Seòmar agus comataidhean

If reform is going to be as bold and ambitious as it needs to be, given the current situation with the Scottish Government’s budget, it will be fundamentally material to the MTFS.

On the issue of royal commissions, it is very like Sir Humphrey Appleby in “Yes Minister” to call for a royal commission to kick an issue into the long grass. Do we need greater engagement with the public on such matters? Their first demand will be for an inquiry, and a judge seems like an independent person, but the outcome is that, 10 or 15 years later, nothing has happened; people have died; and victims are left without answers. Should the conversation be more inclusive than it is at the moment and should we level with the public that such an approach is not working for them?

Mr Marra probably tested the convener’s patience with his line of questioning, so I will not seek to do that, but, in your letter to the Scottish Affairs Committee, you clearly asserted that full control over spending and tax—full fiscal autonomy—

“would create a fairer system that would protect public services and allow investment in our economy.”

What is your evidence for that? From whom did you commission that evidence to allow you to make that statement on the public record?

That is probably best done in another place.

Turning from tax to spending, I note that public sector reform will be fundamental to future public spending proposals. Your letter to the committee says that the public sector reform programme and strategy will be published in June. Can you say when in June that will happen? Will it be before, alongside or after the publication of the medium-term financial strategy?

Would you sack those civil servants if they were identified?

I do not want to venture an argument that we are wasting our time here, but is there an issue that we have not addressed—namely that, although we are arguing for greater transparency and, alongside that, greater accountability, which are interconnected but not interchangeable, does the realpolitik of the situation not work against that?

In any five-year period in Scotland, we have three major elections: a Scottish parliamentary election, a Westminster election and a local government election. Does that not work against transparency because, ultimately, the picture is always evolving, which means that the Government cannot set out a five-year plan at the beginning of a new session of Parliament, because there are so many variables that could cut across that? Are we arguing for something that, ultimately, is unachievable not because of the devolution settlement but simply because of the way in which our different democratically accountable bodies are elected and the timeframe in which they are elected?

Although there might be what stakeholders perceive to be an absence of transparency, there is greater accountability, because we get three elections in five years out of the process. Dr Hosie, do you think that there is a causal link between transparency and political stability? I suppose that having three elections in five years does not provide political stability per se.

I go back to the original comment from Shona Robison about the floor. What more could be done so that the negotiations are more transparent and perhaps to take the heat out of them, so that the Government can be a bit more honest with you about what it can and cannot afford?

In your submission, you say:

“Politicians need to recognise the impact of public sector wage restraint following a decade of austerity, and that wages in the public sector will need to keep pace with private sector wage growth if we are to recruit and retain skilled workers.”

By contrast, the Institute for Fiscal Studies tells us that

“We do not find any evidence that larger increases in public sector pay in Scotland in recent years have boosted the retention of public sector workers.”

What is the point of higher pay for higher-earning civil servants? Is it to retain them or is it simply that that is the culture that now persists within those roles and functions?

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.