Chamber and committees

Thank you very much for that opening statement. In time-honoured fashion, I will start with some questions before I go round the table.

The committee received 46 submissions in response to its call for evidence, and the cabinet secretary will not be surprised to learn that, although there were myriad calls from organisations for additional expenditure, the same organisations were much more coy about exactly how much they were calling for and, indeed, whom the Scottish Government would or should ask to pay for that expenditure. Often the responses suggested that any benefits from such expenditure would be long term but the costs would be much more immediate.

We have also had Labour politicians seeking a quadrupling of the Scottish child payment at a cost of £272 million a year and Conservatives suggesting that the Scottish Government could, if it so wished, pick up the tab for the £20-a-week cut in universal credit at a cost of £461 million a year. My simple question is this: how much room does the Scottish Government have for manoeuvre and what are its priorities in the coming year?

We have talked about demographics, skills and jobs. The Government has a young person’s guarantee, but it is facing a reduction of 60,000 workers in the 16 to 64 age group between 2020 and 2026. What does the Government do to focus on the 55 to 67 age group, for example. They have a lot of skills and experience, and many of them are very reliable. How will the Government get back some of those people into the workforce or get them retrained?

Okay, but let me continue with my question. I was not asking about the spending for which the national insurance levy is being raised, which is for health and social care; I was asking about the impact of the levy on local government, for example, which collectively will have to pay £31 million to the Treasury. I understand that the UK Government has agreed that it will provide—certainly south of the border—the consequentials in that regard. Has that been guaranteed for Scotland, so that some of that £1 billion that you mentioned does not have to be fired back into local government, police and fire services and so on? That is what I was trying to get at; I apologise if I did not explain that clearly.

Thank you. The second part of my question was about the implications of the national insurance increase for economic and employment growth in Scotland.

I am going to ask a couple of questions about the impact on economic growth of issues that are currently prominent in the news; in fact, I saw the Prime Minister answering questions on them in the news this morning.

In the hour prior to the meeting, we had a significant discussion about skills shortages with our budget adviser. Skills shortages are acute in many sectors, and there is huge divergence across Scotland—we acknowledge that. What additional resources will the Scottish Government invest to address those shortages? Which sectors are being prioritised? Is there a focus on geographic areas of the economy? In some areas, there is a surplus labour pool whereas there is a chronic shortage of labour in other areas. In economics, there is always the question whether the people should be moved to the jobs or the jobs to the people. What is the Scottish Government’s view on that, given that, when we consider the demographic future of Scotland, even over the next decade, we see that some local authorities will have significant population growth? For example, there is projected growth of 8 per cent for Midlothian, whereas there is a projected 4 per cent reduction for the Western Isles. What is the Scottish Government’s approach to that key issue?

Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting in 2021 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.

Agenda item 1 is an evidence-taking session with the Auditor General for Scotland on tracking the impact of Covid-19 on Scotland’s public finances. Audit Scotland recently published a report on this important topic; members have received copies of it, along with a note from the clerks and a private briefing paper from the Scottish Parliament information centre’s financial scrutiny unit.

I welcome to the meeting Sharon Dowey MSP, who is deputy convener of the Public Audit Committee. She is joining us for this session because her committee might wish to undertake work on the report in the future.

I also welcome to the meeting our witnesses: Stephen Boyle is the Auditor General for Scotland, and Mark Taylor is audit director at Audit Scotland. I intend to allow around 90 minutes for the session. Before I open things up to questions from committee members, I invite the Auditor General to make a short opening statement.

My question is really about how the process can be improved.

I do not know. Ross Greer will still be with us, even in 20 or 30 years’ time. Maybe one or two other members will be, too.

I have a couple of questions to finish the evidence session. In the report, you noted that the Scottish Government said:

“the tracking of spend is more straightforward across health and social care and the larger support schemes; outside of these, judgements have been made about how Covid-19 disruption to spending on services has been recorded.”

How has that varied? Has the approach been consistent or inconsistent across the directorates during the Covid-19 pandemic?

[Inaudible.]—my last question. First, Stephen Boyle, you said that there has been variation through necessity as much as anything else, but, with regard to what you have just said, Mark Taylor, have reporting mechanisms and transparency improved, stayed the same or deteriorated over the pandemic? Earlier, you said that another layer of reporting would be helpful, but you also said that the situation has improved over the past 18 months. Is it fair to say that? If so, could it have improved more?