Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to ask about the equality form. I am very interested in data accuracy, too, but it seems to me that room for error is almost being built in here. Obviously it is inefficient to have, with the child disability payment, a two-step process in which you have to join data fields. Is that your view, too? Is that why you are stating that, ideally, you would for your data collection needs be looking to have everything on one form?

I understand that. My last wee question is this: given the nature and principle of fiscal transfers, have you looked at equivalent reports from other countries on how they attempt to model them? I am aware that no other countries have entirely similar fiscal transfer processes to Scotland, but have you considered how they attempt to model that scenario in general?

What I am exploring and referencing are your data needs, not Social Security Scotland’s. Given that you have pointed out a prevalence of certain conditions in males, surely the only way in which you can have data accuracy is by requesting and collecting sex and gender data. I am taking particular account of Professor Ulph’s point that there might well be conditions that we are not yet aware of but which we might find occur only in males when we look at their sex and immutable characteristics instead of their gender. After all, we can all foresee a time in which gender is much more fluid. I am therefore asking about your specific data needs rather than what is, as Mr Mason has called it, a hot political topic. If you had your choice among your data needs—and given what you have said about separating them out—would you prefer to have sex and gender data where they are specifically relevant to, say, the greater prevalence of certain conditions?

I also want to talk to you briefly about your fiscal sustainability consultation paper. I can see that you are already making strenuous efforts to get contributions; indeed, I saw your piece on LinkedIn, Professor Roy. As you set out, it is an odd set-up. You comment that Scotland does not have any debt and you are trying to model something that is quite odd to people looking in from the outside within the UK.

You mention that there are a number of risks, such as that the data that is contained in the paper will be taken by either side of a polarised debate and used to prove various things that are not true at all. We have already seen that for “Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland”, which is largely discredited by serious economists such as Professor David Simpson.

What risks do you see? Are you, by attempting to take this approach, laudable though it is, simply embedding those risks? In other words—this is the million-dollar question—how on earth can you project fiscal sustainability on the basis of fiscal transfers in Scotland?

My final question is about capacity, because that also flows into the time element. Have any areas lacked the capacity to do what needed to be done? Has that been an underlying issue, or has it just been the standard issue that there is always too much to be done?

This is my final final question. One of the challenges that any organisation faces is silo working. Are you able to ensure that the learning from the process is cascaded throughout all departments of the Scottish Government? I am willing to bet that we will be in a similar position at some point with a similar project, so is that routinely done?

Thank you for all the information that you have provided thus far. We have covered a lot, even in this short inquiry. As my colleague John Mason pointed out, the question is: to what extent can a financial memorandum truly be accurate? We all recognise the complexity involved.

I want to give you the opportunity to reflect on the process that you have been through. Knowing what you know now, and with the benefit of hindsight, what would you actively choose to do differently? We all recognise that improvements can be made in developing these things—and, indeed, in our scrutiny of them—and I would appreciate hearing your reflections on that.

In general terms, the tension between effective accounting and scrutiny of spend—you allude to that in relation to needing more time—will never go away, because the only accurate estimates are at the end of a project, as we all know. Have you any reflections on finding the right balance on that healthy tension? That is a common problem with such things.

It is heartening to hear about what you have built into the contracts as a protection against the increase in costs.

On labour force issues, cabinet secretary, the engineers in particular are real boots on the ground that have to be deployed. It is not like you can send in a bot. Sometimes, I look at the detailed reporting of each of the programmes. That is the standard function that pulls out issues. However, it would be useful for the committee to have more flavour of where a gap in labour availability is pushing out timescales because I suspect that that issue will continue to run when we consider other sectors. It would be useful if more information about that was made available.

Absolutely. I know that you have raised that matter on a number of occasions.