 time to spend with their patients. Surely that is something all of us can agree on. Thank you. That ends topical questions. The next item of business is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on an update on the fiscal framework. The First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement, and there should be therefore no interventions or interruptions. I'll call on Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister, about 10 minutes. I want to take this opportunity to update Parliament on the progress of the negotiations to agree a fiscal framework to accompany the Scotland Bill. Over recent days, we have continued to work with the UK Government to secure a fair deal. I am determined that this work should continue for as long as necessary to secure agreements, subject of course to the views of the Devolution Further Powers Committee and Parliament as a whole. The Deputy First Minister updated the Devolution Committee this morning, and he will update the Finance Committee tomorrow. It has always been our intention to allow Parliament adequate time to consider and scrutinise any agreement. In the continued absence of such an agreement, I think that it is right that I explain to Parliament why our discussions have not yet reached a satisfactory conclusion. As members know, for the new powers contained in the Scotland Bill to be delivered, a fair fiscal framework has to be agreed between the Scottish and UK Governments. That framework will determine how the powers proposed by the Smith commission can be used and so it is as important, if not more so, than the Scotland Bill itself. In setting out the current position on the fiscal framework, I want to remind Parliament of the key principles set out by the Smith commission. The Smith commission said that the Barnett formula should continue to determine the size of the block grant. That is the benchmark against which all the proposals for the block grant adjustment should be assessed. Crucially, Lord Smith set out his interpretation of the principle of no detriment, that Scotland's budget should be no larger or smaller simply as a result of devolution. That means, in my view, that if tax policy and economic performance in Scotland remain the same as in the rest of the UK, then the Scottish budget should be no better or worse off than it would have been under the Barnett formula had tax powers not been devolved. Equally, the rest of the UK should be no better or worse off either. That is about the appropriate transfer of risk and responsibility. We have always accepted that if the Scottish Government changes tax policy or if our economic performance diverges from the rest of the UK, then the costs and benefits of that should fall to the Scottish budget. However, if nothing changes, if tax policy remains the same and we match UK economic performance, then our overall budget should not change either. That embodies the Smith principle of economic responsibility. The Scottish Government has engaged constructively in those negotiations. Since March last year, there have been 10 meetings between the Deputy First Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury through the Joint Exchequer Committee. The Deputy First Minister has also discussed the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have also discussed it with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. As a result of all those discussions, I am pleased to advise Parliament that we have now reached or are close to reaching an agreed position on all of the main issues other than the block grant adjustment mechanism. For example, on the financial transfers required to meet implementation and administration costs, we have reached what I think is a fair resolution. On capital and resource borrowing, we have made good progress on ensuring that the Scottish Government will be able to manage tax volatility and economic shocks while also securing additional flexibility to invest in infrastructure. Getting to this point, of course, has required compromise on both sides. However, I believe that we have secured results that are fair to Scotland and to the UK and which reflect the recommendations of the Smith commission. The key issue on which we have not yet reached agreement is the block grant adjustment. The Scottish Government has considered a number of proposals put forward by the UK Government, all of which would deliver detriment to the Scottish budget. The method of adjusting the block grant that the Scottish Government has proposed per capita indexed deduction would deliver no detriment as set out by the Smith commission. Per capita index deduction is predictable, transparent and sustainable. It guarantees the outcome of no detriment regardless of changes in Scotland's population share. It is considered to be the best way of delivering no detriment by distinguished economists such as Professor Anton Muscatelli and by the STUC. It also has the support of many members across this chamber and of the Finance Committee of this Parliament and the Scottish Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. In proposing per capita index deduction, we have listened to concerns from the UK Government about its implications for the second Smith principle, taxpayer fairness. As a result, we amended our proposal to ensure that Scotland would not benefit from any changes to devolved taxes in the rest of the UK. In summary, the proposal that we put forward guarantees no detriment to taxpayers, both in Scotland and in the rest of the UK. However, we remain unable to reach an agreement with the UK Government on the issue. The reason in my view for that is not just that we have a difference of opinion on how to reach an agreed outcome. It is more that we have a difference of opinion about the outcome that we are seeking to achieve. In short, the UK Government does not share our interpretation of the principle of no detriment. Our interpretation of no detriment is, as I have set out, and I think that it shares widespread support across Scotland. The UK Government's view is that, in the years following the transfer of powers, the Scottish budget should bear detriment as a result of relatively slower population growth, even though we are gaining no new powers to influence population growth. On a positive note, the UK Government has now signalled some movement towards our position. The Treasury has now offered to deliver on a transitional basis a no detriment outcome for the period up to 2021-22. That would be achieved by annual adjustments to a Treasury proposed methodology rather than by our preferred method of per capita index deduction. However, given that it would deliver exactly the same outcome as PCID, we would be prepared to accept that as significant and welcome progress. However, the key remaining question is what happens at the end of that five-year period. In my view, that is now the only substantive issue standing in the way of agreement. Both Governments are prepared to agree a review after five years, but we do not yet agree on what the purpose of that review should be. The Scottish Government considers that the review should be to reach agreement on a longer-term block grant adjustment method that delivers results consistent with the Smith commission's recommendations, including the principle of no detriment that I have set out. We have put forward a proposal on this basis and discussions continue. However, so far it has appeared that, as far as the UK Government is concerned, the purpose of the review would be to decide how, not if, but how we move to a position where the Scottish budget starts to bear population-driven detriment. The Treasury has, over the last couple of days, been suggesting that if we cannot reach agreement on how to do that, there would be an automatic default to their preferred comparability model of block grant adjustment without the transitional arrangements that deliver no detriment continuing in place. I am well aware that that all sounds highly technical, and it is technical, but it also has very real implications for Scotland's budget over the medium and longer term. I want to spell out today what those implications would be. If we were to agree the Treasury's preferred approach, then, over the 10 years from the end of the transitional period in 2022, Scotland's budget would be reduced systematically compared to Barnett by a cumulative total of £2.5 billion. That reduction would happen even if Scotland's tax rates and economic performance matched the UK's 100 per cent. None of us know exactly what the world will look like in future. It is no secret that I hope that Scotland will become an independent country in future. However, I could not reach agreement in the full and certain knowledge that, if current constitutional arrangements remain in place, the deal will deliver an on-going substantial and systematic cut to Scotland's budget relative to the Barnett formula after just a single parliamentary term. That would not live up to Smith because it would not protect the Barnett formula, and therefore I think that it would be a clear breach of the vow. The Treasury's approach would instead see the UK Government extract a significant price in return for the powers that Scotland was promised. The only concession that it would be making is that it will give us five years before it starts collecting the payments. The powers that Scotland was promised did not have a price tag attached to them when the vow was made. The vow was made freely and unconditionally. The question remains, will it now be delivered? I continue to hope that it will be. I want these new powers, whether or not we get a deal that I have made clear that I will publish a manifesto that sets out what we would do with those new powers. My Government will continue to work to secure agreement for as long as this Parliament allows us to do so. Indeed, even as we speak, discussions are on-going with the Treasury in an attempt to secure movement and find agreement. However, given that the vow was signed by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister established the Smith commission, I am writing to David Cameron to suggest that, if agreement cannot be reached with the Treasury, he and I should seek to resolve the matter directly between us. Let me be clear. I am prepared to sign up to a deal that includes a transitional arrangement followed by a fair review. First, the review is governed by a shared and continuing commitment to the principles of Smith, including the principle of no detriment that I have set out. Secondly, there is no assumption of a longer-term adoption of a model that delivers population-driven detriment or any suggestion of an automatic default to such a model in the event that no agreement is reached. However, I will not sign up to a systematic cut to Scotland's budget, whether that cut is being applied now or by a pre-judged review in five years time. I can't advise the chamber that, within the last hour, we have received further proposals from the Treasury, which we will now take time to consider. It will be the test that I have set out that we will judge those proposals against and take a reasonable view of them. Presiding Officer, I am grateful for the opportunity to have updated Parliament today. I think that it was appropriate that I did so. I hope that the Scottish Government will have the full support of Parliament in seeking to secure, even at this 11th hour, a deal that is fair to Scotland and that lives up to the promise that was made to the Scottish people. I will now take questions on the issues raised in the First Minister's statement. No, the First Minister will take the questions on the issues raised in her statement, not me. I intend to allow 20 minutes for questions after which we move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question of the First Minister would press a request speak button now. I thank the First Minister for an advanced copy of her speech. We in the Scottish Labour Party support the First Minister fully as she works to secure a good and fair deal for Scotland in these negotiations. That means securing the new powers on top of those already transferred and protecting the Barnett formula. The message should go out from everyone in this chamber today that we stand behind Barnett and for Scotland. There is a month until this Parliament dissolves and the business of government gives way to campaigning. While it is disappointing that we do not have a deal on the fiscal framework, the First Minister makes clear that she wants that deal, a fair deal in line with the principles of Smith, a position that we absolutely support. Will she assure this Parliament that she and her deputy John Swinney will stay at the table however long it takes to secure those powers for Scotland, powers that the majority of people in Scotland want for Scotland? First Minister, I thank Alec Rowley for his questions. I first of all thank him for the support that he has expressed today for the Scottish Government's position. I made it clear in my statement and I make it clear that I want a deal and I am prepared to stay at the table and the Deputy First Minister is prepared to stay at the table for as long as it takes to get a deal. Of course it is up to this Parliament to decide how long it would require to scrutinise such a deal before giving legislative consent to the Scotland Bill prior to dissolution and that is a decision not for me as First Minister, that is a decision for the devolution for the powers committee and of course ultimately for the Parliament as a whole. It should be said and this is an obvious point I am about to make that every day that passes now without a deal is a day less that the Scottish Parliament will have to apply that scrutiny and that is the position that I think everybody will understand. I hope that we can get a deal as I said in my statement and apologies that this was not in the advance copy of the statement but the proposal came in after I circulated that. We have now received some additional proposals from the Treasury, we will consider them, I very much hope that they will move us closer to that deal but as I have said, while I want a deal I am not prepared to sign up to a deal that is unfair to Scotland and does not deliver on the promises made. If I was to sign up to what has been on the table from the Treasury in recent days then frankly the Scottish people should be seriously displeased at that. I will not as First Minister sign up to a deal that systematically cuts Scotland's budget. Ruth Davidson, I thank the First Minister for early sight of her statement. I am encouraged to hear that on capital borrowing financial transfers an agreement has been concluded and it is good to hear the First Minister's confirmation in her statement that both sides are close in agreement on the fiscal framework and an acknowledgement of the movement of the Treasury throughout this process. As I said last week, I wanted both sides to go the extra mile in order to reach an agreement and it seems that we have substantially less distance to travel now. I am sure that the First Minister's proposals in her statement on the question of her view will be considered and I trust and believe that they will be examined without prejudice by the UK Government. Following the update from the Treasury in the last hour, I understand that the Chancellor is hoping to speak to the First Minister directly as soon as possible and I am pleased that that is taking place. Will the First Minister still work to find a compromise with the UK Government on the question of how her review is conducted over the coming hours? I have always been willing to compromise. The Deputy First Minister has compromised in getting us to the position that we are in now. If we get a deal, as I hope we do, and when Parliament begins to scrutinise the deal, the evidence of that compromise on a whole range of issues will be clear. I have also said that I will not compromise on the principle of no detriment. Once we compromise on that principle, we compromise on the delivery of the promise that was made to the Scottish people. That is what I will not compromise on. The willingness of the Scottish Government to compromise has already been clear from the fact that I have signalled that we would accept a transitional arrangement, which is not going to be based on our preferred model, but because it delivers the same outcome as our preferred model, we will compromise on that. However, the principle underpinning the outcome of no detriment to the Scottish budget is the key one, and that is the principle. I do not think that the Scottish people should be prepared to allow me or the Deputy First Minister to compromise on that. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, four out of five parties in Smith, the STUC and almost all respected independent academic experts have argued for the per capita index deduction method as a means of ensuring that Scotland does not face a huge loss of income right from the start. First Minister, I am glad that you have said today that there is progress in the discussions that are on-going, but agreement is still to be achieved and the clock is ticking towards the solution. The Prime Minister might have had other things on his mind of late, but does the First Minister agree with me that it is high time that he got himself fully engaged in the discussions to guarantee that his so-called vow is delivered? I think that Bruce Buffard is right to outline the breadth of support that there is for the Scottish Government's position. Let me say, though, that what has mattered and will continue to matter to the Scottish Government is the outcome that we reach. We have put forward a proposal that we think best delivers that outcome, but it is the outcome rather than the precise root to the outcome that is the most important thing of all. In terms of the Prime Minister, I hope that we can reach agreement with the Treasury and I hope that we can do that sooner rather than later. I spoke to the Prime Minister by telephone a couple of weeks ago. I think that it is entirely understandable that he has been engaged in other matters over the last week or so, but I am very clear that if we do not manage to reach agreement on the key issue of principle with the Treasury, then it will be incumbent on the Prime Minister to step in and with me seek to reach an agreement that delivers the promise that he made. I would simply remind the chamber and the wider public that the promise that we are talking about right now, the vow that we are talking about is not my vow, it is the Prime Minister's vow, and I think that it is incumbent on him to deliver it. I welcome the First Minister's statement and support her and the Deputy First Minister in working to secure the best deal for Scotland. I agree that there can be no compromise on that fundamental principle of no detriment. The First Minister is right to underline the importance of Barnett transfers to the funding of Scottish public services. I ask her what analysis does the Scottish Government have of the value of Barnett to Scottish spending? While we remain in the current constitutional arrangements, it is accepted by all of us that Barnett should continue. That was the basis of the vow that was made. Once we get to a point where we have either a deal or where we do not have a deal in time for the end of this parliamentary session, as the Deputy First Minister has already said, we will publish all of the analysis and all of the correspondence that has underpinned those negotiations. In a sense, let us not get away from the key issue here. Barnett and the continuation of Barnett and the benchmarking of all those proposals against Barnett was the promise that was made. It was the continuation of the Barnett formula that was emblazoned all over the front page of the daily record. Therefore, it is right that we judge proposals against it. Will the First Minister follow by Linda Fabiani? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the First Minister for her advanced sight of her statement. I want the First Minister to stick to the Scottish position. This morning, John Swinney told the committee that there was a fundamental difference. I am not sure what has changed within four hours, where there now seems to be a compromise agreement based on the Treasury model that she disagrees with so fundamentally. It is the point that John Swinney has been making for a number of weeks now. If she says that it makes no difference for five years, then why, if she sticks to the Scottish position, we can enter the uncertainty of the review in five years' time from a strong position, rather than based on the Treasury model? Why is she asking us to abandon the fundamental principle of the model that she has been promoting for the last few weeks? Why is that the case? I have made clear that what I want to deliver is an outcome of no detriment. What is on the table for a transitional period would deliver that outcome. That is significant progress and significant movement from the Treasury. If we are to have a review, it is vital that it is a review that is not prejudiced or prejudiced in advance and that it is not based on an assumption that we then revert in the absence of agreement to a comparability model that would deliver detriment. That is the continuation of that application of principle. That is what will continue to guide the Scottish Government. I hope that the Treasury continues to move towards that position, and we will make our judgment on whether the deal that is on the table is a deal that delivers that fundamental principle of no detriment. First Minister, during the Smith process, there were certain principles that were in fact key. I and others in this chamber can confirm that the principle of no detriment was one of those key principles. Can you confirm, First Minister, that the approach taken by the Scottish Government will continue to reflect reasonableness, fairness and no detriment to Scotland? No detriment is the principle that we have insisted on all along, and it is the principle that we will continue to insist on. No detriment, as I have set out, is not trying to avoid the responsibility of new powers. Under the principle of no detriment that we set out, we would take the responsibility of exercising tax policy and of matching UK economic performance. That is not insignificant, but what we will not do is take on the responsibility over population change that we do not have the powers to determine. The principle of no detriment drives everything that we have done and will continue to drive the position that we take. Mark McDonough full by Jenny Marra. I thank the First Minister for her statement, and while it is encouraging to see progress being made, there is obviously concern that the Treasury seems to view the fiscal framework as a means by which to cut the budget of Scotland in the longer term. Does the First Minister believe that the approach being taken by the Treasury thus far matches the so-called respect agenda that the Prime Minister has so often spoken of? As I said in my statement, a promise was made. It was made freely, it was made unconditionally, it did not have a two or a three or however many billion pounds price tag attached to it, but the approach that has been taken thus far would see in return for the devolution of those powers, the Scottish budget being cut by a significant amount over a period of time. I do not think that that is either showing respect or delivering the promise that was made. We have seen some movement of this so that we are now in a position where that principle of no detriment is being agreed for in a transitional period, but we have to make sure that any review after that transitional period is also based on that important principle of no detriment. Jenny Marra, followed by Alex Salmond. Clearly, this Parliament wants to see a deal as soon as possible. Bruce Crawford referred to dissolution of the fast approaching in his question to the First Minister. Is the First Minister prepared to negotiate on behalf of the Scottish people beyond dissolution if that takes a bit longer? First Minister? Let's concentrate on trying to negotiate to a successful conclusion in advance of dissolution. If we cannot do that, then certainly it will be for the Scottish people to express their view in a democratic election. I am negotiating now in good faith and negotiating in good faith to try to seek an agreement that will allow the powers that were promised. It is no secret. I do not think that the powers that are on the table go as far as they should. I do not think that they go as far as the promise, but they are what are on the table right now. It is absolutely essential that the UK Government lives up to the promise to deliver them. I will focus on trying to secure that agreement before dissolution so that we can get into the position that this Parliament was told that it would be in. Alex Salmond, followed by Rob Gibson. Can I join the Scottish Labour Party in giving full support to the First Minister's position? There are no sides in this, only Scotland's side. The Prime Minister recently secured a pre-referendum commitment from 20 other seven other heads of state around Europe as to what would happen after a European referendum. Hadn't he better hoped that they keep their pledge to him rather better than he thus far has kept his vow to Scotland? That is an important point. The Prime Minister is going to be campaigning over the next few months in a referendum where he is going to ask people to put faith in the commitments that he has made, commitments that were gained by him through the recent negotiations. I do not think that it would be helpful to what he wants to achieve in the forthcoming referendum, which is the same thing that I want to see achieved in the forthcoming referendum, albeit that we have come at it from different perspectives, if people are going to see in this context that his word given freely during a referendum campaign cannot be trusted. First Minister stressed the principles of no detriment. Will the First Minister apply to the multimillion-pound costs of setting up the administration of Scottish welfare powers, which could take several years to work? The Deputy First Minister told the Devolution Committee this morning that the Treasury's best offer on set-up costs for welfare is a figure below the DWP's own estimate for the costs of setting up welfare. Can the First Minister confirm that this is an example of an area where the Scottish Government has been more than reasonable in those negotiations? Yes, I think that that will be borne out as we get into the scrutiny, hopefully of a deal, or indeed the scrutiny of why there isn't a deal. The Smith commission, of course, said that we should be paid a fair share of the cost of setting up the set-up of new responsibilities. We have compromised here, as we have compromised in a whole range of areas in order to get to a deal that we think is fair and reasonable. That fairness and reasonableness approach is the one that we will continue to take. However, what we cannot compromise on are core principles. No detriment is a core principle, and that is why we have put it so central to the entire discussion. Will Parliament be properly able to scrutinise the proposed transitional arrangement in the past few weeks of this session and, following the suggested transitional period, who will be involved in any review? Will this Parliament and wider Scotland be more involved than it has been to date? I want Parliament to have the ability to fully scrutinise all aspects of any deal that is forthcoming. That is why notwithstanding what I have said about being prepared to stay at the table for as long as it takes, I am also very mindful of the fact that every day that we remain at the table is a day less for Parliament to perform that essential scrutiny role. In terms of Alison Johnston's question about who will undertake the review, all of those things are matters that remain under discussion in terms of seeking to ensure that we can get to a principle and an outcome that satisfies the test that I have set out. However, I want this Parliament, and I am absolutely sure that this Parliament wants this Parliament to have adequate time to properly scrutinise the outcome of this negotiation ahead of a vote on a legislative consent motion. The First Minister has previously said that the Scottish Government would put proposals on the table based on per capita index reduction but tweaked to ensure that, if the rest of the UK increased tax rates and spend it on the rest of the UK services, none of that money would come to Scotland. Can the First Minister confirm that that delivers on the second no-detriment principle, sometimes referred to as the taxpayer fairness principle? Yes. The proposal that we put forward originally of per capita index deduction, the UK Government said that that, in their view, would not meet the second Smith principle of taxpayer fairness. We therefore modified that proposal to take account of that. The proposal that we had put forward satisfies both the principle of no-detriment and the principle of taxpayer fairness. Let me repeat that it is the principles that we are seeking to satisfy, and it is the principles that we will continue to seek to achieve in the remainder of the negotiations. Professor Anter and Muscatelli and others have put estimates in the public debate of how much the different methods of indexation would cut Scotland's budget by ranging from £7 billion to around £2.5 billion. Can the First Minister tell the chamber if the UK Government has, at any point, put an option on the table that delivers Smith's proposals of no-detriment or have the only ever put options on the table that would see Scotland's budget being cut? Until recently, all of the proposals that were put forward by the UK Government would have delivered detriment. To be fair to the UK Government, I do not think that it is trying to hide that to any great extent. It is being fairly explicit that it thinks that Scotland's budget should suffer detriment. I am sure that it would not articulate it in this way, but it would suffer detriment because of relatively slower population growth. That has changed in the past few days, where, as I said in my statement, we now have a proposal on the table that would guarantee no-detriment for a transitional period with the potential of a review. However, it is whether we can get an agreement or a review that would continue to ensure that no-detriment would be the guiding or a-guiding principle is one of the issues that we continue to see if we can resolve. Thank you. That ends the statement from the First Minister on the fiscal statement. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 15645. In the name of Christine Grahame on Scotland's national action plan for human rights, I will give a few moments for the chamber to settle.