Seòmar agus comataidhean

I understand that. However, my question is about a slightly different point. You are saying that the ring-fenced areas for policy delivery are not being sufficiently funded, and I was asking you to clarify by how much. If you can provide that in writing, that would be really helpful.

Managing finances is complicated—I will come on to the 40 financial reports shortly—but I would suggest that managing people is even more complicated and difficult.

At the top end, the MTFS assumes 3 per cent pay growth, but that has been superseded by the most recent pay awards of 5 per cent. Are you saying that the Government’s working assumption is that the payroll bill will essentially remain fixed and that it will therefore have to manage the head count accordingly? Secondly, are the systems and processes in place to enable it to do that? I think that that is being implied or stated in broad terms, but my fear is that without detailed work behind the scenes it could lead to some quite brutal outcomes for people who work in the public sector.

The convener will be delighted that you arrived at the right answer by suggesting that he should convene that body.

I very much approach the budget and the decisions that we have with my small business owner’s hat on. We can look at all sorts of things in terms of complexity, but, to get down to brass tacks, a lot of it boils down to what the Government’s expenditure is. What is optional and what is not? What is fixed and what is variable?

It is clear from Audit Scotland’s submission that the Scottish Government’s £22 billion payroll cost for direct and indirect staff is its single biggest cost. That contrasts with things that are mentioned in the submissions from the bodies that are represented in front us today and from others, such as £1.5 billion-worth of spend on procurement. That is small beer compared with the payroll cost. What are Stephen Boyle’s thoughts on the Scottish Government’s options on head count?

Critically—this is also mentioned in your submission—the Government’s medium-term financial strategy assumes that the workforce will continue to grow at 1 per cent a year. To my mind, that stands in contrast to Government statements about reducing head count to pre-pandemic levels. What handle does the Government have on head count? Where is the Government thinking on how it will manage head count over the coming years?

I understand, but I would like a little further clarification. Do you believe that the data is being captured, which means that the issue is simply one of accessing it, or is the issue that the new agency is not capturing the same level and detail of data that you previously expected to get from the UK social security system?

I hand over to my colleagues Liz Smith, followed by John Mason, to ask questions.

I thank Douglas Lumsden for not asking the follow-up question about what could be done to boost the birth rate.

As we have a few minutes left, I will ask two follow-up questions. First, on fiscal sustainability, the variable that you look at is population change. Your paper shows that the change in the population shape from an upright pyramid to an inverted one will not be smooth—for example, the data shows a glut of 30-year-olds. To what extent does that complicate projections? How feasible is it for you to do as consistent and isolated a forecast as possible when the change in the population is not linear?

I was struck by the regional breakdowns in the forecast that you produced in early December, which were extrapolated from Office for National Statistics data. I am thinking in particular about the breakdowns for growth, employment, earnings and total tax take, in which you showed Scotland’s position relative to not just RUK—although the position relative to the other devolved nations is important—but regions of England such as the north-east, the north-west and the south-west.

However, you have not replicated that approach. I was told that I could do so by going to ONS; I tried, but it was a bit beyond my data-analysis skills. To what extent will that regional breakdown form part of your presentations, on-going analyses, forecasts and longer-term work? It strikes me that comparisons with RUK and comparable parts of England are useful as we grapple with issues of demography, productivity and growth in the economy.

Indeed. I found that approach quite illuminating in your December report.

That draws our questions to a close, and I thank Professor Graeme Roy, Claire Murdoch and Professor David Ulph for their—as ever—enlightening contributions. That concludes the public part of the meeting, as we agreed to consider our work programme in private.

Good morning and welcome to the 22nd meeting in 2022 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. As you might have noted, I am the committee’s deputy convener, but I am sitting in the chair as convener of the meeting because the convener has unfortunately lost his voice this morning. I ask my fellow committee members not to smirk or smile at that fact; indeed, I have asked the clerks to investigate whether there has been any foul play—I am not looking at John Mason in particular.

We are very pleased to have with us the Scottish Fiscal Commission, given that agenda item 1 is an evidence-taking session on the four new reports that it published last week. Members will have received copies of the “Forecast Evaluation Report”, the “Approach to Fiscal Sustainability Consultation Paper”, “Trends in Scotland’s population and effects on the economy and income tax” and the commission’s fourth “Statement of Data Needs”.

Without further ado, I welcome to the meeting Professor Graeme Roy, who is appearing before us not for the first time in person but for the first time as chair of the Scottish Fiscal Commission; Professor David Ulph, commissioner; and Claire Murdoch, head of social security and public funding. I believe that John Ireland has been unable to make it, as he, too, is unwell.

I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for this session. I invite Professor Roy to make a short opening statement before I open it up to questions from the committee.

Thank you, Liz. We turn to questions from John Mason.