Chamber and committees

That is very welcome.

Some people might feel that they have been harassed or bullied, or discriminated against. It is important, in order for them to be able to come forward relatively quickly, that there is trust and a line of independence. If it is felt that that is not there, that makes it all the more difficult for people to come forward, so I thank you for clarifying that.

I have one further question for you, Mr Swinney. Stage 4 of the draft procedure states:

“Where a complaint about a former Minister is upheld, the Permanent Secretary or delegate will consider steps to review practice ... This may include sharing structural lessons with the First Minister”.

Can you expand on what is meant by “structural lessons”? I am not quite sure what that is.

For absolutely clarity, is that about the structure of the process or the actual process itself?

Secondly, I would like clarification of what happens in an appeal process, should that arise. You mentioned that if there was to be an appeal, an external person who has no involvement with any aspect of the complaint would be brought in. Who would make the decision on appointment of that external person?

That would be very welcome, because there is an issue in politics with trust—it is not necessarily to do with the Scottish Government—and ensuring that the public can trust a political process in which somebody is quite clearly guilty of alleged offences. Public trust in politics is crucial; we are currently seeing that play out in various domains.

Thank you. That is—

Just to be clear, you are recommending that that should be done in the independent report about the—[Inaudible.]—and also in the independent review of the wider issue.

Thank you, convener. I am sorry about that—there was a slight blip in the broadcasting.

The third issue that I want to raise is exogenous shocks. Obviously, we have experienced one as a result of Covid. Your report is clear that, in such circumstances, there might have to be minimum funding guarantees. I think that everybody agrees that they have been a good thing, but you also say that they cannot continue on a long-term basis, because that would be inherently unfair. You set out that, in an exogenous shock situation, there is the potential to have enhanced borrowing powers. How exactly do you see that working for the period of an exogenous shock? Would there be a time period for the enhanced borrowing?

My first question is for David Phillips. I was very interested in—[Inaudible.]—all the different principles behind the Smith commission and that, because of that, choices might have to be made about priorities. Obviously, those are political decisions for the Scottish and UK Governments. Is it your view that it would be possible for the independent review to flag up the costs and benefits of choosing different priorities? I know that it will not be the job of the independent review to recommend policy, but should it be part of the review to look at the costs and benefits of the different priorities that could be chosen?

That is helpful. That is important for the overall principle behind exactly what we are trying to achieve—namely, the best outcome for Scotland and the United Kingdom.

There is probably growing consensus on the political spectrum that there is a case for examining the issue of forecast errors. People who have been in front of the committee fairly recently have had concerns about our ability to forecast well, the time delays between forecasts, and whether we get things right.

I am not worried about who answers these questions, but are there aspects that we need to address that are not just to do with the timing of different forecasts, particularly Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts against Office for Budget Responsibility ones? Is there extra data that we should be working on to improve our forecast ability?

Good morning. Cabinet secretary, I know that you are keen that we stick to the facts that are contained within the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast, which informed your budget, and I will try very hard to do so. Just before I come to questions about some of the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s comments, I turn to page 104 of the Scottish Government consolidated accounts for 2020-21, which shows an underspend of £580 million, broken down across portfolios. Some portfolios have an overspend but some have a very considerable underspend, including big portfolios such as health and sport and transport and infrastructure. Can you be clear about why that underspend exists and what informed the choices when it came to overspend and underspend?