Chamber and committees

That is very helpful, because I think that that is about factors other than those in the current set-up.

I asked the OBR witnesses this morning where they feel we have the greatest challenge when it comes to productivity, in terms of unemployment and the participation rate. I would also like to ask you whether you detect, in the slight increase that is forecast for unemployment, that that will happen on a UK basis, or are there particular aspects that mean that unemployment in some parts of the UK is rising faster than it is in others, and that different sectors are showing different trends?

Good morning. I will pursue that issue of productivity, which is absolutely critical, as Professor Miles said. I also want to interrogate the panel about the unemployment forecast and the participation forecast, which are extremely important.

You said earlier that for the unemployment forecast you are using material from the business labour market surveys, information from HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, and so on. Your prediction for the end of next year is that the unemployment rate will be 5.5 to 6 per cent. Are you detecting that there is a danger of an increase in unemployment in any particular sectors?

That is all very helpful. During the past several years, we have had various deliberations about how we articulate the forecasts from the OBR, the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the Office for National Statistics. Although it is nobody’s fault, there is frustration that we cannot get the forecasts all lined up and covering the same time period. That is very difficult for both Governments, particularly the Scottish Government, which is having to interrogate all three of the forecasts, whereas that is not the case in Westminster. Based on comments that we have had from other witnesses, I understand that co-operation between all three groups is very good. Is there any way that we can try to minimise the problem with the time lag between different forecasts and ensure that they are all on the same page?

That is very helpful because it is an area that is absolutely critical to productivity. It is important to ensure that we have absolute accuracy when it comes to the numbers of people in the different categories of income levels, as they will obviously benefit the tax revenue and things like that.

I am sorry. May I come back on that? You are arguing that there should be other factors in improving that fiscal rule, so I am a bit confused as to why you think that it is too loose, when you feel—

Good morning. I want to ask you about a comment that your colleague Paul Johnson made, which was that he felt that Mr Hunt was on course—just “on course”—to meet what he described as

“his (poorly designed) fiscal rule”.

What do you feel is “poorly designed” about it, and what would you like to see instead?

Thank you for that. Therefore, there is a problem with regard to the timescale but you also feel that it is not sufficiently diverse in its targets—it is too tight. Is that what you are saying?

I want to pursue that last point. Obviously, when the aggregates tax is introduced, that will be quite a big change to the work that you undertake. For a start, you will be responsible for its collection and management. You say on page 44 of your resource accounts report that you are “working closely” with the Scottish Government on how to set that up. Will that have considerable ramifications for the way in which you operate your workforce?

Given that SEPA is not able to provide that, are you likely to have to train up individuals specifically to have those skills, if they have to go out to quarries or wherever?

Everything that you have said this morning gives us a high degree of confidence in the professionalism of Revenue Scotland. Obviously, the change is potentially a substantial one, and we want to identify that we have the right capacity and the skills required for the collection and management of the new tax. You sound reasonably confident about that.