Chamber and committees

That hits the nail on the head. In Scotland, forecasting is a difficult job because the SFC is having to deal with two forecasts rather than just one.

If we accept that there will be a degree of forecast error, we have to play that into the system. Do you know whether, when the OBR and the SFC are looking back at the predictions that they made and how things turned out in practice, there is a lot of co-operation between the two in order to assess where some of the forecast error came in? In your opinion, is that well documented?

When you say that it has got a lot worse, is it that the trends of that forecasting have got worse, or is there just extra volatility in the earnings that is very difficult to predict? I am asking whether there is a problem with the statistics that we are using and, therefore, a difficulty for the OBR and the SFC in interpreting that data or whether something else is causing a problem.

Thank you. That is very helpful.

Let me return to the issue of forecasting by the OBR and the SFC. What you have set out for us is extremely important not only for determining some of the issues within fiscal frameworks but in relation to setting budgets. We have had the OBR and the SFC in front of this committee—they were extremely professional in both cases, I have to say. Is there statistical evidence, within recent trends of the forecasting of the OBR and the SFC, or particular data that shows a greater issue of error or volatility, or is it just the overall predictions that provide some problems for us?

Is it not the case, convener, that previous finance committees have come to exactly the same conclusion that we have, which is that there are strong reasons for this being so complex and difficult and that the practicalities are just too great?

As you will know, we are doing some work on public sector reform and, in previous committee meetings, we have discussed a previous Scottish Government commitment to ensuring that the size of the public sector was roughly what it was before Covid. Is it still the Government’s policy intention for that to be the case?

I heard your answer to Mr Mason—I was just asking why you had made that decision.

Right.

Sticking with the education and skills portfolio, am I correct in thinking that some pupil equity money has been returned to the centre?

My final question is on the First Minister’s statement about the £300 million extra that is being allocated to the national health service. As I understand it, we are talking about £100 million in each successive budget over three years. Are you able to say where that money is coming from?

With respect, minister, it is not enough just to put it out in good faith. As Michelle Thomson rightly said, it is our duty and responsibility in this committee to be rigorous in the scrutiny that we adopt on the financial memorandum. She also cited the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill and the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill. I understand why it is important that good policy making is based on co-design, where the stakeholders work in collaboration with the Government. I absolutely get that, but, if that co-design process is extended almost indefinitely—as it is, as far as I can see, in this case—it is almost impossible for us to scrutinise the final numbers of a financial memorandum. Do you accept that?