Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is interesting that, in figure 1 on page 12, you show the SFC’s

“many strengths relative to other”

independent finance institutions

“across the OECD”.

For example, you show that the SFC rates highly for its independence, analytical focus and communications apparatus. However, the one area that it seems to fall down on is its communications impact. You compare the SFC with its equivalent in the Netherlands—the Centraal Planbureau, which

“takes a holistic approach to its communications ... from day one”.

You say that it provides

“communications training one day per week over eight to ten weeks”

on

“formulating clear sentences and ways to visualise material more effectively.”

It is “proactive” and “remarkably open”, and it has “six in-house staff” for communications, which is more than the SFC has.

However, there is an old saying that you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. It is difficult to see how the areas that the SFC covers can be broadened out to what you might call a wider audience. I think that stakeholders are very much aware of the work that the SFC does and respect it. How do you get that into the general population? That seems to be an area where the Netherlands is doing well; I have just mentioned some examples of that. How realistic is it that we can get beyond 5 or 10 per cent of the Scottish population—if I am optimistic—knowing the work of the SFC?

I have done that by talking about what the UK debt is per person as opposed to the figure of some £2.3 trillion, which people do not really comprehend.

On page 14 of your report, you say:

“Even among those identified by the SFC as key stakeholders, just 25% rated themselves as having a great deal of understanding of the Scottish budget.”

That is disconcerting in itself.

You also talk about the fact that members of the Scottish Parliament

“are not regularly immersed in budget scrutiny”

and do not have a high level of fiscal literacy. Although it is understandable for members to be focused on other areas, it is important that they have a high level of fiscal literacy. You suggest that the induction of new members following Scottish Parliament elections should provide insights into the SFC’s role and

“an overview of key issues relating to fiscal sustainability.”

Thank you very much. I noticed that there were more “finallys” in there than in a set of questions from Craig Hoy.

It seems only yesterday when you arrived—I cannot believe how fast the time has gone. What do you feel have been your main achievements as permanent secretary in that relatively short period of time, and in which areas do you feel that you could, and should, perhaps, have done better?

The ministerial team has not changed that much, to be perfectly honest—John Swinney’s team is much the same as Humza Yousaf’s team.

Milestones are really important. In relation to public sector reform, you have talked about a figure of £300 million over two years. It would be great if we had milestones within that two-year period, so that there is not a sudden big bang in two years’ time. Two years from when, exactly? Is it two years from 1 January or from 1 April?

Excellent. That is what we are trying to see more and more of. That is a real issue. Trying to scrutinise the work that has been undertaken over the years has sometimes been like wrestling a jellyfish because of the absence of measurable priorities.

Lastly, the committee has sought clarification of how inward secondments are used to draw on additional resource and provide staff with broader experience. The committee went to Estonia, and that visit opened our eyes in a number of areas, including to the fact that the public sector there interacts quite strongly with the private sector—more than it seems to here, where the public sector seems to be more insular.

I realise that there is an issue of supporting academic secondments that are organised by the UK Research and Innovation policy fellows scheme, but is more being done in the civil service to involve the private sector in other areas of the work that you do, and the other way around, to see how you can learn from each other?

Thank you. I want to wish you well for your future endeavours. I have certainly enjoyed the interactions that we have had. Improvements have been made over recent years, so you can hang your hat on that.

We will have a short break while we change witnesses.

Our next agenda item is an evidence session with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on its second review of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which was published last week. I welcome to the meeting Scherie Nicol, who is the lead on Parliaments and independent fiscal institutions in the public management and budgeting division in the directorate for public governance at the OECD.

I understand that you would like to make a short opening statement.

What you say is really important, if it is enacted. One of the key issues for the committee and one of its great frustrations has been that everything always seems to take much longer than was initially advised. For example, in December 2023, we sought information on the capital infrastructure pipeline. We were told that the pipeline would be delayed to the summer, and then to the autumn—blah, blah, blah. It will now be published this September, which is a 21-month delay. We were also told that the medium-term financial strategy was not published because of the general election. That will now be published this summer, and so on.

Nothing ever seems to happen on time or when originally advised, there do not seem to be any specific deadlines—it is always June, September or whatever—and there is never anything particularly tangible. That causes frustration as weeks run into months and months run into years. Will there be more emphasis on pinning down those documents? It seems that their publication is derailed by almost anything that happens at Westminster, whether that is a budget or an election or whatever. We realise that those things are important, but it is almost a case of, “We have an election coming, so we will not actually deliver this.” That causes great difficulty with regard to scrutiny.

Thank you for that.

Thank you for your time. It has been very helpful and we greatly appreciate the work that has gone into the very positive report.