Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is very helpful, secretary of state. It is absolutely crucial that the data that is used in making these decisions is agreed on, because, as I have said, and as has come up in our budget report, if it is different, that makes policy making all the more troublesome.

That is very helpful.

In your helpful letter to the committee of 21 February, you spoke about engagement with the devolved nations on the three new funds. Could you expand on that? As the convener hinted in relation to investment, concerns have been expressed that the UK Government was choosing to engage much more with local authorities and stakeholders in local communities than with the Scottish Government.

I would like to know about the process. The Scottish Government develops many of its policy ambitions through what is called the national performance framework. If the process is to work, there must be some articulation between the aims and objectives of the UK Government and the aims and objectives of the Scottish Government. Could you expand on how you see that engagement taking place, especially in relation to the aims and objectives of the Scottish Government?

I will pursue a couple of themes from the convener’s questioning, as well as one of my own.

As the cabinet secretary knows—she has already given us an answer about it—the frustration for the committee is that it is difficult for us to scrutinise the budget because there are doubts about what is new money, what is old money and what has been transferred across.

However, there is also concern that it is very difficult for us to measure transparency in where the money is going. You cited the example of health and social care; obviously, there is a lot of chat about setting up a national social care system and the expense that that might incur.

The committee is interested to know your thoughts on how we can improve our scrutiny of outcomes and of where, in fact, spending is going—in particular, on budget lines at levels 3 and 4 for local government.

Will you give us your thoughts on those matters?

That is helpful, cabinet secretary. The committee will want evidence that Scottish Government policy changes will, in fact, benefit the tax take, because that is the really serious issue for Scotland in the future.

Thank you for that very full answer. I will respond to a couple of points. One relates to a question that the convener asked you. The relationship between the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government has not been great in terms of each knowing what is and is not on the table. It is the same with the Scottish Government and local government. The convener asked whether you feel that a case is to be made for longer-term budgets instead of yearly budgets. In the stage 1 debate last week, several colleagues pointed to the fact that every year we have exactly the same argument.

In your opinion, would it help if we had projections for, perhaps, three years rather than one year, especially in certain areas? University finance is a good example; research cannot be done on a one-year basis, so universities need to understand for how long there will be funding.

My last question is about the longer-term predictions for the Scottish economy, which are, as you know from witnesses who have come to the committee, not good.

I heard you say in answer to the convener that one of the concerns about tax take is that we have issues regarding the population of taxpayers. You referred to the north-east, where there is perhaps greater variation. It is also an area where there is, on balance, a highly educated workforce that earns higher incomes. Therefore, we can argue that it is able to produce more, when it comes to the tax take. If the Scottish Government’s intention is to reduce the oil and gas industry, what effect will that have on the tax take, which we are all desperate to increase? That has substantial repercussions for what the Scottish Fiscal Commission tells us about deficits.

Secondly, I would like clarification of what happens in an appeal process, should that arise. You mentioned that if there was to be an appeal, an external person who has no involvement with any aspect of the complaint would be brought in. Who would make the decision on appointment of that external person?

That would be very welcome, because there is an issue in politics with trust—it is not necessarily to do with the Scottish Government—and ensuring that the public can trust a political process in which somebody is quite clearly guilty of alleged offences. Public trust in politics is crucial; we are currently seeing that play out in various domains.

That is very welcome.

Some people might feel that they have been harassed or bullied, or discriminated against. It is important, in order for them to be able to come forward relatively quickly, that there is trust and a line of independence. If it is felt that that is not there, that makes it all the more difficult for people to come forward, so I thank you for clarifying that.

I have one further question for you, Mr Swinney. Stage 4 of the draft procedure states:

“Where a complaint about a former Minister is upheld, the Permanent Secretary or delegate will consider steps to review practice ... This may include sharing structural lessons with the First Minister”.

Can you expand on what is meant by “structural lessons”? I am not quite sure what that is.

For absolutely clarity, is that about the structure of the process or the actual process itself?