Seòmar agus comataidhean

What will the engagement process with stakeholders look like? That leads me into a wider discussion that the committee has had in the past, which is about public and stakeholder understanding of our public finance landscape, and the extent to which it is important for certain stakeholders to have a greater level of understanding of devolved public finances than is currently the case.

I will probably get a row from all my friends in the climate movement for saying that, in all the relatively well-funded third sector organisations in that space, I do not think that there are many people who have a depth of understanding of our public finances. Historically, that is not an area that those organisations and campaign groups have focused on. However, it is probably important that we get their input into the process. Whether we are talking about climate organisations or the alliance of healthcare organisations—which might be in a slightly different position but is probably in roughly the same place—will part of the process involve your assisting and enabling them to give useful feedback?

It might be worth the committee getting in touch with Social Security Scotland about that.

My main line of questioning is about your consultation process. I am interested in how you will go about that in the fiscal sustainability review. Examples of priority areas that you mention are the climate and health inequalities, which are spaces that have pretty robust third sector organisations in them. Have those organisations engaged with Fiscal Commission consultation processes in the past? Do you have an established relationship with such groups, or are you taking a new approach in order to achieve a wider level of engagement?

I would like to pick up briefly on Claire Murdoch’s explanation for why certain points of detail are not collected in the social security application process, which was that they are not necessary in order to process the claim. I will caveat my question by saying that I accept that you are not Social Security Scotland, so you might not know the answer—that is fine. I assume that the reason why Social Security Scotland is not asking questions as part of the application process that would otherwise provide useful bits of demographic data is that the more fields that are on the form, the more people will drop out of the application process. Is that the case?

I am interested in what that will look like. I presume that a punter can go to the SFC’s website, fill in a consultation form and answer the questions there. However, if you are trying to get greater depth, particularly from those key groups with which you are engaging for the first time, what will that work look like? Will it involve workshops, seminars or one-on-one meetings?

I have one final question, on a different note. You mentioned this at the start of the session, but much of your written submission is about improvements in data and process that should improve the accuracy of forecasts. On the flipside, given that inflation might top 20 per cent and we are entering an indeterminate period of profound economic instability, should we be expecting greater accuracy in forecasting in the immediate future? Are those improvements going to pay off in five or 10 years’ time once we are on the other side of that instability?

I will go back to publication of the plan for the current period, 2018 to 2023. An implementation plan was supposed to be published with it, but that has not happened, although your corporate plan resembles an implementation plan in some respects. Has the lack of an implementation plan stymied your ability to fulfil all the ambitions of the current national plan?

What struck me, in particular, from the latter part of Jim Whannel’s answer was the importance of the local authorities’ GLPs to the success of your ambitions. I presume that there is no synchronisation there, however—local authorities are setting them at different times in the cycle. How does that impact on what you are doing? You have a relatively standardised five-year rolling plan to develop. How does the fact that 32 local authorities are setting plans for different periods of time at different points in time impact on your ability to set a five-year national plan?

I am interested in the capital costs. There is a wee bit of a muddle. When I use that word, I do not mean to project any negative connotations on to the situation, but I am trying to get a little bit of clarity about how the capital costs worked out. Audit Scotland’s report points out that some local authorities ended up receiving less than what they had estimated the capital costs would be. That is not surprising, because it happens across a range of areas in which local authorities are funded by Government for a specific project. However, in other cases, local authorities ended up getting more than what they estimated the cost would be. Did the Government or the Scottish Futures Trust look into why there was such a disconnect between the local authority estimates and allocations?

Again, that would be interesting because, as much as I accept absolutely the difficulty in trying to disaggregate that data, we can all agree that there is probably going to be some additional cost in expansion to any additional group.

The absence of any additional capital allocation in that financial memorandum therefore raises a point of process that the committee is interested in when it comes to the effectiveness of such memorandums. Putting aside the actual numbers, has there been any review of the process to consider whether it was correct or whether it would have been more appropriate to allocate some additional capital funding in the second memorandum?

When it came to the eventual actual cost, which set of numbers ended up being more accurate: the allocations or the local authority estimates?