���˿���

It has already been mentioned, but one of the issues at the other end is delayed discharge. We have talked a lot about the flow of people going into hospital, but getting them out is key. However, I am afraid that the statistics on that are equally atrocious. In 2023, 658,000 bed days were taken up by delayed discharge. Those are days on which beds could have been occupied by all those people who were sitting in A and E waiting to be admitted. We do not have the full statistics yet for 2024, but doing a year-on-year analysis from November to November, there was a 7 per cent increase in delayed discharge days. My fear is that the number for 2024 will not be great, either.

Of course, the Government promised to eliminate delayed discharge completely, but I do not know how on earth it thought that it was going to do that. It was an admirable ambition, but it is clearly not happening. We had a conversation earlier in which you admitted to being the accountable officer for NHS health and social care, but many of the levers that are required to deal with delayed discharge are entirely outside your control. It must be a huge source of frustration that you cannot really fix that problem, can you?

That is a whole other committee session, is it not?

I will try to squeeze it all into one. I pre-empt it by saying that, if you do not have the responses to my question, you are welcome to write to me or the committee with the statistics that I am looking for.

First, how many people in the Scottish Government work for the constitutional futures division, and what is the annual cost of that department within the civil service?

Secondly, can you confirm today that all members of staff working within the Scottish Government pay income tax in Scotland? If the answer is that some do not, how many of them are there, and into which pay bands do they fall?

Understood. Thank you.

Good morning, permanent secretary and witnesses.

To start, I would like to look at the macroeconomic state of affairs that is reflected by the consolidated accounts. The consolidated accounts give us a better understanding of the state of the Scottish Government’s finances and its three main sources of income. Obviously, the block grant is outside the Scottish Government’s control, but the other two sources—that is, borrowing and devolved taxation—are within the control of ministers.

Will you give an overview of whether you are content that the decisions being made in the two areas that are under the Scottish Government’s control are being taken in such a way as to maximise the potential income that is available to ministers and therefore translates into their budget spending decisions?

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. There is quite a lot in there, so I will pick out some of the areas that you have just mentioned.

You talked a little bit about spending decisions as a result of further devolution. This committee, other parliamentary committees and Audit Scotland have noted that, with that further devolution, those decisions have a further financial cost to the Government. As we have seen in the analysis of budgets, they are also often made at the expense of other portfolios. For example, the social security spend is rapidly increasing to the point at which it might reach par with the health and social care budget, which is a new phenomenon. However, it is entirely unclear whether the variance in devolved taxation levels in Scotland compared with other parts of the UK is adequately funding the spending policy decisions that ministers are making. Are we therefore looking down the barrel of the supposed black hole that people talk about where spending decisions are uncontrollable and unfundable? Where does the money come from if not from the block grant? Does it come from higher borrowing or higher taxation?

I guess that we are looking for some comfort that those decisions are being looked at in the round.

What I cannot get my head around is that there is still headroom, which means that ministers have had—and still have—the ability to borrow more if they wish to. In the financial year 2023-24, for example, the Scottish Government borrowed £300 million to support capital projects, which was less than the £450 million that was initially outlined in the budget, so there was significant underborrowing, so to speak. At the same time, there was a mid-year review into capital investment that led to a number of projects not proceeding.

The public will look at that and say, “You have had headroom to borrow cash, yet at the same time there is a freeze on capital investment in much-needed projects—for example, in the national health service or in other infrastructure projects”. The public will not understand why such projects are not going ahead when, at the same time, ministers are not borrowing the cash that is available to them. How do you marry those two things together?

Given the huge pressures that public finance is under—we have spent two hours talking about them—are you comfortable about the fact that there are civil servants working for you on theoretical white papers—13, I believe, in total? Does that sound like good use of civil service time and taxpayers’ money to you?

Ms Stafford, does anyone in the Scottish Government advise ministers on their taxation policy? Does anyone, at any point, undertake an analysis of the revenues that are achieved versus what was expected? How are we faring with that? Is the Government, through variation in taxation bands in Scotland, getting the amount of money in tax that it thought that it would? Are we looking only at tax intake, or are we looking at the bigger picture in terms of wider investment, difficulty in recruiting and all the other economic factors that sit around taxation policy, not just the numbers themselves?

Many people have lauded and applauded the decisions that have been made, and others, particularly in the business community, have criticised those decisions. I am trying to unearth how the civil service goes about advising ministers on the right course of action, or, indeed, how it flags up any areas of taxation that it thinks should perhaps be changed in the future.

That is the number of individuals; it does not necessarily equate to higher tax intake in numerical terms. You could be losing people and have more people coming in, but they are paying less tax than the people that you are losing. What does that analysis look like?