I do not think that it is entirely exogenous to Scotland, the population shape. I talked earlier about broader policies to attract business to Scotland, whether those are planning and development policies, housing policies, or skills policies. To say that all those policies are simply exogenous to the Scottish Government is not a fair reflection. Those issues were all debated during the process of the Smith commission. What you are suggesting, convener, is that those issues should be further debated. I would suggest that we need to see the outturns more clearly and the impact of tax devolution before considering what might be discussed in the review. I think that we have a few more years to go before we see that. We are in very early days of it. I am the first to recognise that the powers that the Scottish Government has in terms of the overall economy are there for us to use, but that might not necessarily help in dealing with that age-related problem. It is that specific issue that I was trying to address. You mentioned migration. Of course, the report from the Migration Advisory Committee was very clear in not recommending a separate migration policy for Scotland. Indeed, that was also confirmed by the director of the CBI who suggested that that would not be helpful from the perspective of Scottish business. I would argue for that, but I was not making that point. The point that I am trying to make is that the current system looks at the overall population base. It does not disaggregate down to the age issue. That is specifically the issue that I am asking the Treasury to look at. I am not getting anywhere with that one, either. Murdoch. There is time to have a separate issue. The Scottish Government in its budget for the current year changed a number of the tax bans and tax rates. One of the impacts of that was that the basic rate of tax now applies over a narrower range of incomes compared to the UK basic rate. There were some consequences from that in relation to access to allowances such as the married couples allowance and the question of certain tax reliefs, including pensions tax relief. I know that Treasury has worked to make adjustments at a UK level to ensure that there is no detriment or additional benefit to Scottish taxpayers as a result of Scottish Government decisions on the budget. If you are aware, have all those issues now been resolved as far as you are aware arising from the current year's budget? I believe that they have. Yes, I believe that they have. I have been legislated for. Projecting ahead if the Scottish Government in a future budget was going to make similar changes that might affect allowances, would the Treasury be similarly minded to be helpful in making further adjustments? The Treasury always likes to be helpful, but I cannot make any promises, and we have to look at the overall budgetary implications of that. I am conscious of the time, Chief Secretary, and I am very grateful for you coming along to answer some of the questions in the fiscal framework this morning. I now close this meeting of the Finance and Constitution Committee.