Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much indeed. We have questions to put to you over the course of this morning about many of the issues that you touched on in your opening statement. I want to go back to the report that the Auditor General produced: do you accept its findings, key messages and recommendations?

At the end of the parliamentary session, the Public Audit Committee will devise a legacy report, in which it will leave a series of recommendations, recollections and conclusions on what it thinks the committee in the next session should turn its attention to. Permanent secretary, you are about to step down from your post and move on to another post, with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. If you were to draw up a legacy report for your successor, what would be in it?

My reading of what has been included in the Auditor General’s findings is that he thinks that there should be a strategic shift and a cultural shift. There seems to be a culture of reaction rather than proactivity. Whether that is in the context of the fiscal sustainability part of the report or in the context of the public service reform part of the report, that seems to be a common thread.

I have a further point to make before I invite other committee members to come in. In what I thought was a very informative response to the key messages in the report, the main findings and the recommendations for action, you mentioned that you fully embraced the need for equality and human rights impact assessments of decisions that are made. How do you persuade me that it will be different this time? In exhibit 10, the report before us reflects the fact that, back in August 2019, the Scottish Government produced a set of key questions that decision makers must ask themselves when they are setting budgets:

“1. What outcome is the policy and associated budget decision aiming to achieve?

2. What do you know about existing inequalities of outcome in relation to the budget area?

3. How will your budget decisions impact different people and places?

4. How will your budget decisions contribute to the realisation of human rights?

5. Could the budget be used differently to better address existing inequalities of outcome and advance human rights?

6. How will the impact of budget decisions be evaluated?”

Those are all long-established principles that the Government has set itself, yet the report lays bare the pretty woeful attempt to incorporate equality and human rights impact assessments in any decisions about budgets that are being made.

You have told us that you agree with the recommendation on that aspect and that things will be different, but that seems to be a long way from the experience that we have had so far.

Under agenda item 2, do committee members agree to take our next meeting, on Wednesday 12 March, in private?

Members indicated agreement.

The main item of business on our agenda this morning is further consideration of the report by the Auditor General “Fiscal sustainability and public sector reform in Scotland”. I am pleased to welcome our four witnesses, who join us in the committee room. We are joined by the permanent secretary, John-Paul Marks—good morning, permanent secretary. Alongside the permanent secretary, we have the director general strategy and external affairs, Joe Griffin, and the director general corporate, Lesley Fraser. We are also pleased to welcome back the director general Scottish exchequer, Alyson Stafford.

We have a number of questions to put to you on the report, following the evidence session that we had with the Auditor General before Christmas. However, before we get to those questions, I invite the permanent secretary to make an opening statement.

If you will forgive me for saying so, “Less is more” also applies to some of the answers that we have been getting. We want concise responses to the questions that we have put to you and that we are going to put to you. That there are 33,000 words in the assessments is all very well, but when it comes to decisions that are being made about the delivery of public services, it is not at all clear to us on the evidence that we have taken—not just on the report that is before us but in general—whether there is a granular analysis of the difference that will be made to, for example, groups that are further away from getting access to public services.

We will review the 33,000 words in due course, but I think—

The deputy convener, Jamie Greene, will put some questions to you.

Thank you very much indeed. On that note, permanent secretary, I thank you, Lesley Fraser, Joe Griffin and Alyson Stafford for your evidence this morning. In one or two areas, you are going to supply us with a little bit more information, which we would very much welcome, as well as looking forward to the medium-term financial strategy and the accompanying delivery report; I am sure that the committee and the Parliament as a whole will scrutinise and analyse that when it is produced. Thank you very much for your input this morning.

Permanent secretary, we wish you very well for the future. We may even see you again before the committee in your new role—who knows? Thank you for the co-operative way in which you have engaged with the committee since you arrived three years ago.

I move the meeting into private session.

I will move things along now. I invite Colin Beattie to put some questions to you.

Good morning. I want to pick up on some of the issues that you discussed in answer to the previous series of questions.

One of the standard questions that we are asking everyone, and which uses the terminology of the landscape, is: to what extent do you see yourselves as having an advocacy function, and to what extent are you regulatory?