³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I have a question about the ecosystem of bodies that could hold the Scottish Government accountable and could push for greater transparency. Is there not an inherent contradiction here in that many of those organisations are either directly or indirectly funded by the Scottish Government? For example, the Scottish Women’s Budget Group is partly funded, I think, by the Scottish Government through Inspiring Scotland or directly. Is there an issue that the ecosystem of bodies in Scotland, which we now call civic society, is, in many respects, funded by the Scottish Government? On whether you are open, honest and critical with the Scottish Government, do you sometimes perhaps pull your punches because you rely on the Scottish budget for funding?

There is a presumption that it will not countenance strike action. The Government has made a virtue of the fact that there have been no large-scale public sector strikes in Scotland. Does that give you the whip hand at the negotiating table?

Although above-inflation wage growth for those at the lower end of the spectrum would probably gather public support, there is an increasing focus on the higher levels of the civil service—bands A to C, for example—for which unions negotiate with the Scottish Government. Should we be starting to be more prescriptive or granular when we talk about public sector pay? There are some public sector workers who are now earning considerably more than their counterparts in the private sector and who also benefit from better pension arrangements. Should the trade union movement perhaps be a little bit more up front with the public about who you are talking about? There are high-earning workers in the public sector who are getting significant pay increases.

Use of artificial intelligence, robotics and other technology can also drive productivity. Yesterday, when I was looking at a graph that showed countries that have significant demographic issues and ageing populations—I could not find Scotland or the UK on it—Korea was far up at the top in relation to its use of robotics, which is another way to generate economic growth. Where are Scotland and the UK with using that alternative route to prosperity by bringing in the robots?

Good morning, Professor Roy. I read your report at the weekend and it hardly cheered me up. I was not full of beans afterwards. The picture is quite depressing, not just for us but for quite a number of Western economies. How can we make the labour market more productive in Scotland? Also, how can we effectively increase productivity on a per capita basis?

In that respect, it strikes me that there are three or four different key triggers: lifelong learning; skills; and people working longer, both into their older age and in terms of hours. Indeed, there is a debate taking place in Scotland about the length of the working week, and we have heard the discussion about scaling the public sector working week back from five days to four. What potential impact could Scotland working fewer hours have on our productivity?

One critical driver of productivity on a per capita basis is encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship. We know that people who are involved in that are most impactful in terms of their productivity when they are around 45—I think that that is the average age. What more could we do through public policy, be that through tax or other incentives, to get people in that age bracket to start thinking that, rather than work for somebody, they should go out there, take risks and become the entrepreneurs who will drive economic growth?

You have warned in reports about the long-term sustainability of the Scottish public finances, as have other bodies in front of this and other committees. However, some of the underlying trends—largely in the public sector workforce and social security—and recent experiences do not suggest that the Government is taking them seriously. For example, since 2016, there has been a 71 per cent rise in the civil service workforce. The number of senior civil servants at grades C1, C2 and C3 has tripled.

Those are recent trends, and there is no sign that the Scottish Government is turning the ship around. It says that it has had great success in reducing the size of the contingent workforce, but they seem to be leaving through the back door and potentially coming in through the front door as full-time civil servants. Is the Government taking those warnings seriously, or is it simply discounting them and saying that you are all wrong and that it is on a sustainable path?

I want to briefly raise two more issues before I close. Inward migration is often seen as a panacea, but the OECD has pointed out one fundamental flaw in that, which is that the migrant population is ageing. Also, in the countries from where we would draw skilled talent, wage growth means that wages are catching up with wages here. There is also the moral dimension as to whether we should be recruiting qualified doctors from developing countries where they are needed.

Migration might help to sustain us over a period, but, if we look forward a decade or so, there could then be a change in the underlying migration patterns. Are we leaning too heavily on migration as the solution to our structural demographic problem?

Has any mandarin or senior minister explained to you why Scotland now needs three times more senior civil servants than it needed in 2016?

Super. Thanks very much.