���˿���

There is probably still some level of on-going confusion—not just in my head but, more generally, in relation to the statements that we have had from the Government regarding the allocation of money and the assumptions that it has made. However, we can take that up with the ministers.

We will move on to pay policy. It is good that we have a public pay policy, but I have to say that it felt a bit thin to me—it is written in a very big font. We have already covered the lack of progression in the numbers. How does it compare with what you would expect from a public pay policy? You have already mentioned head count, but are there other issues that you would like to see covered and which would give you a less bare figure?

What if the amount allocated is insufficient? You clearly think that it is insufficient, so what does the Government do?

The IFS said:

“It does not inspire confidence that much-needed reform will actually happen.”

That was its initial response. The Fraser of Allander Institute said:

“difficult decisions have been kicked into the future rather than planned for.”

That related in particular to the large negative reconciliations that you have already referenced. Is that a concern? You have identified that as a risk, but do you agree that there does not seem to be a plan to deal with those big risks?

On how we match up some of the reporting, I could give you numerous quotes from the Auditor General and other people about the lack of transparency around the process. We have talked a little bit about the spending review process that the UK Government is undertaking. It is taking a zero-based budgeting approach across all departments. Is there a concern that we might get into a situation where we wait for those figures in Scotland and, rather than having a process that underpins a reform and an understanding of the finances of each part of the budget and what we are spending money on, we just accept those figures as targets to run towards?

Many of the previous excuses have been, “There’s been a fiscal event, so we’ll have to wait till after the spending review,” then, “We’re right up against the autumn budget, so we might as well put it off till after that,” and then, suddenly, “It’s the pre-election period.” Is that a risk? Should we ask the Government to set out in writing, to the committee and to you, a clear timetable for the spending review and the MTFS over the next year? You must have had a conversation with the Government about what that process looks like.

Thank you.

What you describe is, to me, very opaque in terms of our ability as a committee, as a Parliament and, frankly, as members of the public, to scrutinise and understand what the Government is doing with the money. I go back to the previous year, where we had the second of three in-year emergency spending reviews—emergency budgets halfway through the year—but at the end of the year there was a substantial carryover into the following year, so there was a significant underspend.

We are in the situation where we appear to have panics from the Government around spending and measures being taken or not taken. To illustrate that further, we had evidence from the minister a few weeks ago on the autumn budget revisions. The target of £500 million in cuts was set in the emergency crisis budget in September, but then we were told that only £180 million—I believe it was that, or £188 million, perhaps—of those savings had been made.

I suppose that my question is whether we should be concerned about that on-going, up-and-down management panic between one budget that is set in December and what happens in various different fiscal statements throughout the year, in relation to our ability to understand what resources are available to public services—and, frankly, public services’ ability to understand what resources are available to them.

We are talking about the macro level in terms of how the Government is managing the budget, but I am thinking about the impact of that kind of up-and-down, back-and-forth approach that the Government has taken on public services. I will give you an illustration. NHS Tayside, in the region that I live in and represent, told me and my colleagues at the end of last week that, at the start of the year, it had been set a deficit cap of £37 million. A few months ago, the board told ���˿��� that it was going to manage about £20 million of the deficit. It went through a process of trying to understand how it could save money and then, lo and behold, at the start of November—unsurprisingly, to be frank, after the UK budget—the Scottish Government agreed, “No, you can go full hell-for-leather and have the £37 million.”

Do you agree that that up-and-down approach is not driving efficiency and promoting responsible management, and that there is actually a real cost to it? Do you think that that is the case in terms of the way that public services are managed?

Do you think that, in the budget statement tomorrow, we will see the ScotWind money being put back, for instance? Is that the kind of measure that you are anticipating?