���˿���

Good morning, panel. It is nice to see you all. We are dancing around a lot of similar areas; such is the advantage of the convener that he often asks questions that I might have liked to ask. I will follow on.

We have already heard a lot about limitations in terms of lack of borrowing powers, capital reduction and so on. I find myself thinking that, in terms of both the areas that we have talked about so far—a public sector reform programme and how to drive up productivity—surely, in behavioural terms, the fixed budget, limited borrowing powers and limited fiscal levers must influence the behavioural ambition of the Scottish Government for making a change. Such is the complexity of unintended consequences. That is the case for any Government, but surely it must be so much more of a factor for the Scottish Government. Perhaps Professor Muscatelli could give us some thoughts on that first.

Following on from that, it is obvious that a reform programme can bring efficiencies, but there is a cost to those efficiencies. Where there is a fixed budget, that cost is not so much in costs as in a reduction in spend in other areas that leads into this cycle. I would like to hear your reflections on how a fixed budget makes for real limitations in any public sector reform programme.

When I read the letter, I saw that your title says “Sex/Gender Data”, and then you point out that

“Social Security Scotland have indicated that they would be able to provide the application form they collected on the sex, covering up to October 2022, in February 2023.”

I am trying to understand about accuracy in data terms. I am aware that we do not want to go into other big debates; that is not my intention here. The reason why I am asking is that we know that boys are statistically more likely to have learning disabilities, particularly with regard to neurodivergence. Therefore, getting the data collection correct, and linking it to biological sex. must surely be vital.

I have read your letter. You use the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, and you refer to Social Security Scotland. Setting aside any other debate, the data that is collected will ultimately be used to project costs. We know that a range of factors could lead to social security payments going up, so it would be useful if you could set out what you think is happening and what will happen in future. What are your data needs? This is a question about data.

How did we get to a position in which a fundamental item of data ceased to become important? That strikes me as utterly fundamental, both for assessing current spend and for future forecasting. For example, we might come across a disease that we do not yet know about and that has a proclivity for one sex or the other. We have to be able to project. How did we arrive at this position?

It is not exactly burdensome to learn someone’s sex.

Okay—thank you very much.

To finish off this point, I have a question for all the witnesses. Within the limitations of the Scottish Government’s powers, where do you see the biggest bang for buck in terms of increasing productivity? Professor Ruane, you have conceded that you are not as across all the limitations, so perhaps Dr Brewer or Professor Muscatelli can take that question.

I accept what you are saying because it might well mean that more housing is available at the bottom of the ladder. However, that is only if people can get the funding for it, which links into the wider economic environment.

A lot of stuff that I was going to ask about has been covered, so I will turn to the letter that you sent to the convener, Professor Roy. My question concerns sex and gender data for child disability payments. It would be useful to refresh our memory. My recollection—you can tell me if I am wrong—is that the data that is now being collected as part of the equality monitoring form is on gender, and that the equality monitoring form could be filled in by somebody else because it is being filled in on behalf of a child. Is that right?

There are multiple further questions, but I will leave them just now, in the interests of time.

My question is for Professor Chadha and it picks up on the Brexit point. I am on the Finance and Public Administration Committee and we had representatives of the Office for Budget Responsibility in yesterday. The OBR commented on Brexit in its economic and fiscal outlook report of November 2022, in which it said that Brexit had had “a significant adverse impact”, and it quoted various statistics about trade volumes falling 8.3 per cent below the present level by quarter 4 of 2023.

The OBR also made an interesting comment about trade intensity being

“15 per cent lower ... than if the UK had remained in the EU.”

Trade intensity is a measure of a country’s interaction with the world economy. I asked what the outlook was for that to continue, and they said that they anticipate that that will continue for at least another 15 years, despite the trade deals that have been done. Are you aware of those figures, and do you have any further reflections on the outlook as outlined in the OBR’s comments to committee yesterday?