Seòmar agus comataidhean

Three per cent was not very realistic, was it?

On that point, the Fraser of Allander Institute has suggested that you should set out your assumptions and your intent, then present scenario plans. For instance, you have revealed today that, for 2024-25, you set out a 3 per cent assumption. However, you would set out assumptions in scenario plans with regard to where you would take the money from in the rest of your budget, were that to rise to 4 per cent or 5 per cent. That would allow Parliament to scrutinise the budget. Frankly, in your negotiations, it would make it possible to understand the consequences of some of your decisions. That is not my suggestion; it is the Fraser of Allander Institute saying that that would be a different way to approach Scottish budgeting prudently. We have to accept that, at the moment, the budget is not in a very good state, so we want a better process.

Perhaps not.

I have one final question, on a slightly different area. It is on the point about the difference between the sustainable development goals and the national performance framework as a tool to drive performance. The framework, conceptually, is the basis on which we set outcomes and try to measure performance against them, whereas the sustainable development goals are “calls to action”, as they have been described; they essentially have funding pots set against them and positive actions that can be about aligning activity.

In contrast, what you are doing with the framework, in essence, is setting out an organising principle for the civil service, as you described it. I find that the confusion between those two operating models, in terms of the bureaucracy, might actually be part of the problem rather than the solution, because those two things—the sustainable development goals and the national performance framework—are not the same.

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.