Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hand over to my colleagues Liz Smith, followed by John Mason, to ask questions.

I thank Douglas Lumsden for not asking the follow-up question about what could be done to boost the birth rate.

As we have a few minutes left, I will ask two follow-up questions. First, on fiscal sustainability, the variable that you look at is population change. Your paper shows that the change in the population shape from an upright pyramid to an inverted one will not be smooth—for example, the data shows a glut of 30-year-olds. To what extent does that complicate projections? How feasible is it for you to do as consistent and isolated a forecast as possible when the change in the population is not linear?

I was struck by the regional breakdowns in the forecast that you produced in early December, which were extrapolated from Office for National Statistics data. I am thinking in particular about the breakdowns for growth, employment, earnings and total tax take, in which you showed Scotland’s position relative to not just RUK—although the position relative to the other devolved nations is important—but regions of England such as the north-east, the north-west and the south-west.

However, you have not replicated that approach. I was told that I could do so by going to ONS; I tried, but it was a bit beyond my data-analysis skills. To what extent will that regional breakdown form part of your presentations, on-going analyses, forecasts and longer-term work? It strikes me that comparisons with RUK and comparable parts of England are useful as we grapple with issues of demography, productivity and growth in the economy.

Indeed. I found that approach quite illuminating in your December report.

That draws our questions to a close, and I thank Professor Graeme Roy, Claire Murdoch and Professor David Ulph for their—as ever—enlightening contributions. That concludes the public part of the meeting, as we agreed to consider our work programme in private.

Good morning and welcome to the 22nd meeting in 2022 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. As you might have noted, I am the committee’s deputy convener, but I am sitting in the chair as convener of the meeting because the convener has unfortunately lost his voice this morning. I ask my fellow committee members not to smirk or smile at that fact; indeed, I have asked the clerks to investigate whether there has been any foul play—I am not looking at John Mason in particular.

We are very pleased to have with us the Scottish Fiscal Commission, given that agenda item 1 is an evidence-taking session on the four new reports that it published last week. Members will have received copies of the “Forecast Evaluation Report”, the “Approach to Fiscal Sustainability Consultation Paper”, “Trends in Scotland’s population and effects on the economy and income tax” and the commission’s fourth “Statement of Data Needs”.

Without further ado, I welcome to the meeting Professor Graeme Roy, who is appearing before us not for the first time in person but for the first time as chair of the Scottish Fiscal Commission; Professor David Ulph, commissioner; and Claire Murdoch, head of social security and public funding. I believe that John Ireland has been unable to make it, as he, too, is unwell.

I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for this session. I invite Professor Roy to make a short opening statement before I open it up to questions from the committee.

Thank you, Liz. We turn to questions from John Mason.

Obviously, you need disaggregated data on average payment type and on who is claiming what and when. That is a crude summary of what you are after. You say that you had that in the past. What is preventing you from getting that data from Social Security Scotland? Is it systems, organisational issues or some other reason?

Indeed. I will not ask any further questions about that, but it is clear that having access to data that is rich, disaggregated and has continuity from the legacy social security payments is critically important. I am sure that the committee will want to address that in future, and it might well be the subject of questions from other members.

I have two final questions. First—this is just to frame the evidence session—the past 18 to 24 months have been highly unusual, if I can put it like that, and have stress tested your methodology to the greatest possible extent. Indeed, I note in the “Forecast Evaluation Report” some commentary on the accuracy of employment data and your use of real-time information rather than the labour force survey, which the OBR uses. In broad terms, what lessons have been learned from the unpredictable nature of the last period? How will that inform the approach that you take in “normal times”—quote, unquote—if such times exist, and in the context of any future shocks?

Thank you very much, Professor Roy. I will ask two or three opening questions.

In broad terms, the reports examine how effective your forecasting has been to date and look forward to how it could be done in the longer term. With that in mind, and given that we know from your previous reports that there is potentially a significant gap in social security funding—a gap of around £700 million, as I recall—will you elaborate on the data requirements and the issues that you pointed out in the reports and in your opening remarks?

You touch on a really important facet, which the committee has had a real interest in when we have looked at the reports of the past year.

I have a brief follow-up—I am mindful of the time, colleagues. To what extent does the long-term fiscal sustainability report seek to understand and explain some of those long-term trends? It is one thing to observe and forecast them correctly, but as policymakers, we want to understand why they are happening, so that we can make policy decisions to address them. To what extent will the report seek to explain the sort of differences that you have just outlined?