Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an extremely important clarification, because that approach is different from what is happening in the rest of the UK. The difference between a case that goes through court processes where there is a finding of fraud and a case of suspicion of fraud will skew your figures, so that clarification is helpful.

I will pick up on something that the cabinet secretary said right at the start of the conversation. What did you mean when you said that there was no black hole? There are different meanings of the phrase, which we might go on to, but what is your understanding? What are you saying when you say that?

You have made my point for me. There are nearside considerations in relation to the forthcoming budget, and there are longer-term projections. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has made clear the challenges of the fiscal sustainability of continuing to make social security payments at the rate at which they are currently being made. In your discussions with senior colleagues, at what point do you say, “Oh, this looks utterly unsustainable. How on earth are we going to manage it?” What is the tipping point? How do you model that? That goes back to the questions about opportunity costs.

It would be useful to get your personal reflections on the point at which you start to worry, rather than just thinking, “How do we get through the nearside budget that is coming up thick and fast?” I have never been able to detect any sense of longer-term strategic thinking about the fact that the current level of social security payments is clearly unsustainable as it stands.

Good morning. Mr Sousa, I want to talk to you briefly about the issues in the wider UK economy. It is anticipated that the UK black hole is £41.2 billion; debt is around £2.7 trillion. We have seen the yield on 30-year bonds. Potentially, there could be a sovereign debt crisis. You have referenced the very late autumn statement, with a potential impact here. One of the things that worries me is that we tend to take a very nearside view on some of the challenges for the Scottish Government without looking at the bigger picture, so I would appreciate your reflections on that economic reality. There is a good reason why there will be a very late autumn budget. I would appreciate your reflections on that, casting back to some of the complexity and uncertainty that the Scottish Government needs to deal with.

Following on from that, Mr Robinson, from your audit perspective, you are uniquely placed to take the view that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Looking at the context, what do you sense is the appetite, based on reading the documents that we are discussing today, for real substantive change rather than keeping the ball bouncing in the light of the considerable uncertainty and complexity? You have long experience in your career. Is there real appetite for change, or are we just necessarily in the time, not that far away from an election, where we can bounce the ball beyond the election?

I remember bringing up the need for women commissioners with Graeme Roy, probably in 2021. Many people are blindsided because they forget about systemic issues flowing through economics that affect women, and we tend not to gather supporting data that allow for various hypotheses. In my opinion, Professor Roy has done a very good job thus far in starting to broaden out the work of the Fiscal Commission. What do you think that you can bring to the table in that regard, because it still seems like there is quite a gap because we do not always ask the question, “What does the data tell us about women?” If we do not have that data, we need to ask what we can do about that, because we need to understand what the systemic issues are before we try to change them.

Hello, and thank you for joining us. I noticed on your CV that you are a non-executive board member of Paragon Music Ltd.

Do you think that that alternative experience—I suppose that one might refer to it as cognitive diversity—is something that you will be able to bring to the perhaps slightly dry subject matter of the Scottish Fiscal Commission?

We find it exciting, but hey.

You are absolutely bang on in what you say. You are illustrating by example some of the considerations that might be made when undertaking reform, mapped against continued delivery. The point that I am making is whether, from a public administration perspective, we are missing a trick by not going back to the way we thought things were—that is, ministers and cabinet secretaries set the priorities and attempt to deliver against them, which is very difficult—and removing the civil servants or the former permanent secretary in this example. We need to make sure that they, too, are part of the mix. If it comes down to accountability and final say in the case of headcount, that to me is quite fundamental as to how we assess the probability of delivery. There is not a general discussion about understanding that complexity in the normal way of doing things.

Thank you for joining us. I read your CV with interest as well, and there is no denying the depth of your hinterland. Following on from Ross Greer’s question, to what extent do you regard your depth of knowledge, which you have built up over many years, as an opportunity and to what extent do you regard it as a risk? You are steeped in a prevailing culture of thinking, particularly linking back to the Treasury, whose tentacles reach everywhere.