Chamber and committees

You have said that some publications will be produced over the next couple of months, and you have referred to the medium-term financial strategy. There was previous criticism from a range of parties, not least the Auditor General, that there did not seem to be any real reason why a medium-term financial strategy could not have been produced earlier. We have been told that there was a general election and then an autumn budget statement by the incoming Government, but the consensus seems to be that a strategy could have been produced.

Anyway, a strategy is coming out in May this year and there has also been reference to a fiscal sustainability delivery plan. Please give us a bit more detail about what level of information will be contained in those two pieces of work, why it is necessary to have two and what different roles they perform.

That was a very comprehensive answer—there is quite a lot to take in. It is only when we see written documentation that has been generated by that thinking that we will be able get a proper analysis of, and apply proper scrutiny to, what has been proposed.

Going back to what we do know, I note that key message number 1 in the report that we are considering this morning is, frankly, a criticism that the Government appears to be locked into a fairly short-term culture. That key message says:

“The Scottish Government continues to take short-term decisions, reacting to events rather than making fundamental changes to how public money is spent. This approach has so far been effective in balancing the budget”—

you made that point, Ms Stafford—

“but risks disrupting services at short notice and restricting progress towards better long-term outcomes for people.”

We have heard what you have told us, but what can you do to reassure us that there will be a change in culture from short-termism to at least medium-termism, if not long-termism?

Thank you very much indeed. We have questions to put to you over the course of this morning about many of the issues that you touched on in your opening statement. I want to go back to the report that the Auditor General produced: do you accept its findings, key messages and recommendations?

At the end of the parliamentary session, the Public Audit Committee will devise a legacy report, in which it will leave a series of recommendations, recollections and conclusions on what it thinks the committee in the next session should turn its attention to. Permanent secretary, you are about to step down from your post and move on to another post, with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. If you were to draw up a legacy report for your successor, what would be in it?

My reading of what has been included in the Auditor General’s findings is that he thinks that there should be a strategic shift and a cultural shift. There seems to be a culture of reaction rather than proactivity. Whether that is in the context of the fiscal sustainability part of the report or in the context of the public service reform part of the report, that seems to be a common thread.

I have a further point to make before I invite other committee members to come in. In what I thought was a very informative response to the key messages in the report, the main findings and the recommendations for action, you mentioned that you fully embraced the need for equality and human rights impact assessments of decisions that are made. How do you persuade me that it will be different this time? In exhibit 10, the report before us reflects the fact that, back in August 2019, the Scottish Government produced a set of key questions that decision makers must ask themselves when they are setting budgets:

“1. What outcome is the policy and associated budget decision aiming to achieve?

2. What do you know about existing inequalities of outcome in relation to the budget area?

3. How will your budget decisions impact different people and places?

4. How will your budget decisions contribute to the realisation of human rights?

5. Could the budget be used differently to better address existing inequalities of outcome and advance human rights?

6. How will the impact of budget decisions be evaluated?”

Those are all long-established principles that the Government has set itself, yet the report lays bare the pretty woeful attempt to incorporate equality and human rights impact assessments in any decisions about budgets that are being made.

You have told us that you agree with the recommendation on that aspect and that things will be different, but that seems to be a long way from the experience that we have had so far.

Good morning. I want to pick up on some of the issues that you discussed in answer to the previous series of questions.

One of the standard questions that we are asking everyone, and which uses the terminology of the landscape, is: to what extent do you see yourselves as having an advocacy function, and to what extent are you regulatory?

Thank you. That was helpful.

I should note for the Official Report that the first time that Professor O’Hagan and I met was when she was working for the Equal Opportunities Commission and I was working for the GMB trade union. In that respect, I was struck by what your written submission says in relation to your search for new powers, as some of them—the ability to take forward litigation, support legal proceedings and so on—look like the powers that the Equal Opportunities Commission used to have. It is worth noting for the Official Report that your long list of asks includes your powers being strengthened so that they cover your being able to

“Provide legal advice ... Raise legal proceedings ... Conduct inquiries in less limited circumstances ... Require and compel information ... Make unaccompanied and unannounced visits to any human rights duty bearer”

and

“Hold public hearings and require duty bearers to be present”.

You also ask for a bigger commission, but that is perhaps a separate point.

Could you run us through the difference that those additional powers would make to the work that you do at the moment?

Quite recently, we had a debate in the Parliament about your report on the Highlands and Islands. There is a real sense that people’s human rights are not being upheld in a whole range of areas, including access to public services, health services and culture. However, I cannot just go to the Inverness sheriff court and get a remedy for that.

If you had powers in that area, what more would you be able to do?

I have another quick, and much more straightforward and practical, question about shared services. One of the things that we are looking at is the extent to which shared services support exists and how it can be enhanced. What are the barriers to greater shared services?