Seòmar agus comataidhean

You described the tidal waves coming and going, and I understand the tension that is part of that. However, in a report in October last year, Audit Scotland said that the Scottish Government

“cannot afford to pay for public services in their current form.”

In August this year, it said that making

“short-term cuts to balance annual budgets without a long-term plan for reform ... risks storing up even greater problems for our communities.”

Again this year, Fraser of Allander said that

“simply delaying spending without a decision on whether to cancel it or not would simply pile on problems for the future.”

All those external and well-informed organisations do not believe that the Government is making long-term strategic decisions—it is making short-term advantageous decisions.

Should we, therefore, question whether this kind of model is effective at all? It takes a lot of resource to do the things that we are talking about, but you do not seem to be heeding any of those warnings.

Thank you.

I understand that, and you have already touched on negotiating tactics, which have an impact on the dynamics.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission, in its work on the budget, assumed a 4.5 per cent increase, so it did not think that 3 per cent was realistic, either. What is the purpose of a pay policy? It makes up more than half of all public expenditure—your budget and taxpayers’ money—in Scotland, and you used it as the principal reason for the chaos in recent weeks in inflationary pressure and pay rises in your budget. The pay policy has resulted in £500-million worth of direct cuts, and there is the exposure of the ScotWind money, which means potentially £1 billion overall. You have reiterated some of that today. That is the difference between 3 per cent and the 4.5 per cent. You told the Scottish Fiscal Commission that you will provide it with a policy, and it has been reiterated to the committee that it is required to do work on that in its modelling. How is it justifiable not to provide the SFC with the pay policy ahead of time, particularly when it is clearly undercosted?

In Scotland, 22.6 per cent of total employment is in the public sector, in comparison with 17.6 per cent for the UK overall. Obviously, we contribute to that figure, as well. We also have a significantly higher median public sector wage than other parts of the UK have. I understand that, if a pay policy of 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 3 per cent is set, that has a much bigger impact in Scotland than it has in other parts of the UK. However, is it not so important that you tell Parliament the assumptions that you have made for pay in order to allow it to scrutinise your budget?

You have said that you want to include that in the next spending review, but we have to scrutinise the budget for the forthcoming year. When the previous budget was passed, we did not know, and there was a refusal to tell us, what the assumption was. Independent experts, such as the Fraser of Allander Institute, have been critical in particular of the fact that we are making assumptions and of the complete lack of transparency.

Therefore, can you tell us now that you will publicly inform Parliament and the Scottish Fiscal Commission about your assumptions around pay for the next budget year? I ask for clarity, because I think that you have said that already.

You mentioned the fiscal framework, which was meant to be agreed by June 2023. Do you think that we will have a fiscal framework in place in nine weeks’ time?

There seems to be a bit of divergence in the evidence that has been presented to us on the removal of economic growth and productivity from the core purpose of the NPF. I would like to start by hearing some reflections on that, and will perhaps then come back in with other questions on it, if that is okay.

There is a tension between the powers, the capabilities and the long-term stretch targets on eradicating poverty. We have universal agreement about that goal, but I worry that some of the statements undermine the credibility of institutions and lose the public’s trust.

Kids in Scotland are a year behind those in the rest of the UK in mathematics education. Would closing that gap not be a better goal? Would it not be more practical to say that we, as a set of institutions and a group of people, should do that? Would that not help us to achieve the other ends on eradicating poverty? Would it not be more intelligible to the public for us to be clearer about something that is doable and clearly within the Parliament’s responsibilities? Education has been fully devolved for the past 25 years, so there is no good reason why kids in Scotland should be a year behind those in the rest of the UK in maths education, is there?

If I can interrupt, your submission says that it was the Government’s choice to increase spending outwith the block grant allocation by £1 billion in other areas of the budget. That is a choice that the Government has made. You are very critical of the Government in your helpful submission, but now, in evidence, we are hearing that the circumstances are different. You are telling us that there are choices to be made, and that the Government is not making the strategic choices. It has not put any proposals on the table, and we are nine weeks out. Is that not the case?

One of the recurring themes that the committee has heard about over recent months, particularly from the cabinet secretary, has been the challenge of meeting the public sector pay bill. Compared to the rest of the country, a significantly higher proportion of the working public in Scotland works in public services and we have a higher wage level already. Therefore, one of the key issues that the cabinet secretary is grappling with is that a 5 per cent increase on our pay bill is significantly higher than a 5 per cent increase on the pay bill of the rest of the country. I will put this question to all the witnesses: where do you see the trade-offs between pay rises and head count? Teacher numbers has been used as an example. Is that a choice that councils are having to make or that you anticipate that you will have to make?

You have been in post for two and a half years, so this will be your third time in this process. Is that right? Or the second time, perhaps? Let us say the third time.