³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

It was spring of last year when the final agreement with the Scottish Funding Council was reached. There is nothing different at all this year with regard to those discussions with the Scottish Funding Council: it was spring last year and it will be spring this year.

I am happy to schedule that debate, but we need to see the spring budget first. My suggestion is that we consider the matter alongside the medium-term financial strategy, which has that longer-term outlook, but I agree that we need to go beyond that in looking at some of the pressures, such as social security.

I have no issues with scheduling that debate but it needs to be done in a helpful way, which looks beyond the day-to-day debates that we have with one another in the Parliament about spending on this or that area. I would welcome the ability to look beyond some of those day-to-day debates. I am happy to commit to the time for that debate, but let us make sure that we are in full command of all the information that we need and have it in front of us, which will be beyond the spring budget. The offer is to have such a debate around the time of the medium-term financial strategy, if that is helpful.

That is why it is important that we look at the HMRC data. In some ways, we will need to track whether there is behavioural change from year to year. We cannot foresee what effect a tax policy intervention will have in five or 10 years, because the data on behavioural change—if that is what we are talking about—will only emerge as and when it emerges. That is why the HMRC data is important.

There will also be National Records of Scotland data on migration. At the moment, we have positive in-migration of around 7,000 people a year in the working-age population, and we will keep a close eye on whether there is a shift in that. Inevitably, the data is not forward looking because data, by its nature, looks back on what has happened. It is important that we continue to look at the trends. If there is a change in trend that indicates that there is a different direction of travel, we would want to look at that very carefully.

The business community will give its view, as a community. As individuals, I am sure that there are business leaders who believe in progressive taxation—I have no doubt about that, at all. The business community will represent itself in terms of wanting lower taxes for its businesses—I have no doubt about that—and it will make those representations, whether they are about business taxes or VAT.

However, as a Government, we have a judgment to make about how we fund public services. If we reduce taxes for business—or, indeed, income tax—that means that there is less money for public services. That is the balance and those are the decisions that governments have to make, and we have decided to invest in public services through the tax decisions that we have made, whether on income tax or business taxes.

They are users of public services as well, of course, and I think that they recognise the importance of investing in public services.

Yes. I confirmed in a letter to local government a couple of weeks ago that the council tax freeze will be baselined into the settlement.

I go back to the point that, fundamentally, the marginal rate thresholds arise because of the incomplete devolution of tax powers. There are two systems. The powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to vary tax rates have been set for quite some time, but the interaction with the UK Government’s tax position has not been properly resolved. There is a need to do that, but it has to be a two-way street. We are up for having that discussion on how we can take those matters forward, but we have not been able to engage in a way that is helpful or constructive.

You noted the Fraser of Allander Institute’s view on the need for significant increases to the basic and intermediate rates. I do not think that that would be appropriate, given the pressure on household budgets. The solution would be a tax system that is fully devolved to Scotland, so that we can drive out the anomalies that arise.

The marginal rates are a concern and we will continue to pay attention to them. We will look to resolve that issue over the longer term, if we can, but finding the funding to do so and the implications of that in these constrained financial times would be difficult to justify. We recognise that the situation is far from ideal, but resolving it in the short term would not be affordable.

We have allocated more than £307 million to the enterprise agencies in 2024-25. We have been clear that, because of the challenging funding position, we will have to be really clear about what the priorities are, and we will have to be clear that the agencies will need to focus on the things that are absolutely critical. I guess that it comes back—

The biggest reduction is in financial transactions. The capital reduction is about 13 per cent. As I said, a priority is to re-establish the capital element. It is difficult to do that for financial transactions, and it is more difficult now that we have a further reduction in financial transactions to manage in 2024-25. That affects areas that have been a priority for the committee—the SNIB and the affordable housing supply programme. Reductions in FTs are absolutely the worst thing that could happen.

I will carefully examine the position after 6 March. We have called for additional capital. If you translate the percentage reduction into cash, you will see that it is £1.6 billion less to spend by 2027-28, which is about £540 million a year. That is a lot of investment in affordable housing, health infrastructure and anything else. It is a lot to absorb, so we need the position to be reversed.

We will also consider our position once we get to the end of this financial year, and we will look at our borrowing position. We need to look at all that in the round. I will want to come back to Parliament in the light of all that and consider whether any of the positions can be changed in-year.

You have to decide whether you are saying that you want more money or not; you cannot just describe a problem.