Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is what I was going to suggest. The other issue, of course, is that the Government has said that it will agree to the committee’s request for a fiscal sustainability debate every year, so that we can look to long-term planning.

I want to ask Carmen Martinez about the medium-term financial strategy. You say in your submission:

“We are not aware of the MTFS being used regularly by the committees. Ideally, it should help them identify any risks that could be in the way of achieving their portfolios’ policy objectives.”

You go on to say:

“The MTFS should encourage committees to think beyond the immediate, current political term, to debate how to plan for the policy challenges facing Scotland.”

One of the concerns that we have with committees is that they are overwhelmed with work as it is and, frankly, they are leaving the Finance and Public Administration Committee to do most of the heavy lifting on scrutiny. We should be doing a big chunk of the heavy lifting, but I do not think they are putting in the shift that they perhaps should in this area. How can we move that along with committees?

Okay. Alison Hosie, you say in your submission:

“Several barriers continue to limit the effectiveness of the budget process. One ... issue is the timing of engagement, which often occurs too late to allow for meaningful external contributions. By the time consultations take place, key decisions have already been made”.

We try to pick up some of the areas where money is unspent in our scrutiny of the autumn and spring budget revisions, and the fact is that it tends not to be unspent; it tends to be transferred to other portfolios where there is much more pressure.

I would also note that, in 2011, the Government provided £500 million over three years for preventative spend but one of the issues and difficulties that we came up against was that there seemed to be no disinvestment in areas where expenditure had been less effective. People were obstinately spending money where they were not getting any return or any of the outcomes that one would have expected, so such approaches tended not to continue. I should say that John Mason has been messianic about preventative spend for many years—haven’t you, John?—and the committee supports its use wherever it can be implemented.

Did you want to comment, Carmen?

Thank you very much.

Thanks very much, folks. I do not have anyone else down to ask questions, but I do want to give you all an opportunity to make a final point before we wind up. If there are any points that you feel that we have not touched on or that we have not touched on enough—I will let you in in a second, John—please make them now. I would like people to be able to make some final remarks.

As he opened for us, John Wood will be the last person to speak. To our other guests, I say that, if you want to make any final points on any issue in this inquiry, please do so—although you do not have to, of course.

I agree completely. Local authorities sometimes put out flyers that say, “This is how much money we raise and this is where we get it from,” because a lot of people think that the overwhelming majority of it is raised by council tax, fees, charges, grants and so on. Then they will say, “This is what we spend it on.” You see that information sporadically, and I do not know what attention is paid to it. I think that there have been efforts over many years.

Carmen, how would you suggest that we engage further with the wider population outside the parliamentary stakeholder bubble?

Who should we look to in those categories? What countries should we look to?

Committees tend to make their contributions before we get to stage 1 of the budget bill process but after the draft budget has been published.

The issue that we have had with committees is that, because they cannot ask for additional spending outwith their portfolio area, as they should be deliberating on spend within their portfolio area, they often tend not to say, “Let’s take money from schools and give it to colleges,” or, “Take it from universities and give it to schools,” or whatever. Frankly, they tend to be loth to make such suggestions, which is an issue. The question is how realistic it is to get committees to engage when they feel less than enthusiastic about the process in the first place, because they feel that it is not their responsibility to make such suggestions.

One thing that we suggested in a previous evidence session is that, when new MSPs come in, they should have a training session on the workings of the budget and so on, because we tend to be far too siloed in our approach. You make an important point about the need for wider engagement. I think that MSPs often feel as though they have to be experts in—or rather, that they have to have a good knowledge of—a number of different fields—and that it is perhaps a bit too much for them to take on the workings of the budget if they have not been given a grounding at the start of the parliamentary session, when they are first elected. Therefore, we are looking at how we can increase the financial literacy—to put it crudely—of all parliamentarians.

Thanks for that. Andy Witty, you are keen to come in and talk about the fiscal sustainability delivery plan. You say that it would add more value if it included a

“direction on the fundamental change to how public money is spent, cutting across the different portfolio boundaries”

and aligned

“economic growth spending to gaps in skill needs.”

Could you comment further on that?

You have mentioned international best practice a couple of times. Which countries have best practice? Do they have devolved Parliaments? One of the issues that we have in Scotland is that are we quite dependent on decisions that are made elsewhere in terms of timings and so on. What areas of best practice would you like to highlight by way of comparison with Scotland?