Seòmar agus comataidhean

For the record, then, you are saying that if solicitors who lodged cases in 2017 come to you with a request to expedite, because of the time that they have already taken, you will agree to that.

I have just one more question before Christopher Kerr comes in. Does the scenario that you have just described in which a problem is discovered later on have a much greater impact, because recourse for customers or clients has diminished over time?

I have some questions about the backlog, which is a matter that I expect other members will want to come in on, too.

When you previously appeared before the committee and were asked about the backlog and how long it would take to clear, you said:

“three years”

or

“a little bit longer”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 2 March 2022; c 10.]

You will have seen the letter from Mr Keith Robertson in which he has extrapolated some figures and—most critical of all—suggests that some cases lodged in 2017 will take 11 years to complete. First, where is Mr Robertson wrong? Indeed, is he wrong?

Does having other people fill in the form pose any further risks with regard to data?

Good morning to the panel—thank you for attending today. If you can bear with me, I want to return to your “Statement of data needs”, specifically in relation to the child disability payment. In the statement, you note—correctly—that,

“While ... sex and gender are sometimes used interchangeably”,

they actually meet different data needs. You also note, as has been referenced today,

“a long-term trend in child disability ... and a higher prevalence of certain conditions for”

males. Given that you have explained today that small errors can, over time, have quite a big impact, is there not a case—if you had your preference—for data on both sex and gender to be collected specifically for the child disability payment and, where appropriate, in other cases?

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?