Seòmar agus comataidhean

When is it ever less than expected?

We have these tinkering discussions between the autumn and spring budget revisions every year because that is a function of having yearly budgets, and I am always struck by the fact that a lot of what we discuss is just for information and we do not get anywhere near looking at the aggregate picture or the real issues. I am thinking about that because of the convener’s opening discussion about reassigning money to the delivery point. My working assumption is that the Scottish Government does that so that it can retain control, because the only way to retain control of a fixed budget is to have reassignment. Is that correct?

I have a gentle challenge. Although there may be a shift in the future, there is still ring-fenced funding for local government so that the Government can ensure that its priorities are met. I may have asked this question last year, but why do you not attribute the same discipline to yourselves in respect of, say, the housing budget—I use that example because of the multi-factor economic benefits, although it may be a bad example because of the issue of capital, which we may get to—by fixing that as n per cent of the overall budget?

The problem with “tinkering”, as I describe it, is that it always involves short-termism. If you do not set aside a certain percentage and say that it will always be spent on something that we know gives economic benefits, you are perpetuating the status quo of tinkering. Notwithstanding that, I fully accept that annual budgets are a function of a fixed budget and the role of the Treasury. However, every year I hear about the constant tinkering of moving budget moneys from pot to pot, which has an insidious impact on long-term strategic planning that is aligned with economic growth.

That risk is not a surprise to me, and I suspect that it is not a surprise to you, either. I am therefore surprised that we are in this position. An assessment of risk—not just a treatment of what funds come back—must surely have been part and parcel of the decision on which budget pot those contributions went into. Is that a matter of catching up with what is still a relatively immature system of Whitehall fiscal transfers? Is there something more?

Ms Johnson, I do not know whether you have any final comments.

You probably heard me express concern about timescales to the earlier panel. I do not know the exact date, but it is proposed that the stage 1 debate on the bill be held in the chamber in December. When we come back in the new year, we will have 12 working weeks—not 11 as I said earlier—in which to deal with a multitude of other legislation. After the stage 1 debate, the bill will come back to the committee for stage 2, before returning to the chamber for stage 3.

First, based on your knowledge and experience to date, how realistic is it that the required work can be completed within that timescale?

Secondly, what must be put in place for that to happen? What would be your top ask to get the bill into the condition that we might like it to be in? I fully accept your comments about the levy not being fair, which is what we have heard from contributors across the board.

Anna Gardiner looked at me first, so you can go first.

And institutional memory, as well.

Peter Proud is absolutely right that there is a discussion is to be had about power. I know that one of my colleagues will come in on that, so I will not steal her thunder, but he was absolutely right to bring it out.

I have a couple of questions about the public sector. You are sitting here as experts, and we are all in the public sector. Somebody referenced some of the work that the Scottish Government is doing, but—and this is an open question—in your opinion, to what extent do the Government and the public sector get AI? I ask that because, historically, particularly in the civil service, the culture is slow, deliberative, thoughtful and reflective. That has worked well in many areas, but to what extent could that prevailing culture, which, as I say, has great strengths, potentially be a weakness when we look at the exponential growth of AI? Sarah Ronald, you nodded, so you need to come in on that first.

You also referenced automation.

I will bring in Peter Proud for a generic sense of where he thinks that AI can add economic value.

Thank you so much for joining us. We have jumped right in with the heavy brogues, to use a Scottish phrase. I will just take things back up a level for the record, given that people will be watching this session and poring over the words that you use.

Sarah Ronald mentioned productivity growth, but that is an outcome, we hope, of using AI. I have a question for all the witnesses. What is your sense, in terms of your businesses, of the areas where you think that AI could add economic value? There is a whole range of areas, but automation and supply chains are examples. I would like to get on the record a sense of that from you before we continue. Sarah, could you go first?