Seòmar agus comataidhean

Gordon MacDonald alluded to the two-Government situation. I have a quick question. I suspect that Colin Borland and Sara Thiam will have a clear view about this, but to what extent do the people with whom you interact, such as your members—I know that it is different for you, Sara—understand what is going on at a macroeconomic perspective and the levers that reside therein and what is going on at a microeconomic perspective, as well as what is devolved and reserved, the resultant potential impact on policy for business and the potential limitations? I am just looking for a general sense.

No. I mean people with whom you interact. Perhaps it is more a question for Colin Borland. Why do your members need to care, except that it is a salient point when you think about financing for certain types of businesses? We know that, across the UK, the financial sector is still terribly geared to traditional-type businesses. There is a massive gap there, which, legally the Scottish Government cannot address. It can only influence it. I am trying to get a sense of how much your members understand that or whether they care, because it is a salient point.

And what is macroeconomic policy and what is microeconomic policy. The Scottish Government has no control over interest rates or employer national insurance contributions. Consumer prices index inflation has gone up today. The Scottish Government has no control over that. We do not even have a separate Scottish measure for it. That undoubtedly flows into business confidence. I am trying to get a sense of the extent to which that is understood.

I sense that, with some of these open-ended questions, we are still framing the scope of our inquiry. I have a very simple question. We have talked quite a lot about process and procedures and so on, but my question is more fundamental. With the advent of the new deal for business, are you able to say that Government gets business—yes or no?

I am reading that in my head as the Government starting to get business—you can tell me if I am wrong.

Colin, can you come on this as well?

What I am saying is—

I thought that it would be useful to have some colour on that, because, as I have been fond of reminding people, the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s report about getting to net zero makes it clear that the UK Government cannot do that without Scotland and that Scotland cannot do it without the UK Government. Fundamentally, the fiscal framework as it stands is completely inadequate to get us to where we need to be. Therefore, I thought that the response was somewhat perfunctory—you missed the opportunity to set out why you agree with us. Also, if you agree with us, why did you say “Noted” and not “Agreed”?

Thank you. That clears that up.

On a point that Craig Hoy made earlier, I was heartened to see data on back-office costs emerging. To my knowledge, it is the first time that we have had a hard figure for those, so that is good. On the comment that we will implement reporting on internal recruitment and monthly head counts in public bodies, I am surprised that that does not happen already, with monthly reports and management information showing the numbers that we have and the variance. I would have expected to see that as standard. Given that we now have a figure for back-office costs, which is heartening, I wonder how many of these data items we do not have.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Thank you for joining us. I note, just as an observation, that the language in the general report did not feel as though it absolutely cut to the heart of the urgency that the committee feels about the need for really good financial planning in the future. I will highlight one sentence in the Government’s response:

“As part of the planning process, my officials will consider the potential to pilot a ‘zero-based budgeting approach’”.

I would say that

“consider the potential to pilot”

was probably the most egregious phrase. That wording does not exactly set the heather on fire.

I have a few general questions. We have been clear in expressing our concerns about the publication of strategic financial documents, and there is a sentence in the Government’s response that says:

“I am also aware that setting out multi-year spending plans ahead of a Scottish election could restrict the options of a new administration.”

Is that just an excuse for not doing anything? Surely any new Administration would just tear up any plans if it was so minded.

I have another wee point to make. I just want to check the 60 per cent figure for employer NICs, although I appreciate that the numbers are still fluid, as was picked up by the convener earlier. A couple of weeks ago, COSLA was claiming that it had a shortfall of £265 million, with the Scottish Government giving it £144 million. Those figures were quoted a couple of weeks ago, before the recess. Of course, that is only 54 per cent of the costs. I appreciate that there are other factors at play in how the 60 per cent figure is derived.