Scotland Act 2012
I welcome Alistair Brown and Sean Neil from the Scottish Government and invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.
Thank you, convener. I welcome this opportunity to discuss with the committee the progress that has been made by the Scottish Government on the arrangements for the implementation of the new financial powers under the Scotland Act 2012. I am also here to discuss a further agenda item with the committee, on a legislative consent memorandum.
I would like to make three points at the outset of the discussions on the implementation of the new financial powers. First, the additional responsibilities under the Scotland Act 2012 will be taken forward as part of our approach to demonstrate financial competence and effective delivery in all that the Government undertakes. We recognise that the act has delivered additional responsibilities for the Parliament; of course, the Government believes that more could have been achieved through the act, but our approach will be to use the new devolved tax powers not only as a way of managing the public finances, but to ensure that they help to deliver sustainable economic growth.
That thinking has been implicit in the early publication—before the summer recess—of consultation documents on the land and buildings transaction tax. We will look to innovative ways to shape, deliver and collect the new taxes. A wide range of stakeholders can help us with that. Active preparation and planning are essential to ensure that we can deliver, utilise and maximise the benefits of the new financial powers when they begin to come into force from April 2015.
My second point is that the Scottish Parliament will have a key role to play in oversight and assurance as we develop our approach to delivering the new financial powers. I stress at the outset my enthusiasm and anxiety to ensure that we engage properly with Parliament and the committee about the way in which the Government can fulfil the commitments that we have made on the implementation of the new responsibilities. For example, in the exchange of letters between Mr Crawford and the Secretary of State for Scotland, we made clear the importance that we attach to consent and to parliamentary scrutiny of the approaches many of the implementation arrangements to do with the financial powers under the Scotland Act 2012.
It is important at the outset that the committee and Parliament are fully involved in setting out their expectations on how they wish to be involved in that process, so that the Government can fulfil the commitments that we made in our exchange of correspondence with the secretary of state and our commitments to Parliament. Those expectations need to be established in a number of areas. There need to be sufficient levels of assurance regarding the arrangements that have been put in place and the operation of the budget-setting process, which it is clear will be different. We must have full sight of the interests and perspectives of the committee and of Parliament on the development of the policy approach to the implementation of any of the new tax arrangements. HM Revenue and Customs will also be involved in that process, although that is separate from the areas for which I carry responsibility to the committee.
Thirdly, I reassure the committee that good progress has been made on the implementation of the provisions in the Scotland Act 2012. As the committee will be aware, the Government has published its consultation paper on the land and buildings transaction tax. The consultation closed on 30 August. The consultation responses are being assessed, and they will influence the shape of the bill that the Government introduces—which it will do, as the First Minister confirmed yesterday, during this parliamentary year.
We will consult on a landfill tax in the autumn—that document will be published relatively shortly. We will, of course, engage fully on the surrounding issues. Before the summer recess, I set out to Parliament a clear perspective on our approach to establishing revenue Scotland as a distinct tax administration function for assessing and collecting both the devolved taxes in Scotland. We are determined to ensure that those operations are progressed in an efficient and effective fashion.
I hope that today’s session marks the start of an extensive and constructive dialogue that will help us as we move forward with the implementation of the Scotland Act 2012. We must use the powers and opportunities that have been presented to reinforce Scotland’s reputation for effective service delivery and financial management. I look forward to working with the committee to provide Parliament and the committee with the necessary assurance on the implementation and management of the functions in question, which I look forward to discussing with the committee.
Thank you very much, cabinet secretary.
I should apologise to Iain Gray, the convener of the Public Audit Committee, who will also participate in this morning’s session. I am sorry for forgetting to mention you before we commenced, Iain.
As members are aware, we will be the lead committee on the land and buildings transaction tax bill, the landfill tax bill and the tax management bill, so we will be very much involved with the cabinet secretary in terms of taking this area forward.
On 30 August, you wrote to me about the establishment of revenue Scotland. Could you talk about that process, for the benefit of the committee?
You will recall that, before the summer recess, I made a statement to Parliament that set out my intention to establish revenue Scotland as a distinct tax administration and collection facility for the landfill tax and the land and buildings transaction tax.
Essentially, I see revenue Scotland operating in consort with established bodies that are already involved in the collection of some elements of the tax arrangements in those areas of policy. For example, Registers of Scotland is already a part-participant in the collection of stamp duty and, therefore, the role that I envisage for revenue Scotland will be to complete that process and fully collect the revised land and buildings transaction tax that the Government will introduce. That will enable us, within the confines of Registers of Scotland, to establish the basis for collecting that particular taxation.
Similarly, on landfill tax, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is involved in a significant amount of collection of payments from organisations that have some liability for environmental charges, if I may use that terminology. Therefore, extending its scope to take in the responsibilities around the landfill tax appears to be a sensible and efficient way to proceed.
The concept of revenue Scotland is to provide an overarching umbrella above that in order to bring together all those functions in a coherent and cohesive way. I see that as the efficient way to proceed for two reasons. First, there is already part involvement by those organisations in the process of tax collection and, secondly, the comparative cost estimates that I have worked on based on this approach versus a maintenance of the status quo option—if I may call it that—involving HMRC show that the proposed option is cheaper over the forthcoming years.
We have now appointed the first director of revenue Scotland, Eleanor Emberson, who is currently the chief executive of the Scottish Court Service. She has established a strong reputation for financial efficiency and effectiveness. She will join the Government in that role on 1 October, but she will also assume wider responsibilities as director of financial strategy in the Scottish Government in the early part of the new year, when the existing occupant of that post retires. There will be a handover period, in that respect.
You mentioned costs. You will be aware that, in written evidence to the committee, HMRC stated that the
“cost of implementing the Scottish rate of income tax is estimated at £45 million with an annual operating cost of about £4.2m”.
I know that the Scottish Government hoped that those costs could be shared but HMRC and the United Kingdom Government are of the view that the Scottish Government should bear all of those costs. Do you have any further indication of what the costs would be? Are those figures accurate? Will there be significant savings as a result of the changes to the administration of stamp duty and landfill tax that you touched on?
10:15
Your last point was about any financial benefit from the termination of stamp duty and landfill tax on a United Kingdom basis. If there is an administrative saving, the secretary of state has confirmed that that would, in essence, be netted off in relation to the cost of introducing the Scottish rate of income tax. At this stage we do not have any further information on that that I could share with the committee, but the point of principle is welcome, in relation to the offsetting of costs.
With regard to the Scottish rate of income tax—I stress that that is a separate issue to the questions around revenue Scotland, and the administration and organisation of the Scottish rate of income tax will continue to be exercised by HMRC—development work has been undertaken by my officials with HMRC and the Treasury on the memorandum of understanding to take forward the implementation arrangements. However, I do not have any revised cost estimates beyond those that were in the command paper that was published by Her Majesty’s Government. I will, of course, update the committee when there is any further detail on that point. I will be happy to do that.
There is also the issue of additional devolved taxes as we go forward. I know that the Scottish Government is keen on the devolution of corporation tax and air passenger duty. Is the Scottish Government pursuing or considering the devolution of any other taxes, assuming that we retain the devolution settlement?
As you know, we have discussed with the UK Government a range of points in connection with the Scotland Act 2012 and we pressed for the devolution of a number of areas of taxation responsibility, a couple of which you mentioned. We also pressed on the question of adding corporation tax into the bargain and on issues regarding the Crown estate. The UK Government made clear its unwillingness to devolve those responsibilities. Perhaps it did not make it explicitly clear that it was not prepared to do so, but implicitly it made it clear by closing down issues of consideration around the act. The questions on further tax devolution are somewhat embedded in the debate around the referendum, which will, of course, take place in 2014.
Thank you.
I am aware that we are tight for time today, because we have three evidence sessions and 10 items on our agenda. Therefore, rather than do my usual and hog the limelight, I will open out the questioning to members of the committee.
Welcome to the committee, cabinet secretary. I would like to ask questions on two areas, the first of which is the Holtham model. Do you have any concerns about how the Holtham model will work and are you satisfied that it will protect the Scottish Government’s budget from undue volatility in tax revenues?
The second area regards some of the principles that were set out by the Joint Exchequer Committee regarding predictability. Given the uncertainty about exactly how much income tax is raised in Scotland, and the fact that the forecast methodology that will be deployed will evolve over time, do you have any concerns that you may have a risk of difficulty in predicting income tax receipts? You have to announce by December what the Scottish Government intends the SRIT to be, yet the UK Government may make changes to tax thresholds in its budget in March, and you have no advance knowledge of that.
A number of points arise. At the very outset of discussion of the Holtham methodology, I should pay tribute to my colleagues in Wales who have helpfully contributed it to the wider debate. It is appropriate that my colleague and counterpart, the Minister for Finance in Wales, is here to hear me say that.
The Holtham methodology is a welcome change from the provision that was implicit in the Calman recommendations. The Government was concerned about the disadvantages that would emerge from the block grant adjustment mechanisms in the Calman methodology, which we considered would be damaging to Scotland’s public finances. Essentially—to put a complex piece of financial architecture in a slightly more straightforward context—the Holtham methodology links the Scottish tax base with the performance of the Scottish economy, which is a welcome and appropriate connection.
The Holtham methodology does not, of course, remove the potential for volatility; we accept that that is an implicit part of the Scottish rate of income tax. In areas in which we exercise greater financial control over revenue-raising activity, it is necessary to manage any volatility. That is why I argue—unsurprisingly—for a full range of taxation powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which would enable us to manage the differences between and changes in different elements of taxation.
In dealing with any potential volatility around the Scottish rate of income tax, the Scotland Act 2012 provides for the establishment of a cash reserve to balance out some of the fluctuations that may exist in year-to-year taxation arrangements. That is one tool that can be used. However, to answer the point at the heart of Mr Wheelhouse’s question, we want to be in a position to manage the ebbs and flows in taxation that happen from day to day, month to month or year to year, such as the Treasury experienced with regard to tax collection in July. Having a broad range of tax powers at the Administration’s disposal would be an effective way to take that forward.
We will have to strengthen some of the work that we have undertaken—or rather, develop new activities—in relation to forecasting, because we must be very confident about that with regard to the judgments that have to be made in setting expectations around the Scottish rate of income tax and the wider budget-setting process.
Thank you for that. I will restrict myself to one supplementary question, because I know that other members want to come in.
On forecasting, the Government expenditure and revenue Scotland figures are the best data that are currently available to us. We have discussed with Robert Chote from the Office for Budget Responsibility its forecasting methodology, what the OBR does with the UK Government’s tax receipts and how it might evolve forecasts for the Scottish Government. First, can steps be taken to beef up the resource that is available in the OBR, or outwith it but supporting its work, to ensure that there are sufficiently robust forecasts for Scotland?
Secondly, some of the data that you rely on to make those judgments are to do with gross domestic product and other measures of economic performance, but publication of the data for Scotland tends to lag behind that for the UK. Can we take any steps, either in Scotland or through the Office for National Statistics, to speed up production of those data so that we have them more or less in real time, or at least on the same timescale as the UK Government has its data?
I appreciate that Mr Wheelhouse knows that I have no operational jurisdiction over the OBR. However, given its responsibilities and constitution, the OBR must be able, if it is given a role in this whole process, to carry out an element of forecasting and estimating, and it must be satisfied that it has the capability and effectiveness to do that effectively for Scotland.
Given the importance that is attached to those estimates, I would expect the OBR to indicate clearly if it felt that it did not have sufficient resources or information or the appropriate quality of data to enable it to provide quality advice to the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments. The independent nature of the OBR makes that an absolute requirement. That is a key point that the OBR must address.
On the second point, which was about statistics and the evidence base, we seek at all times to strengthen the statistical base in Scotland. The committee has had discussions with the chief statistician on some of those issues. The chief statistician is keen for us to advance on many of those questions as effectively as possible. At present, I do not feel that the information base is a significant constraint on the activities that we undertake, but that is clearly a conditional view. As we go through the process of working out detail on the Scottish rate of income tax and all that is associated with it, I will want to be satisfied that the quality of data that is available to us in those new areas of activity is sufficiently robust to enable me to provide assurance to Parliament on those questions. That is an important caveat that I insert into the process at this time.
Do you have any concerns that, since the establishment of the OBR, it has consistently overestimated UK growth rates? Are you concerned about the possible effect on Scotland if that continues?
The OBR has not been alone in overestimating in growth forecasts. To put the issue into context, I note that growth forecasts have been higher than the reality, which is a relationship that certainly gives me cause to think twice about some of the assumptions that the UK Government has made on the public finances. Clearly, an element of forecasting will now be involved in a major part of Scotland’s public finances. The caveat that I put into my answer to Mr Wheelhouse a moment ago was that we have to be attentive to that detail to ensure that it properly reflects the impact that any errors that might emerge in forecasting of revenues could have on Scotland’s public finances, which would be more significant after the implementation of the Scotland Act 2012 than it would be today.
I understand your point that the OBR is not the only one that has overestimated, but the day after we took evidence from the OBR, I met senior executives from the Royal Bank of Scotland and found that, whereas the OBR had said that growth this year would be 0.8 per cent, those executives said that it would be 0.2 per cent, although even that now seems wildly optimistic. There seems to be a slight bias in favour of overoptimism in the OBR. We must be somewhat cautious about that as we proceed.
The OBR is a relatively new concept—it is about 18 months old. We need to assess the effectiveness of the estimations that are undertaken. One point that the committee could helpfully consider is the extent to which the dialogue on how we provide assurance to the committee and Parliament on the implementation of the Scotland Act 2012 could be influenced by a broader understanding of a range of estimates on some of the points of detail. That would enable a broadly based view to be taken as we arrive at those important decisions. It is clearly a matter for the committee to decide how it wishes to take forward those points.
My question is not dissimilar to the previous ones, although it is more about the practical aspects of the relationship between revenue Scotland and HMRC. I am sure that you are at great pains to avoid ever getting into a dispute with any Whitehall department, but that might happen—government happens that way sometimes, and there are disputes and disagreements. You might want a cogent and cohesive relationship, but things might not always function in that way, given the volatility and practicalities. Do you envisage any areas in which disputes might happen? Is an agreement in place on dispute resolution? Where is the backstop and who decides if you cannot agree on collection and administration?
10:30
I suspect that Mr McMahon’s question gets to the nub of sensitivities in all of us. It is not just about revenue Scotland and HMRC; such issues are played out in the correspondence between Bruce Crawford and the secretary of state about how we reach agreement, and it might be best if I answer the question in that context.
The Government was able to arrive at an agreement with the UK Government on the implementation of the Scotland Act because it was accepted that our approach would be consistent with the principles of the statement of funding policy, which was helpful. I remind the committee that the principles are broad and cover accountability, autonomy, transparency, economic efficiency, stability and predictability, discipline and, crucially, consent. On consent, the principle is:
“the system commands the support of governments, parliaments and people and is equitable and predictable in operation.”
Let me labour the point about consent. The importance of reaching joint agreement is the essence of the correspondence between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. If there is a sense that something has been—let me put it in this way—done to us, that will not create an environment that is conducive to agreement. Therefore, making the process consistent with the principles, going through the good practice of evidence gathering and respecting the Parliament’s decisions and influence are important elements in the formulation of agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government.
I do not think that it will come as a great revelation to Mr McMahon if I say that most issues come down to money. Ultimately, the block grant adjustment mechanism will be a key feature in how issues are resolved and agreement is reached. The committee might want to spend time considering how the mechanism will operate, to inform the debate and influence the Scottish Government in relation to what we take to discussions with the UK Government—that is just a suggestion, but such work would certainly help me in the context of my duty to give assurances to the Parliament. If I know what the Parliament is looking for, I will have a better sense of what I might achieve in negotiations with the UK Government.
We discussed with the UK Government how we might construct a process that would enable us to reach agreement. I readily accept that there is a fair question to be asked about what happens if we cannot get agreement, and I suppose that my answer is that well-established dispute resolution mechanisms operate in the interplay between the Scottish Government—and all the devolved Administrations—and the UK Government. We have tested the mechanisms on one occasion, and there was a satisfactory conclusion.
Work is being done at official level to develop a memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and HMRC—by extension, that involves the UK Government—about how we undertake much of the detailed operational work. That will help, by providing further processes to assist us if necessary.
Thank you. I wanted to ascertain whether work remains to be done and there is scope for us to look at the issue. Your suggestion is helpful.
The committee will tell me when it thinks that I should mind my own business, but I have been giving some thought to how I fulfil my duty to assure the Parliament about the nature of the agreement that we have reached with the UK Government. The more that I can have a strong sense of what Parliament expects of ministers in that process long before we get involved in that discussion, the better, as that enables me to fulfil my duty to Parliament.
That is helpful.
There was a very positive reaction when you set out the principles of the Scottish tax system, because although we are introducing only two relatively small new Scottish taxes, they are the first ones and, I presume, set a precedent for the way ahead. To what extent can we do things a little bit differently? In particular, can we introduce simplicity and enable people to understand taxes better? The Westminster system has been widely criticised for being so complex. The UK Government brings in rules and there is avoidance, so it introduces more rules and there is more avoidance. Can we avoid going down that route?
Mr Mason made an important point at the outset. We should have a clear sense of the scope of what we can do. We can, if we so choose, change the character of two tax provisions: the land and buildings transaction tax, which is a replacement for stamp duty, and the landfill tax. In my statement back in June, I set out the principles that we would apply to that activity: the taxes would be proportionate to the ability to pay; there would certainty for the taxpayer; there would be convenient and easy payment; and there would be efficiency. Those four points of principle essentially emerged from the thinking of Adam Smith. I have tried to apply them in relation to the land and buildings transaction tax and I will do exactly the same in relation to the landfill tax.
Mr Mason characterised the reaction to my statement fairly. The response from a range of stakeholders to the nature of our proposals—to move away from a slab tax to a more progressive tax, which essentially fulfils our commitment to the tax being proportionate to the ability to pay—has been broadly positive. My guidance to officials is that we should aim to use every opportunity to simplify the process. That has to be an advantage of having control over these responsibilities.
We can do more by linking Registers of Scotland to the collection and administration of the land and buildings transaction tax, and by linking SEPA to the landfill tax. Those organisations are already in that space, so linking those tax provisions to their wider responsibilities and competencies strikes me as a way of making it easier for consumers to relate to those tax provisions. We will take that principle forward as part of the discussion.
I am keen to involve, and we have involved over the summer, a range of professional organisations, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants—an organisation of which Mr Mason may even be a member; I shall clarify his declaration of interests on his behalf—
I declare an interest.
We also involved the Law Society of Scotland and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. Those organisations have provided helpful input into how the aspirations that Mr Mason mentions would assist in the process.
The introduction of the new financial powers will require some changes to the Scottish budget process, which will be agreed with the committee in due course. The committee has had preliminary discussions about how the process might change. Bearing it in mind that people are a great deal more interested in budgets when that involves what they pay in taxes as well as how the money is spent, have you had any thoughts about how the budget process in the Scottish Parliament might change as a result of the new powers?
If I may issue a caveat to my remarks, I am in Parliament’s hands on that point. My officials are willing to work constructively with the committee, its clerks and its adviser to test out ways in which the budget process can be revised to take account of the responsibilities that we will have. The key consideration is that we must be able to synchronise all the input information—if I can call it that—about the revenue that we expect when we set the budget.
I will give a parallel with the current situation. When I set an annual budget, I declare my expectation of non-domestic rates income and then have to guarantee it. That declaration is important because it forms part of the overall financial envelope that the Government distributes to the range of different public services that it can support.
It is important that whatever other inputs of income come into the budget process be synchronised to ensure that a complete picture is set out for the Parliament and that we can have confidence in the estimates that are made on the provisions that emerge as a consequence of the detailed budget.
It strikes me that a key part of what we need to ensure is that, at the outset of the budget process, the Parliament is given the complete picture of information, as currently happens at the start of the budget process.
My impression is that parliamentary scrutiny of budget provisions is comprehensive at subject committee level and in its summary form, when it comes to the Finance Committee, before we move to consideration in the chamber at stages 1 and 3 of the process. It strikes me that we require not further opportunities for scrutiny—that process is pretty well established—but to ensure that synchronised and complete information is available to the Parliament, despite the fact that, to return to Mr Wheelhouse’s point, there may be questions about the predictability of that information.
I am interested in the landfill tax. I note that the Scottish Government has indicated its intention to replace the landfill tax and that there will be a consultation on that. Is the cabinet secretary willing to share some of his early thinking on that?
My key consideration is that the landfill tax must effectively and implicitly support the good progress that is being made on encouraging the improvement in recycling in Scotland as we move towards the zero waste objective. We must establish that link and, ideally, find ways of incentivising further improvements in that practice. It is possible to achieve that, and a wide range of stakeholders in Scotland can help us to think through some of the opportunities that exist to do that.
Before I was elected to Parliament, I served as the chair of an environmental organisation that was in receipt of landfill tax funding. That funding is currently administered by Entrust, which is a UK-wide body. Does the cabinet secretary envisage something similar being replicated in Scotland, or has he not given that matter detailed consideration yet?
That issue is under consideration in the formulation of the consultation document. I recognise the very good work that has been undertaken over a 15-year period on the implications of the landfill communities fund, and we will seek to encourage a continuation of that activity. We have not concluded whether there is a better or more effective way to provide that funding, nor will we do that until after the consultation document has been issued and submissions have been made. I see that as an essential element of the whole approach to delivering the zero waste agenda that the Government is determined to secure.
As might be expected, the Public Audit Committee has begun to take an interest in the audit and accountability arrangements around the new tax powers that we have been discussing—particularly around the rate of Scottish income tax, given that that involves Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is not a body that the Parliament normally has a role in auditing. The Public Audit Committee may have been a little concerned to hear HMRC say in evidence to this committee that, as the Scottish rate will be part of the United Kingdom income tax system, it will be difficult to separate accountability for one aspect of the delivery of the income tax system from accountability for the rest. The Public Audit Committee would take the view that there must be some separation of accountability so that both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament can reassure themselves that the Scottish taxpayer funding that is spent by HMRC in operating the system—[Interruption.]
I am afraid that I must suspend the meeting while the fire alarm sounds.
10:46
Meeting suspended.
10:58
On resuming—
Iain Gray has the floor.
As we have lost so much time, I will cut to the question. Cabinet secretary, you have talked a number of times about the on-going work to develop the memorandum of understanding with HMRC. What progress has been made on, and what are your aspirations for, audit and transparency in the relationship between the National Audit Office, the Scottish Government and this Parliament? What arrangements would you like to ensure transparency in the operation of the Scottish income tax?
11:00
There are a number of points to make in answer to Mr Gray’s question. When I dealt with Mr McMahon’s question, I referred to the secretary of state’s letter, which says that the principles of the approach that will be taken are to be consistent with the principles that are set out in the statement of funding policy. As I said to Mr McMahon, that encompasses a range of factors. However, the principles that are relevant to the points that Mr Gray has raised are those of accountability, transparency and consent. I would want to construct an approach that was consistent with those principles.
The second point is about what we have begun to discuss within the Joint Exchequer Committee. The secretary of state and I supplied this committee with papers and minutes from the JEC’s previous meetings. The minutes of 18 June, which were supplied to this committee just yesterday, show that the JEC noted a number of points, one of which is that
“the accountability of HMRC would be enhanced by the appointment of the additional HMRC accounting officer who would be responsible for the Scottish Rate. The role of this individual in reporting to the Scottish Parliament and its Committees was intended to be directly analogous to the role of HMRC’s principal accounting officer in respect of the UK Parliament and its Committees”.
I think that that is a significant commitment.
My third point is to make the same suggestion to Mr Gray and the Public Audit Committee as I made to this committee, which is that the Public Audit Committee needs to form its expectations of what would be acceptable to it in this process. I will require a certain amount of assurance from HMRC because I will be dependent on it for information, collection capability and a variety of elements of this—[Interruption.]
That fire alert announcement will make a fascinating addition to the Official Report and I look forward to seeing how it ascribes those words.
You should probably have saved that interruption for a more difficult, future committee appearance. [Laughter.]
As Mr Gray correctly said, I have had somebody nudging the fire alarm system in other parts of the building.
To be serious, my final point is the important one, which is that, as finance minister, I will require to be assured about a variety of issues in respect of HMRC’s performance in the collection of the Scottish rate of income tax and all the arrangements that go with that. Equally, the Public Audit Committee and the Finance Committee must be fully and properly assured by those arrangements. I think that we would be well served by developing an approach that is consistent with the points in the statement of funding policy and that ensures that the aspirations of the parliamentary committees are properly taken into account. My approach and that of my officials would be to work closely with the committee in that respect.
That is extremely helpful. Certainly, I will discuss with my committee the suggestion that we might be able to suggest what we think would be acceptable. I just wonder what kind of timescale there is around the negotiation of the memorandum. Obviously, once that is agreed it would be more difficult to make an input.
Work is continuing on the memorandum of understanding and it has not come to me yet. I am happy at this stage for the committee and its clerks to talk to my officials about the points that have been raised. I am happy to facilitate such discussions. Clearly, as part of the assurance process before I sign off a memorandum of understanding I have to be confident that I am fulfilling my duty to Parliament in the fashion that I spoke to Mr McMahon about earlier and that the Parliament and its committees are going to be broadly comfortable with what I have signed up to. The earlier that we have that dialogue, the better.
That is very helpful—thanks.
Thank you very much. That appears to have exhausted the questions from committee members. I thank the cabinet secretary and his colleagues for coming to the committee. I will not suspend the meeting, but I will allow 45 seconds for a change of witnesses.