Chamber and committees

I will leave Liam Kerr to cover the bond issue that probably flows from some of what you have been saying, Dr Sousa. I was intrigued, though, by the comment in the IFS submission that

“Scotland’s tax and economic strategies have traditionally focused more on how economic growth can boost the tax base, rather than how the tax system can best support growth.”

Some of what you were saying with regard to the response or reaction of the Government to the presence of an additional reserve pointed to an alternative strategy that it might put in place, and I would be interested if you could flesh that out a wee bit.

I have a couple of questions. Professor Bell, you were explaining some of the problems created by the need for reconciliations. We picked up this topic with Professor Roy and Scottish Fiscal Commission colleagues last week. Intriguingly, they suggested that their estimates of tax revenue had become more accurate, although the scale of the reconciliations was bigger than ever, and that was anticipated to be a factor in future.

Do you have any thoughts on how the Scottish Government can better manage that lack of certainty? Will it require adjustments to the fiscal framework, or is there anything that can be done in the interim? What impact will it have in trying to achieve the budget savings that the Government is seeking to achieve over the next two or three years?

Good morning. I will follow up on Mr Marra’s earlier question on the up-front costs of the restructuring. Mr Marra fairly pointed to the experience in Police Scotland, and college regionalisation leapt to my mind. The Government’s consistent argument was that the restructuring would release efficiencies that would pay for it. Those efficiencies were only ever going to be realised two, three, four or five years down the line. Is there a way in which the Government can be clearer about the timeframe for releasing those efficiencies, if its expectations are that they will cover the costs of the reform process, in whole or in part? Is there a way for the committee to put pressure on the Government to be clearer about the timing?

During the reform process, individuals and teams—for understandable and entirely human reasons—may be desperately looking to justify the roles that they play. They may try to adapt those roles somehow, but in a sense they will be circling the wagons. Is there a risk, therefore, that the sort of discussion that you are talking about, and designing in third sector involvement from the outset, becomes more difficult because there is an element of people defending their patch, so to speak?

I want to go back to a point that Ms Payne made earlier, and offer a confession similar to the one that Professor Gallagher made. I was in the Scottish Government at the time when the first business cases for the Borders railway were being put forward. To put it bluntly, “marginal” is probably the most charitable description of how officials were suggesting that those first business cases looked. I think that the problem at the time was that those business cases were being looked at and analysed as though they were transport projects in the central belt, when there was actually a political decision about infrastructure investment in areas outwith the central belt.

To link back to the points that were discussed earlier about concerns raised with the committee, in written submissions from a range of witnesses, about efficiency savings leading to service reductions, that seems to be a concern across the piece. I would argue that there is probably a greater level of concern in some of the rural and island areas about a disproportionate impact from those service reductions as part of the efficiency savings process.

As we take the reform process forward, alongside all the other things that we need to see the Government, and us collectively, achieving as part of that, what weighting do you suggest we should attach to ensuring that there is an equitable approach so that some parts of the country are not paying a heavier toll than others for driving these efficiencies?

Having been present when the decisions were announced in relation to the policy change around landfill, I know that the ministers did not make much mention of its implications and financial consequences. However, it is not entirely clear why the higher-than-expected repayments in relation to the additional dwelling supplement were not predictable—I am not quite sure what gave rise to that.

This is not necessarily at the same end of the spectrum in terms of the quantum, but I was slightly surprised to see the errors in relation to projections on adult disability payment. There is quite a bit of debate about projected social security costs. Having established what has happened in the past couple of years, are you confident that predicting those costs in future will be done with greater accuracy? Do you expect the trend that we have seen on take-up of ADP to continue?

It might be too early to say, but were there indications in the statement from the First Minister and the programme for government yesterday to suggest that getting back on to the trajectory that was set out in the sustainable delivery plan is more likely as a result of some of those changes?

I appreciate that it was never likely that the process for workforce reductions would be linear, but is it surprising that, having set that ambition, the first move is for the figures to go up, which will then require greater reductions in subsequent years.

During the review in 2028, will the limits and thresholds need to be considered, or are there other things—for example, the phasing of funding—that could allow the whole system to work more smoothly and predictably for the Government?