���˿���

You touched briefly on risks. You have identified five potential areas of risk. When it comes to corporate systems, the annual report explains:

“This risk rose to and remained high amber for the second half of the year”.

What is happening?

You are held to account on your forecast.

If it takes a few years, do you not push for it not to take a few years? Have you requested that the Government achieve the recommendations by any specific deadlines?

The Government often takes a mañana approach to documents. If something does not have to be done this week, it will be done next week or, more likely, the week after.

Exactly. It is important to emphasise and get on the record the fact that the issue is not just about the time; it is about what happens in that time period. We make that point, too, when we speak to the Government.

You also said:

“any spending which is known at the budget-setting stage to have to be transferred later on should be shown in the portfolio which will incur the spending from the outset.”

I have been saying that since Craig Hoy was in short trousers, and that was not yesterday. That is a really important point. Do you want to expand on that a wee bit?

Good morning, everyone. The first item on our agenda is an evidence session with the Scottish Fiscal Commission on the Scottish budget process in practice. It is the first evidence session as part of our inquiry into the process.

I welcome to the meeting, from the Scottish Fiscal Commission: Professor Graeme Roy, chair; Professor Francis Breedon, commissioner; John Ireland, chief executive; and Claire Murdoch, head of fiscal sustainability and public funding. Before we move to committee members’ questions, I apologise for keeping our guests waiting. Our previous session, which was a briefing on the spring statement, overran by a few minutes.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission has said:

“Since the start of this parliamentary session in May 2021 there have been some welcome improvements in the information published by the Scottish Government as part of the Budget which improves its transparency.”

For the record, will you touch upon some of those improvements?

Part 5 of our questionnaire asked:

“How effective is current public engagement in the budget process”?

In your submission, you replied:

“The Scottish Fiscal Commission welcomes public engagement in the budget process and is aware of the importance of providing clear material to support this engagement.”

That does not address how effective it is. I do not think that this is the SFC’s fault, by any manner of means, but one of the issues that was touched on in the OECD report was how we can improve the effectiveness of engagement with the budget. Two weeks ago, we talked about fiscal literacy among stakeholders, ���˿��� and so on, and we will probably talk about it again today.

I wonder whether you could respond to that question, because it is almost as though you have done a wee body swerve. [Laughter.] That is not like you, as you are usually very direct in your responses. That is how I sniffed it out.

We will probably discuss that further in the session on the OECD report, although it is tempting to stray.

I have to say—you touch on this in your submission—that your reports are written in a clear style. I know from your annual report that you provide training on writing clearly. Your reports are not written in any kind of gobbledygook; everything is explained. I know that you have used a few acronyms this morning, but those are always clearly explained in your reports. A layperson who is interested could read them and know exactly what the Scottish Fiscal Commission is all about. You should be commended for that.

I will move on. In your submission, you state:

“The written agreement between the Scottish Government and the Finance and Public Administration Committee sets out how the Scottish Budget document will normally be published no more than three working weeks after the publication of the UK Autumn Budget. However this gap provides very little time for the development of forecasts and the Scottish Government to consider policy decisions.”

What is the optimum period for that gap?

The need for something of that nature is laced throughout your report. For example, on multiyear funding, you said that you

“encourage the Scottish Government to set out multi-year spending plans even when these cross into a new parliament to support planning across the public sector. ”

You also said:

“A regular cycle of UK spending reviews should mean that Block Grant funding is more certain and that the Scottish Government will therefore be in a better position to provide multi-year spending allocations.”

Of course, we have been in a period of volatility for years. How effective would that be in the circumstances?

Why are those in two documents? Why is it not one document? Why is fiscal sustainability not in the medium-term financial strategy?

I thought so, but it is good if those things are pinned down and explained. That is a simple, straightforward explanation, but it is good to have milestones saying where we expect to be after one quarter, six months or nine months. That way, for transparency, we have a clearer picture of whether the Government is on track and how much it is saving.

Colleagues are keen to come in, but I want to ask you one more question, on financial memorandums. It is important to acknowledge that progress has been made on financial memorandums, but the committee has had a number of concerns about the financial memorandums that have been presented to us. They have been considerably out of date, frankly, and that has had significant implications for costings and, ultimately, our scrutiny.

A number of members’ bills have come to us, and I am wondering about the change in guidance. You have said that

“the Scottish Government should proactively write to the Committee as soon as it becomes aware of any significantly revised figures (including margins of uncertainty) for FMs during Stage 1 of a Bill’s passage.”

Will that apply to members’ bills as well as to Government bills?