Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. Just to get this in the same thread, I want to bring in—

Good morning. I am sorry I cannot be with you all in person.

I want to return to something that Professor de Leeuw alluded to. Rather than talk about the small and medium-sized enterprises—I recognise the comments that have been made by the FSB—I want to draw your attention to the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s “Fiscal Sustainability Perspectives: Climate Change” report of March 2024, which I do not hear talked about often enough. Fundamentally, it made it clear that the need for additional spending in Scotland is estimated to be 26 per cent higher per person than in the rest of the UK. It also made it clear that under the existing fiscal framework, the transfer from the UK Government to the Scottish Government is not set up—particularly in relation to the use of capital—to allow for the persistency that is needed year on year. I put on the record that SFC estimates that an additional £700 million is needed every year. That is in the context of the current Scottish Government budget of £450 million a year, with a further £21 billion in mitigation required over the next 25 years.

We could have a discussion about who spends that money, how it is spent, the role of business and so on, but I want to explore with panel members the extent to which you are aware of that report and those compelling figures, and I would like your thoughts on what a critical oversight it would be not to reflect on the money requirements of any plan coming forward. Perhaps one of the professors would like to come in first on that.

That is very compelling. I do not know whether anybody else on the panel wants to come in, but, if not, I will leave it there, convener.

Professor Turner, I know that you want to come in.

You both make a compelling point about the need to take a multiyear view, which does not happen at all. The reason that I am raising this is that the Scottish and UK Governments are talking about revisiting the fiscal framework. The Finance and Public Administration Committee, of which I am also a member, has made some compelling suggestions about the need for multiyear funding.

I want to give other panel members the opportunity to give further reflections. Richard Woolley, do you have a view on the points that I have made about capital? I cannot see anybody else on the panel just now because I am online.

I can see that Professor Turner wants to come in, but before I bring her in, can I just gently challenge you? I totally agree. Clearly a prioritisation process needs to take place. That is how you make progress on any substantive project, and you do not get more substantive than this. However, the point that I am making is that under the fiscal framework, the fiscal transfers to the Scottish Government are so limited. As things stand, the estimated figures to allow the crowding in of private capital have not been baked in. That is just not being considered as part of the fiscal framework, and that seems to be a fundamental impediment to the prioritisation process that you are setting out. Surely that must be a concern.

In preparation for this meeting I thought, “Oh, I’ll have a wee look at the online offering,” and I was staggered to see that there was no January sale. Is it just me?

I get a general sense from talking to you, and from the fact that you are not able to provide the information, that the shop is still not being looked at as a business. I totally appreciate that it is not a business and that you are working under certain constraints, but I wonder about that kind of thinking, because I would expect any or all of you to be across the numbers at any given time.

I come back to a comment that Daniel Johnson made a few years ago—you may recall it, Jackson—when he talked about looking at this issue from his retail background. I get the sense that we are not even at the starting gates here. Am I wrong or being unfair?

I absolutely agree with your last point, but my point is not about footfall. If you were to focus on an online proposition and were marketing directly to, say, our diaspora in North America and had a proper marketing position, you could absolutely increase turnover.

Anyway, I digress. I want to go back to the office-holders. At some point, this will be a concern for everybody, but when we were considering our report on the commissioners, it became apparent that there was almost an accountability gap between what you are required to do, which is to scrutinise budget propositions, and the Parliament’s overall responsibility with regard to increasing costs.

Earlier, you mentioned that there has been an increase in responsibilities for some office-holders. That happens over here, and then, over there, you look at the implications of that as part of an increased budget request. Do you agree that there is an accountability gap there? It might well be occurring in other areas, too. As we as a committee put together our legacy report, will the SPCB, too, highlight areas where the overall scrutiny and effectiveness of spend should, from your perspective, be revisited?

That is heartening to hear. I will not be here, but it would be interesting to see how the agreement with the Conveners Group is, ultimately, reflected in the cost of office-holders. I hope that there will be people watching that with interest.

I have a couple of questions. First, I, too, thank you for the increased detail in the submission. That has been very helpful, and it would be good to see that continue.

On the topic of the shop, you mentioned a review. What exactly is contained in that review? I would also like to understand your strategic intentions for the shop. We recognise that it is loss making. It is, arguably, a hygiene factor. We have also talked about subcontracting services. However, I am just not clear what your intentions are for the shop. Will you tell me more about the review and what the strategy is?