Seòmar agus comataidhean

I still think that you are making my point for me. It perhaps goes back to Michael Marra’s observation about a range of numbers.

There is no denying the amount of work that you have put into the bill. We listen to a lot of people presenting financial memorandums, and the only thing that we can be certain of is that they are always wrong, because that is their nature. [Laughter.] What is your best guess—I suspect that your laughter means that you agree with that—as to where your FM is probably wrong, on balance and all things considered? It is okay to tell the committee, because we like that—

I will probably be quite quick. I have been listening with interest to all the questions thus far, and I have just a couple of questions. First, I want to explore a bit more the extent to which you have considered such a significant culture shift and how risk is managed within it. Earlier, you mentioned a level of peer support for people who are administering it. When people think about being involved in such events, they often say, “If I was to do that, this is how I would behave”, but the truth is that people do not really know. When it is the antithesis of the Hippocratic oath that medical professionals undertake, how they will react remains uncertain. My first question is therefore about trying to put a number on such a significant culture shift, given that antithesis to the Hippocratic oath.

Secondly, on risk, we have talked about safeguarding, but we have not looked at it from the point of view that any organisation that is worth its salt would make sure that it buttoned down its processes to protect itself from any kind of legal challenge.

To get both of those areas right could introduce extra costs. We are talking about this as though all things are equal, when it is a dramatic shift for what is quite a small-c conservative country—Scotland. I want your reflections on how actively you have considered both of those elements as part of the financial memorandum.

I am intrigued by your comment, Sandy, and I have to say that I do not disagree with you. However, to what extent do you think that the complexity around public sector reform is understood? My perception is that the conversation has coalesced around the need for it, but that is arguably the easy bit, and, as soon as you start talking about the how of it, the issue suddenly gets complicated and will bring up the question of priorities, which is what John Mason was alluding to. As someone who is across a lot of this stuff, to what extent do you think the discussion is starting to mature in a way that involves the consideration of complex issues as well as issues of cost?

If you do not mind me saying so, you are almost making my argument for me. My argument is that such a cultural shift will take place. Of course that is happening, but there is a financial cost to it. This is not your bog-standard bill. I am glad to hear that that is happening because it is extremely important but, given that it is happening, the work that will require to be done across the whole range of things that we have covered today will probably be more expensive, because it goes into areas that people might not necessarily have thought about previously. It is quite a big shift.

You are highlighting, I suppose, the upside of being able to utilise the shared learning around a PMO—the downside is the change management processes that come with that.

I want to pick up on a point that my colleague Kevin Stewart made when you used the term “added GVA”. I am not going to have another go at you; I simply note that, with regard to the announcement by PetroChina, the figures that we have for the impact on jobs is that more than 400 direct jobs will be lost, and the Scottish Government has referred to a wider impact amounting to nearly 3,000 jobs. That surprises me, given that—you can correct me if I am wrong—the £10 million from the Scottish Government for greener Grangemouth was in essence for increasing community wellbeing, instead of specifically seeking to replace jobs. There was reference to the supply chain, and some of the businesses involved were SMEs that provided hamburgers and so on nearby. What are your thoughts on the decision-making processes that led to the focus on community wellbeing rather than jobs, which was the point that Kevin Stewart was making?

That was it—thank you.

My question is for Malcolm Bennie. With regard to the governance of the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, while it is ostensibly more simple because only Falkirk Council is involved, it is also more complex, given that Ineos is at the heart of the area’s future, and Ineos’s vested interests will therefore come to the fore. From a governance perspective, how are you consciously addressing that?

If Ineos is on the board, it is clearly influencing it at that level. I would not necessarily expect it to be involved in delivery, but it is a key influencer by merit of its being on the board.

Good morning, minister. You might have already mentioned this, but this is just so that I am clear. You are saying, in relation to the mismatch between the lists, that you are seeking to see in the bill the same list of what is specifically devolved and set out in the 1998 act, but that the UK IMA could override that, regardless. I think that that is the point that you made earlier. In that case, what is the point? How are you seeking to address the matter? We know that a most comprehensive cross-party report was done here in Parliament, which set out a wide range of issues in relation to the UK IMA. Beyond the lists matching, what are you doing to make the point about the UK IMA in the light of the situation and the complexities therein?

You rightly made the point that it is an enabling bill—a framework bill. You will be aware that there has been quite a lot of discussion in the Parliament about framework bills and what they enable. Efficiency and effectiveness has been discussed, and there has been scrutiny by MSPs of the matter in the chamber and in committees.

Have you given any thought to how you will ameliorate the potential risks, if Scottish ministers have the potential to give consent, but still ensure that the appropriate scrutiny can take place, given that framework bills limit effective scrutiny in the chamber? That is, in general, considered to be an issue by members across the committee.

I apologise to the rest of the panel. I suspect that that discussion has been a bit Falkirk specific, but I hope that you will forgive me, given my vested interest. Thank you, convener.