Seòmar agus comataidhean

Part 5 of our questionnaire asked:

“How effective is current public engagement in the budget process”?

In your submission, you replied:

“The Scottish Fiscal Commission welcomes public engagement in the budget process and is aware of the importance of providing clear material to support this engagement.”

That does not address how effective it is. I do not think that this is the SFC’s fault, by any manner of means, but one of the issues that was touched on in the OECD report was how we can improve the effectiveness of engagement with the budget. Two weeks ago, we talked about fiscal literacy among stakeholders, MSPs and so on, and we will probably talk about it again today.

I wonder whether you could respond to that question, because it is almost as though you have done a wee body swerve. [Laughter.] That is not like you, as you are usually very direct in your responses. That is how I sniffed it out.

We will probably discuss that further in the session on the OECD report, although it is tempting to stray.

I have to say—you touch on this in your submission—that your reports are written in a clear style. I know from your annual report that you provide training on writing clearly. Your reports are not written in any kind of gobbledygook; everything is explained. I know that you have used a few acronyms this morning, but those are always clearly explained in your reports. A layperson who is interested could read them and know exactly what the Scottish Fiscal Commission is all about. You should be commended for that.

I will move on. In your submission, you state:

“The written agreement between the Scottish Government and the Finance and Public Administration Committee sets out how the Scottish Budget document will normally be published no more than three working weeks after the publication of the UK Autumn Budget. However this gap provides very little time for the development of forecasts and the Scottish Government to consider policy decisions.”

What is the optimum period for that gap?

The need for something of that nature is laced throughout your report. For example, on multiyear funding, you said that you

“encourage the Scottish Government to set out multi-year spending plans even when these cross into a new parliament to support planning across the public sector. ”

You also said:

“A regular cycle of UK spending reviews should mean that Block Grant funding is more certain and that the Scottish Government will therefore be in a better position to provide multi-year spending allocations.”

Of course, we have been in a period of volatility for years. How effective would that be in the circumstances?

The committee recommended that consideration be given to civil servants working for the Scottish Government providing long-term insight briefings on the challenges facing Scotland over the next 50 years. In response to the committee’s decision-making report in 2023, you highlighted horizon-scanning work that had already been undertaken in that regard, and you said that you would

“begin publishing reports of longer-term insights in the early autumn of”

2024

“to create a new resource for public bodies and partners in the third and private sector”.

It is unclear whether that has actually happened.

There is quite a difference between summer recess 2025 and autumn 2024—that is nearly a year. In 2023, it was going to be next year, and now it is going to be two years late.

That is one of the things that concerns the committee—the relentless slippage that we see. We are never told, “Oh, we said it was going to be June, but do you know what? We’re actually going to publish it in May.” It is always the other way round—it is always months and months, and sometimes years, behind schedule.

Is that not a bit of a failing, to be honest? A session of the Parliament is only five years, so, if there is a one-year delay, that is 20 per cent of the entire session. It is quite significant. If those documents are important—as you suggest that they are—why has there been a delay of almost a year in their publication?

It seems that that would be more consistent. For example, Douglas Ross came before us last week and he accepted that the financial memorandum for his Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill needed updated. He said that he would come back to us with an updated financial memorandum. It would be good if that was de rigueur, and if it was expected that any financial memorandum would be updated where there was significant change and, perhaps, brought back to the committee as necessary.

What about the civil service itself? We are advised through the latest public sector employment statistics that, since 1999, the number of devolved public sector jobs has increased by 16 per cent but that the number of total jobs in the devolved civil service has increased by 96 per cent. Since quarter 3 of 2019, the number of civil service jobs has increased by 40 per cent and the number of senior grade civil servants has increased by 500. What are all those people actually doing, and why has there been such rapid growth, relative to front-line services, for example? How much is it costing?

If we strip out the areas that you have touched on, such as Social Security Scotland and ScotRail, would the civil service workforce have increased or decreased over the past five years?

It is interesting that, in figure 1 on page 12, you show the SFC’s

“many strengths relative to other”

independent finance institutions

“across the OECD”.

For example, you show that the SFC rates highly for its independence, analytical focus and communications apparatus. However, the one area that it seems to fall down on is its communications impact. You compare the SFC with its equivalent in the Netherlands—the Centraal Planbureau, which

“takes a holistic approach to its communications ... from day one”.

You say that it provides

“communications training one day per week over eight to ten weeks”

on

“formulating clear sentences and ways to visualise material more effectively.”

It is “proactive” and “remarkably open”, and it has “six in-house staff” for communications, which is more than the SFC has.

However, there is an old saying that you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. It is difficult to see how the areas that the SFC covers can be broadened out to what you might call a wider audience. I think that stakeholders are very much aware of the work that the SFC does and respect it. How do you get that into the general population? That seems to be an area where the Netherlands is doing well; I have just mentioned some examples of that. How realistic is it that we can get beyond 5 or 10 per cent of the Scottish population—if I am optimistic—knowing the work of the SFC?

I have done that by talking about what the UK debt is per person as opposed to the figure of some £2.3 trillion, which people do not really comprehend.

On page 14 of your report, you say:

“Even among those identified by the SFC as key stakeholders, just 25% rated themselves as having a great deal of understanding of the Scottish budget.”

That is disconcerting in itself.

You also talk about the fact that members of the Scottish Parliament

“are not regularly immersed in budget scrutiny”

and do not have a high level of fiscal literacy. Although it is understandable for members to be focused on other areas, it is important that they have a high level of fiscal literacy. You suggest that the induction of new members following Scottish Parliament elections should provide insights into the SFC’s role and

“an overview of key issues relating to fiscal sustainability.”