Seòmar agus comataidhean

You have given us lots of examples of what is illustrated by pragmatic working together, but it is about the specifics for the assessment of a potential conflict of interest. In other words, are you Westminster’s man in the Scottish Government or are you the Scottish Government’s man for Westminster? That is what I am asking, because there has clearly been some potential for conflict of interest.

In that respect, I was surprised when you outlined your three challenges. I was not surprised by the challenges—you talked about Covid, the cost of living and Ukraine—but I was surprised that you did not mention Brexit, for example, because I assume that your organisation faces similar issues to other organisations, such as access to labour and particular types of skill sets. We know from an earlier meeting that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has had to recruit additional resources to specifically reflect the impact of EU laws being enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998. I am thinking of the example of the UK Government taking the Scottish Government to court over not being able to incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Is all that done and dusted? Will there be no future examples like that and no further consideration of Brexit as a priority for the Scottish civil service?

As has been commented, the Scottish Fiscal Commission is a relatively new institution. In that respect, its culture is still forming. However, in Scotland, we have a challenge in that the economic culture is often influenced by the gravitational pull of London, the south-east, the Bank of England and so on.

I was going through your CV and I noticed that you have written a couple of articles in which you reference

“Uncertainty, Irreversibility, and Heterogeneous Investment Dynamics”.

Perhaps that picks up on what Daniel Johnson was talking about earlier. How can you bring your international experience to influence some of the prevailing economic culture that resides in the UK, considering the backdrop of where we have been with the financial crash in 2008 and so on?

I am talking about the general principle. In a report from some years ago, Westminster’s Public Administration Select Committee said that it is “a constitutional fiction” that officials in Edinburgh and London are part of a unified civil service. What general assessment have you made of that?

Thank you. I suspect that we could talk about that for some time yet.

To what extent do you think that, with guidance from you and the rest of the team, we could turn some of the outlook of the Scottish Fiscal Commission into leadership, moving away from the prevailing view of the world in the UK? Do you think that you would be able to influence that?

Good morning, Professor Roy. Thank you for attending today’s meeting. You are well known to us, and you set out in your CV how you can utilise, and how the commission can benefit from, the extensive networks that you have in Scotland and your long hinterland in economic understanding and supporting roles. However, it occurs to me that, although that is a benefit, it could also be a downside in relation to being able to differentiate yourself in a leadership role at this level. What challenges do you see in being able to do that, and how will you address them?

Good morning, everybody.

Thank you for setting out so clearly the accountabilities that you will specifically respond to the committee on. In that respect, I also put on record my surprise that Leslie Evans did not want to appear to talk about her accountabilities, which broadly mirror what you have set out.

My opening question is this: what assessment have you made of the potential for a conflict of interests between the Scottish and Westminster Governments?

You have identified where there are different perspectives and so on, and you have alluded to processes that might sort that out, but my question is about your assessment of the potential for conflicts of interest. Do you have any formal policy for addressing such conflicts? For example, a lawyer will have a clear policy for addressing them. You are telling me how you will manage things, rather than giving me your assessment of the potential for conflicts of interest and your specific policy therein. Do you have one?

Earlier, you talked about Roosevelt and the first 100 days—it is often quoted. In the first 100 days, you have done some things and we have talked about the strategy on external affairs and relentless focus on outcome. As a broad overview, what do you see as the key challenges in your role as permanent secretary? I do not mean in reporting to ministers; I mean organisationally. A fresh perspective is good. What do you see as your key opportunities?

My closing remark is that I am a bit surprised that you have not included more around organisational challenges. Someone brought up silo working, culture, risk appetite, innovation, use of technology and so on. I am conscious of time, but will you briefly tell me whether you will be writing an overarching strategy paper? What you are describing is operational, but I am talking about systemic, organisational change. Many of those challenges are inherent in business organisations and in public sector organisations, particularly the use of artificial intelligence. Do you produce something like that in your role as permanent secretary?

Good morning and thank you very much for attending. I agree that your CV is remarkable; indeed, when I was preparing for today, I wanted to go away and read a lot of your articles, but I simply did not have time.

I have a few questions. What time commitment are you able to give to the role and what challenges do you see to that time commitment?