Seòmar agus comataidhean

Last week, we had some very interesting conversations with the OBR about some of the challenges that forecasters are facing. I suspect that we might have similar discussions with the Scottish Fiscal Commission in the evidence session this morning. I raise that because the OBR expressed considerable frustration about the recent spring statement, as its projections on welfare spending were based on policy commitments that the UK Government had made but that were no longer the case. The statement made short-term and late adjustments, creating considerable frustration and difficulties for the OBR. In Scotland, the Scottish Fiscal Commission expressed its concerns that the mitigation of the two-child cap came very late in the day.

I know that you cannot comment on policy or on whether the right policy is in place, but do you think that Governments making very late announcements is creating genuine challenges and difficulties for forecasters and, therefore, for people like yourself, who are having to audit what is happening? Is that causing greater difficulty?

Thank you for all the excellent work that you do. I want to ask about the challenge of trying to measure the effect of putting more money into something to improve outcomes against measures that are not related to money. The reason I ask this is that, some years back—it was probably about 10 or 12 years ago—Reform Scotland did an interesting study on the considerable increase in the amount of money that had gone into education in Scotland in the context of declining outcomes in literacy, numeracy and some other issues.

Building on what the convener said, more and more money is being put into health—that is what has happened in Scotland. Some of the outcomes are not encouraging at all, while others are. How easy is it to get a handle on the effectiveness of measures that are financial—that is, measures that are down to more money being put in—against other measures that are having a positive effect but have nothing to do with money?

Does the member accept that the weakness that he has just identified—rightly, in my opinion—is hampering improvements in educational standards, because the system does not have sufficient trust or sufficient accountability? That is creating some of the limbo that he has mentioned for parents, pupils and teachers.

Would Mr Greer comment on whether he thinks that part of the issue that we are facing is that we are trying to put structures around education in Scotland without knowing what the future vision of education in Scotland will be?

I speak with a bit of experience, having sat on the Parliament’s education committee, along with other members around the table, on two separate occasions—under Mike Russell and then under John Swinney as education secretaries—where we tried, and I think that we all failed, to come to an agreement about what the vision of education in Scotland should be, and therefore what the structure should be.

I have been following this debate quite carefully. There is a danger that we will create structures that do not necessarily articulate the vision that we are trying to establish. Would Mr Greer agree with that?

I am sorry to interrupt you, but if those changes come very late in the day, as they did in the reserved and the devolved institutions this time, does that create difficulty with forecasting accurately what you are predicting over the next budget year or subsequent years?

Do you think that the UK Government appreciates that problem?

I think it is time for a revisit, convener.

Does that approach work well in Finland?

I make the point because, to go back to the convener’s question about transparency, the situation becomes increasingly difficult if things are done at the last minute. As you said, if that happens, it is difficult to expand on the implications that a policy change might have for the labour market, inflation or whatever. Therefore, we run the risk of having less accurate forecasting, which concerns us. That is on top of the fact that the SFC and the OBR produce forecasts at different times—the convener mentioned that lag—which compounds the issue.

We have been taking evidence on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s review of how effectively the Scottish Fiscal Commission operates. The SFC was generally given a very clean bill of health. However, an interesting issue was raised about the SFC’s groundbreaking approach of giving a very long-term projection for the Scottish economy—it goes all the way up to the year 2070. On one level, that is very helpful, but there is the argument, which was part of some discussion and debate just last weekend, that those very long-term projections slightly take the focus away from short-term policy making to address serious issues in the economy.

I know that you cannot comment on the policy, but are you concerned that, if we go too far into the future, we will have issues with short-term policy making?

Thank you for that helpful answer about the committee set-up.

What can the Parliament do better? I think that there was cross-party frustration—it is nothing to do with party politics—at the time of the budget that we had a budget debate that was a bit dead in the water. Each of the committees is asked to make a presentation in the budget debate, which is made by the committee convener and, therefore, must be objective. The limited scope for MSPs to debate in that forum is not very helpful and the debate is also constrained by time.

Some of us around the table have been arguing for a finance bill in order to enhance scrutiny, but I wonder whether a structural change in the Parliament, as opposed to committees, could make it easier for there to be good quality scrutiny and whether it could heighten the general interest of MSPs in the budget process. It would be quite easy for an MSP to avoid getting involved in the budget, yet it is one of the most important things that we do—some would say that it is the most important. Do you have any suggestions about how we could change the structure of the Parliament to improve scrutiny?