Seòmar agus comataidhean

It has already been mentioned, but one of the issues at the other end is delayed discharge. We have talked a lot about the flow of people going into hospital, but getting them out is key. However, I am afraid that the statistics on that are equally atrocious. In 2023, 658,000 bed days were taken up by delayed discharge. Those are days on which beds could have been occupied by all those people who were sitting in A and E waiting to be admitted. We do not have the full statistics yet for 2024, but doing a year-on-year analysis from November to November, there was a 7 per cent increase in delayed discharge days. My fear is that the number for 2024 will not be great, either.

Of course, the Government promised to eliminate delayed discharge completely, but I do not know how on earth it thought that it was going to do that. It was an admirable ambition, but it is clearly not happening. We had a conversation earlier in which you admitted to being the accountable officer for NHS health and social care, but many of the levers that are required to deal with delayed discharge are entirely outside your control. It must be a huge source of frustration that you cannot really fix that problem, can you?

That is a whole other committee session, is it not?

Given the huge pressures that public finance is under—we have spent two hours talking about them—are you comfortable about the fact that there are civil servants working for you on theoretical white papers—13, I believe, in total? Does that sound like good use of civil service time and taxpayers’ money to you?

Ms Stafford, does anyone in the Scottish Government advise ministers on their taxation policy? Does anyone, at any point, undertake an analysis of the revenues that are achieved versus what was expected? How are we faring with that? Is the Government, through variation in taxation bands in Scotland, getting the amount of money in tax that it thought that it would? Are we looking only at tax intake, or are we looking at the bigger picture in terms of wider investment, difficulty in recruiting and all the other economic factors that sit around taxation policy, not just the numbers themselves?

Many people have lauded and applauded the decisions that have been made, and others, particularly in the business community, have criticised those decisions. I am trying to unearth how the civil service goes about advising ministers on the right course of action, or, indeed, how it flags up any areas of taxation that it thinks should perhaps be changed in the future.

That is the number of individuals; it does not necessarily equate to higher tax intake in numerical terms. You could be losing people and have more people coming in, but they are paying less tax than the people that you are losing. What does that analysis look like?

My other question is about commercial assets, so I will stop there for now and ask about that later.

You think that it is appropriate and impartial. That is your view?

Yes, but those trade-offs are often quite substantial and will come at the expense of the delivery of other worthy public services. For example, capital investments have been frozen, and there have been shifts from the rural affairs, transport and housing budgets to other portfolios where we simply cannot say no to a funding increase. Benefits have to be paid, but we can pause progress on a road project or a hospital renewal. I appreciate that those decisions are made by ministers, but what advice is given to them by the civil service on which portfolios have to be cut to fund increased expenditure in other portfolios?

Okay—I have quite a lot of ground to cover, so I will move on.

Permanent secretary, we hear frequently from ministers, in a comment or a statement—it is a matter of record in the Official Report—that the Scottish Government needs more borrowing powers. My understanding is that the Scottish Government already has a significant amount of borrowing power. Its outstanding borrowing balance is to the tune of £1.7 billion for capital borrowing and £0.5 billion for resource borrowing, which means that over £2 billion is already on the books. Of course, that amount attracts quite a large amount of interest. I understand that there has already been over £320 million of interest on those two figures combined. In the year 2023-24, borrowing repayments of £217 million were made, which is up from £160 million in the year before.

I am trying to understand where we are at with borrowing, because those sound like pretty hefty figures. Are the levels of borrowing in Scotland sustainable? Are we borrowing enough to fund capital projects, or are we borrowing too much?

I will try to squeeze it all into one. I pre-empt it by saying that, if you do not have the responses to my question, you are welcome to write to me or the committee with the statistics that I am looking for.

First, how many people in the Scottish Government work for the constitutional futures division, and what is the annual cost of that department within the civil service?

Secondly, can you confirm today that all members of staff working within the Scottish Government pay income tax in Scotland? If the answer is that some do not, how many of them are there, and into which pay bands do they fall?