Chamber and committees

A lot of this has been covered, but—I do not want to put words in your mouth—you view the national performance framework as the most accessible way in which ordinary members of the public can grasp the thematics of this and what that means for them. Is that correct?

I suspect that that is a better explanation than mine.

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?

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?

Okay. I have a final question to finish off this topic. We have covered the gamut of all the various documents. It is incredibly complex and difficult to align all of those. We also have the UK spending review, as you correctly commented. Based on your experience thus far, how confident are you that, particularly with future projections in these really challenging times, things can be brought into line with the clarity and purpose that we are all seeking?

I have a last wee question. The convener mentioned disability prevalence. Do you have any sense as to why there is that prevalence? The issue has come up in the committee previously, but the projected increase seems quite astounding.

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.

The Supreme Court has clarified the law, which is an absolute when compared with our simply having guidance, whether it be interim or otherwise. Having to wait until the summer to tell public bodies that they must act where they are able to do so seems highly risky, given the absolute clarity contained in the Supreme Court’s 88-page judgment. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the risk of further court actions being initiated in the interim and of the associated cost to the public purse?