Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am new to this, but from listening to what has been said and in response to your point that we started off with a more unified situation, I suppose that the implication is that we are about to become less unified or experience more divergence. It seems a bit absurd to have started off in a single market and to now be moving to what appears, even in name, to be the more insular approach of an internal market. If it was a single market previously, surely the benefits were there in the first place. Do we need bureaucratic superstructures to regulate or monitor a situation where we previously had a single market? It seems odd that we would have to do that.

On that and in an attempt to be helpful, you have mentioned meaningful data, so one way that you could build that—whether you do that by your own hand or whether others do it—is through an examination of public bodies’ approved lists of contractors. It is probably easier to gain that information from them than from elsewhere. The purpose of that would be to say that, in a perfect market where innovation and efficiency are rewarded, we would see huge numbers of Scottish companies servicing Welsh local authorities or English companies servicing Northern Ireland authorities. That might give you a better indication, especially over time, of whether the internal market is working more efficiently. Would it be possible, either through your organisation or the Office for National Statistics, to get that kind of data and to monitor it over time to see whether it improves or otherwise?

I have one last point, which is counter to the point that I just made, but that is the way that I think of these things.

There is also a fairly developed movement—I forget the term for it; it is not quite a circular economy. The north of England area, perhaps Sheffield, does this very effectively: it tries to ensure that the money spent by public bodies is spent in the local area—it is recycled, if you like. I do not know whether that would be termed as divergence, but have you come across that or would you take it into account in the figures?

There has been a movement away from compulsory competitive tendering, decades ago, to best value and, in the past 10 years, a more liberal regime. For example, local authorities could place a contract with somebody who was not giving them the cheapest price because there would be wider benefits from placing the contract with them. I suppose that that works against the idea of an internal market, but I just wonder whether that has appeared on your radar yet.

Good morning. Some of the questions that I was going to ask have been asked by Michelle Thomson and others. However, I will revisit, first, the fiscal framework. From what you have said, deputy first minister, the negotiations—about which, I know, you cannot go into detail—seem to be in the undergrowth and on the detail of the framework.

I wonder whether there are more fundamental issues. My view is that the fiscal framework has failed over time. Michelle Thomson talked about its impenetrability: people cannot possibly understand it. It is a bit like the UK tax code in that it is so complex. That cannot be good for transparency and accountability. Is that being looked at?

Secondly, the very basis of the framework, whereby expenditure in England is decided and then—literally consequentially—Scotland gets a share of that, seems to me to be totally counterintuitive to what devolution is meant to be about, which is recognising the differences in different parts of the UK.

Are those more fundamental issues being examined, or is the review really only about how the detail of the framework is working?

Thanks for that. However, there is obviously a relationship between private and public sector wage growth and the economy.

My final question goes back to the point that Michelle Thomson raised in relation to the 14 per cent cut in the capital budget that we will see by 2028. I have been a critic of the £2.5 trillion of debt that the UK Government has accumulated, but most economists agree that debt that is incurred as part of capital expenditure is beneficial for an economy. That being the case—you may have answered this when responding to Michelle Thomson’s point—is an argument being put to the UK Government that the current capital constraints are not serving the UK and certainly not Scotland? Beyond making the general point to it about how damaging an austerity budget is, on the capital side, is there any sign that the UK Government would be willing to move on that?

I will make a brief last point in relation to that. As I am sure that you will remember, in the 2010 to 2018 period, it was not unusual for the UK Government to announce sudden expansions of capital finance. We used to have to find shovel-ready projects. However, that seems to have fallen away. Do you not expect there to be any movement in relation to that?

That is, in some senses, disappointing, but I would hope for something even within the constraints of a technical-led review. It used to be said that the grant-aided expenditure formula for local authorities in Scotland was understood by two people. I think that half that number understand the fiscal framework, and it would be good to see that expanded, if possible.

On the general area of tax and resources, you mentioned a generally improving tax position. Research was published last night showing that there has been a 79 per cent increase in council tax in England, whereas in Scotland we are on average at about £300 or £400 less than what is paid in England, so we have a pretty competitive position across the tax take. Have you done any analysis on whether the generally higher public sector wages in Scotland are driving that increase in tax revenues? We have also had generally lower unemployment in Scotland, certainly over the past year or so. I realise that some of that is quite recent, although, again, evidence that has just been published shows, I think, that the increase in wage growth in Scotland was 8.4 per cent as opposed to 7.1 per cent in England and Wales. Is that driving the increased tax take?

I recognise the pressures that you have mentioned. I live in an area that, like Ayrshire, has three local authorities, although it is probably not as big a land area as the Ayrshires. It has only one general hospital, which was built around 15 years ago.

I do not want to put words into your mouth but, in the areas where you said that you think that a more national role might be beneficial, to what extent do you think that health boards as they are currently constructed help or hinder the taking of such an approach, where it might be more appropriate and beneficial for the service? I realise that that is a difficult question to answer.

To be honest, I cannot say that I have seen any evidence in my own bills so far of a reduction in energy costs. That is the important point. What people have to spend will have an impact on inflation.

I will take two or three points together. Michelle Thomson made a point about a 14 per cent reduction in capital funding over the next few years. Somewhere in your report, you said that living standards are projected to take one of the biggest hits that we have ever seen, and the revenue side will see a pretty small increase in the next few years. You have been asked a number of questions about comparative inflation and taxes. This could be described as a period of austerity. I am not asking you to do this, but has any comparison been done following austerity policies? Such policies are odd, given that the national debt has ballooned to £2.5 trillion. Are austerity policies working for the ends that were set out, or are other countries following a different path that is more productive? Have any comparative studies been done on that?

Do you have any data on Scotland’s relative performance on FDI compared to that in the rest of the UK, excluding London?

Also—this betrays the fact that I have not been involved in these discussions previously—I want to get my head around the discussion on the reconciliation of £700 million. Earlier, you said that that is basically down to timing in forecasting. As best as I can tell—you can tell me if I am wrong—it is not down to any decision or financial act of the Scottish Government. Obviously, that will follow on from the forecasting but, initially, it is a forecasting situation.

The idea of any consistency in when you can do your forecast seems to be undermined by budgets changing every year or not taking place when expected. It is not like it used to be in the 1980s, 1990s or even 2000s, when you knew when the budget or autumn statement would happen. It has been all over the place in the past years. It would be interesting to know to what extent the Scottish Government is responsible for that adjustment of £700 million.