Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Christie report mentions technology only three times, and not really in the context of change itself. Was there a lack of focus on technology? Is technology a source of potential change for the better in public services?

We are all aware of the acute pressure that the health service is under. Are contingencies in place for the coming months? We can expect to see an increase in demand, especially in areas such as accident and emergency.

Before I bring in the other witnesses, I wonder whether they will also respond to Professor Mitchell’s point about generalism being a useful thing in the civil service. Indeed, that is one of the stand-out bits of the Fulton report. Do you think that that is correct? Would having more specialists not, at the very least, help to drive change? In any case, how do you respond to the wider point that we need people in the civil service who are more focused on change?

I would like to see the analysis, but I do not dispute the fundamental point. Any forecast will have a margin of error, and when our revenue is based on forecasting, it stands to reason that the borrowing limit should be in line with that margin of error. What I am interested in is the hard analysis of the quantum of that, and how far away the Scottish Government believes the borrowing limits are. You can take it as read that I understand that having a hard nominal limit does not make sense. The question is what the order of magnitude should be.

I will move on to an associated point that is, in a sense, almost more important. You said that you have faced an issue over the past year in understanding, once announcements have been made—forgive the shorthand—when you can bank them. I recognise that this is an exceptional year, but exceptions sometimes come along.

I have two questions. First, how indicative is that of a general issue with funding coming through the block grant, and the predictability of that? Secondly, what is the actual substance of that issue? Is it simply that the Scottish Government takes a cautious approach and wants the ink to dry on the bit of paper before it starts to action the funding, or is it that you do not know that you are definitely going to get the cash from the Treasury until it hits your bank account? I guess that there is a range of possibilities between those two points.

Again, if you have specific examples of where that has caused a problem and the amount of money has been lower than you anticipated, it would be useful to have those on the record.

I guess that with any budget process there will be external and internal volatility, but one of the corollaries of what you are saying is that you would find it useful if the UK Government were more transparent and predictable in the way that it followed through on its spending. If so, is the same true of the Scottish Government? I am thinking in particular of Audit Scotland’s recent comments about transparency, and I was interested to see that in its recent report on these matters it said:

“budget revisions are managed across Government, which means it is not always possible to establish the detail of reprioritisations within directorates.”

To my mind, that sounds a little bit like the situation that you have highlighted with regard to the UK Government.

Is tracking budget changes in directorates an issue? Is there an opportunity to improve the systems that you have in place? Audit Scotland made the supposition that the data is there but you cannot report on it. I am thinking of your relationship with the UK Government and your own practice. Is there scope along those lines to improve transparency and disciplines in budget reporting?

I will just follow that up before I ask my final question. I am speculating about whether more robust, regular and detailed reporting through the year on budgets and spend from the UK and Scottish Governments might help matters. I totally accept that much of Government activity is demand led and that you cannot guarantee absolutely that you will spend a certain amount, but robust reporting and tracking help to manage the situation. That is true in the private sector—a business is dictated by whether customers spend money on its services. I would suggest that that is much less predictable than anything that the Government does. The question is whether such an approach would be an avenue for both Governments to improve things. That explains where I am coming from.

In recent weeks at committee, questions have been raised about outcome-led budgeting and where we are 10 years on from the Christie commission. Given that the medium-term financial strategy is under development prior to its publication, does that provide an opportunity to recast what the Scottish Government intends to do in the medium term on outcomes and objectives? Much of the written and oral evidence that we have received has noted that, unless objectives are baked into how the Government budgets and organises itself, such documents provide only commentary rather than drive change towards the objectives. Will you take such an approach? Can more be done in the MTFS and beyond that to bake objectives into how the Government budgets and organises itself?

That might be why I was asking questions about medium-term spending plans. I will gently conclude there.

I would like to pick up on some of those points. I am interested in ensuring that we develop the fiscal framework and the budget processes around the block grant, because I believe that that is how we can strengthen the devolution settlement, which is my overarching objective.

I would like to test some of the assumptions and assertions in what you have just asked for. Prudential borrowing makes straightforward sense. Income tax revenues for the Scottish exchequer are approximately £12 billion. Your ability to borrow against the forecast error is around £300 million, which is about 2 per cent of that. The errors in recent forecasts have been a little less than that. Is that a real issue or a notional one? If it is a real issue, will you give some examples of where you have hit your headroom on the borrowing limit? Please bring the issue to life for me.

That is helpful. I would love to go down the rabbit hole of how the Scottish Government manages its cost centres, but I will save that for another day.

I would like to explore what greater transparency looks like. Comparable-sized organisations would typically report on a quarterly basis, and they would typically be reporting how both their revenue and their costs have tracked against what they had put in an annual statement previously. In America, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires three such quarterly updates, alongside an annual report. That used to be the case in this country until 2014.

Would it be reasonable to ask the Government to provide regular pre-scheduled quarterly updates on the budget? Critically—I am guessing that this is what you were implying in some of your previous comments—that is how budgets are revised, while tracking spend against budgets. Sometimes in this place we have a habit of focusing almost entirely on the budget and a lot less on how the money is being spent against the budget.

Is that quarterly concept something that could be applied to the Government?

Thank you for that, and also for saying that I have made a reasonable suggestion—I think that that might be a first in this place.

I think that the committee is broadly in the same place as you regarding the importance of the national performance framework, although there is a need to ensure that it is properly embedded. One of the thoughts that were explored with the Deputy First Minister last week is whether the framework should be reported on formally, perhaps at the same time as the budget but certainly regularly.

In a sense, I understand the points that you are making about the need for such things to be reported across the Government, but we rarely hear cabinet secretaries reporting on how their bit of the national performance framework is progressing. Do you think that regular reporting on it by portfolio might help to give the national performance framework due weight and prioritisation and to change behaviours regarding how it is used?