Seòmar agus comataidhean

I put on the record similar concerns to those that my three colleagues have spoken about so far. The financial memorandum is an important part of any bill or legislation, and it is important that, when we pass bills, they are good law. Good law has certain principles—namely, it has to have clarity of purpose, it has to be understood and it has to be workable, but it also has to have a strong evidence base. Although we are considering only the financial memorandum and not the wider policy commitments, the committee is struggling with the lack of an evidence base.

You have just given an answer to Michelle Thomson that makes it clear that work is being done on an on-going basis and that the information will be updated. Our problem is that we have to scrutinise the financial memorandum. Do you accept the criticism that has been levelled at you by the people who will give evidence later this morning and others who have provided written submissions? The convener described it as “excoriating” criticism. Do you accept that those people have a point and that there is not enough information for them to make a value judgment about how to proceed?

I understand fully why people might wish to see a policy change—you are right that a lot of people would like change in delivery of health and social care and how it is organised. However, this is about the procedure and how the change can best be put into practice. The stakeholders who are giving evidence to you and the committee are not comfortable with the process, in which they are, in effect, being left in the dark when it comes to many of the costs, which have not been laid out. Do you accept that that criticism must be addressed?

Ms Wearing, you made an interesting point about IJBs in response to an earlier question from Michelle Thomson. You said that you felt that there was scope for improvement. What did you mean by that, given the role that IJBs have in the context of care? Would that have any financial implications?

Given the concerns that you rightly have about the proposed changes, do you think that there are changes that could be made to the IJB system that would help us to achieve the aims and objectives that everyone wants to achieve, but without having to go through the major overhaul that is proposed in the bill?

Mr Mason cited the example of college regionalisation, which represented a substantial change to the college sector. I also remember the passage of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, which was a huge bill. At the beginning of those processes, there were issues with the accuracy of the financial memorandums to the bills. Such substantial pieces of legislation take a lot of time to go through Parliament. In addition, at this time cost inflation is rising substantially, which will affect the financial memorandum, over time.

The setting up of a national care service is a huge policy change. I will not argue about the merits and demerits of that policy change, but the financial memorandum that accompanies it is really important. I feel that, at the moment, we are not in a position to make a very good judgment, because we do not have enough information.

That is very helpful. It is encouraging to hear that there is some good news among the gloom.

Notwithstanding the points that you have just made, I will come back to two of the challenges that you cited, namely those in relation to the workforce and housing. In making Scotland a much more attractive place to live, work and invest, is it the Scottish Government’s intention to ensure that the tax system—the levers that you have with the Scottish Parliament—drives down tax to ensure that we are not seen as uncompetitive when compared to the rest of the UK? That is an issue that is coming through a lot of forecasts. If the current fiscal arrangements in the UK stay in place, there is no question but that there will be difficulties for the Scottish Government unless it can match some of the tax changes. Do you accept that point?

However, on the back of that, when the initial announcement came from the UK Government, a large proportion of the Scottish business sector was very supportive of a large part of the fiscal statement, because it was very focused on high growth and a low tax agenda, in contrast to many of the forecasts for Scotland, which has seen fairly high tax—not necessarily with the benefits of good-quality public services in the way that we would like—and low growth.

I come back to the question that some of our very senior businessmen and women who want Scotland to have the same focus as the United Kingdom when it comes to that low-tax, high-growth agenda, are asking. In the forecast that you will make for the Scottish budget, will you apply that same policy so that people feel that Scotland is not only somewhere they want to stay, but somewhere they want to come? As you said in the debate on the programme for government, there are serious issues about the size of our working population.

I do not disagree with you on some aspects of the workers issue. I think that you and I share the same views on the Brexit scenario, but the issue is not all about that, by any means; it is about differential tax rates. You mentioned housing. The changes in stamp duty down south will benefit someone who is buying a house to the tune of about £20,000. If we do not make similar changes to the land and buildings transaction tax, things will be made more difficult here. I am concerned that there are other issues at play in Scotland that do not necessarily make it a particularly attractive place in which to live and work.

This is not just about the current budget scenario, although I agree that there are many issues with that, particularly the lack of adequate forecasts, which you rightly cited. This is not a new problem; it has been going on for quite some time, which you will see if you look back at what the Scottish Fiscal Commission and other forecasters have been saying. That is why I am really interested in what direction of travel the Scottish Government will set out to address the significant issues of growth and productivity in our economy. This is not just a Brexit issue.

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I put it on record that I understand and accept that your job is much more difficult because of the difficulties that have been introduced by the Westminster Government, particularly with regard to the forecast. I absolutely understand why you prefaced your remarks with reference to that.

In the debate on the Scottish Government’s programme for government at the start of this session, you mentioned two interesting things to me, namely that the Scottish Government is challenged with trying to improve economic growth, particularly by increasing productivity, and that you feel that the size of the Scottish working population in relation to total population is a major problem—I think that those were the words that you used. That latter point has been a focus of the Scottish Fiscal Commission for some years now.

Notwithstanding all the challenges that we face, could you say something about your economic plan to try to develop issues relating to growth? What will the Scottish Government prioritise in trying to improve our economic growth and our productivity?

I was interested in what you said in response to Mr Greer about the need for a grown-up discussion in Parliament about what we bring in through revenue and what we spend. I do not think that there is any doubt that increasing transparency and accountability in this Parliament is essential. I think that it was two weeks ago that we had witnesses in the committee who were very keen on that idea.

In fact, a couple of the witnesses were suggesting that we should have a finance bill to enhance that process and I am interested to hear your views on that. It comes on the back of the national performance framework, which is obviously centre stage to the Scottish Government’s delivery. We have had a lot of debates about how easy it is to measure the outcomes when you have specific policies within the national performance framework. How easy is that process? Are you minded to be fairly favourable towards the idea of a finance bill that could help to enhance scrutiny and openness?