Chamber and committees

I will put the same question to the rest of the panel. I think that Sandy Begbie was the next one who looked up.

You have mentioned providers such as colleges, but do you feel that there is a clear way for your trade body to be able to influence and shape policies such as the new deal for business? Are you clear about how you can take part in the shaping of those policies?

Thank you very much.

Jack Norquoy, I said that I would give you a chance to come back in, because we moved on to talking about AI. Obviously, net zero is your bag, but do you want to add any final reflections?

To pick up on that, for the record, can you give us an example today—it is always useful to furnish an example—that we can reflect in our deliberations?

You have skilfully taken the opportunity to put on the record some of the areas that Scottish Renewables is interested in, and quite rightly so, but I still want to understand the extent to which you feel that the views of industry are heard with regard to the shaping of policy and provision.

I agree. I ask that question because one of the challenges is the complexity of the fiscal framework. I try to explain it to people. They ask a straight question and I desperately try not to sound like a politician by saying, “It depends.” I then need to explain in a simple way why it depends, by which point I have inevitably lost them. I would like to hear your comments on that.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission is doing considerably more work now, and it is welcome to point out the issues with the UK’s fiscal sustainability. If you understand anything about the fiscal framework, you will understand that there is a critical dependency on the UK’s fiscal sustainability. What thought have you given to that? If you understand the fiscal framework and fiscal sustainability, you will understand that you cannot have one without the other. I appreciate that you provide the audit and that that is different—I get that—but I would like to hear some reflections on what consideration you are giving to the wider economic environment.

I notice that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has slightly rephrased its terminology, probably to recognise that critical dependency.

Let us return to the question that Craig Hoy asked about people having a better understanding of the Scottish Government’s cost base. Does the Government have an understanding of its cost base? To go back to the point that John Mason made earlier, it is politically unpalatable to reflect an understanding of that cost base, so it probably seems better to keep schtum. Are you just being kind by saying that the Government does not have an understanding of its cost base?

I have a couple of little compliments for you, which I want you to enjoy, because it does not happen very often. I was pleased to note that you say that the annual budget gap

“can be thought of as the Scottish-specific fiscal sustainability challenge.”

That terminology is considerably more helpful. You will know that I have passed comment previously on some of the terminology used because it frames Scotland as part of the wider context, including some of the issues relating to the UK economy and fiscal sustainability.

My other observation is that the development of age-sex spending profiles will be really helpful for us in getting greater clarity. That is the nice bit over.

I want to pick up on fiscal sustainability generally in the light of the earlier conversation with the Auditor General, which you will have heard. I think that we all agree that we want more resolute forward planning via the MTFS. However, regarding the debt to gross domestic product ratio, the projection that debt will be 274 per cent of GDP by 2070 is utterly astounding and re-emphasises my point that the Scottish economy and the fiscal framework must be mindful of the position.

How on earth do you and the Government start to fairly reflect the significant implications of that position, which is clearly not sustainable? We will see the UK spending review, but if we are on a whole different trajectory—assuming all things are equal, with the same focus on economic policy, although that could change—I would appreciate your reflections on how on earth you will present that position with meaning to this committee at least, if not to the wider public.

That is very helpful. I totally appreciate the complexity. The issue is not just about trying not to make people depressed; your reports could easily become as long as “War and Peace”.

Thank you for joining us. I have only a few questions.

First, you observed that your spending projections are based on current policies and do not take account of an additional main challenge—climate change. It would be useful to understand why your projections do not include any consideration of mitigations or adaptations. I am sure that there are several very good reasons for that. What would need to happen in order for you to give at least some consideration of climate change mitigation, given the significant anticipated public sector spend in that area?