Seòmar agus comataidhean

This is my last question and is for my own clarity. Will this be the only financial memorandum? Will you break down the detail, associated risks and potential cost overruns, which are what we are concerned about, through the detailed business cases and regular updates to the committee?

Good morning. My question goes back to the top level. How did we get to this point? I am surprised by the financial memorandum’s complete lack of what I regard as fundamentals. We have covered a number of those issues so far, in this session. I would like to understand why that is the case. I understand that the financial memorandum has to be produced alongside the bill, but how did we end up with an FM that does not even begin to cover the fundamentals? Speaking personally, and based on my experience, which is mostly in business, I say that I have no confidence whatever that the FM represents any level of accuracy or, therefore, of value for money. How did we get here?

Therefore, would the change not be a benefit to those defined benefit schemes, given that the liability lies with the provider? We have massive inflation, and I imagine that a lot of pension schemes are feeling somewhat nervous. To my mind, losing a lot of people would be a benefit from a local council perspective, albeit that I accept that it is a problem for the TUPE scheme. Am I misunderstanding something?

I used to work in a pensions company, so I am with you.

So, it is policy driven—I understand that. You are correct that the amalgamation of health and social care has been a wish for a long time. However, that different approach has clearly introduced significant other risks, even with apportioning or estimating costs up front. The ranges that you have set out are very wide.

Let me put it this way: if it was your personal money, you would not be risking it. How will you mitigate the risk of there being significant cost overruns in a multitude of areas? My colleagues have mentioned issues with VAT, defined benefit pensions, assets, staff, double running, IT and even uncertainty about the governance of boards. Each one of those issues would introduce additional costs. How will you mitigate the risks in the process that you have adopted?

You make a point that reflects my personal experience, which is that a programme plan is only ever accurate after the programme has finished. That is the standard issue and risk for all the spend. What you are describing makes that more likely, rather than less likely. You are talking about the business cases in the areas that you mentioned earlier, but only at that point will we start, from a financial perspective, to get a sense of the risks to the public purse. There are concerns about parliamentary scrutiny, on which I absolutely back up what my colleague, Mr Mason, said.

I looked in the financial memorandum specifically for the word “risk”. It is mentioned only twice. However, this is screaming out that there are huge risks, to me. It might be that you are under pressure in terms of timescales in which to deliver, but from my perspective of financial scrutiny, I am seeing a blank cheque. That is deeply worrying in respect of the public purse.

If you had had a choice, would you have produced that financial memorandum or would you have wanted more detail and further breakdowns based on the policy provisions? Were you pushed to bring forward the financial memorandum?

Thank you.

Good morning. I read all your submissions with great interest, and I share your concerns about some of the issues that have already been touched on around VAT, pensions, assets, governance and so on. In the previous evidence session, I added in some of my own concerns. However, in the interests of giving every panel an equally hard time, I want to ask you some questions.

Any change that removes or is perceived to remove responsibilities is always resisted by the affected body. To what extent are you simply resistant to change and protecting your own turf, if you like?

Sarah Watters smiled, so she can go first.

I have the same general observation that I relayed in the earlier session about how scrutiny will be undertaken and how there will be alignment with our priorities—in terms of fair work, conditionality or gender fairness—both proactively and up front and reactively in terms of value for spend and alignment to the national performance framework. That is my first question.

My second question is that it would be helpful for me—and would make your concern live—if you could outline some practical examples of where the fact that the powers are too broad would be a concern in procurement processes.

To go back to my first point, we covered this in an earlier session, but what was said then will belong in a different record. Will the discussions include any consideration of how procurement and the enactment of this bill will align directly with the national performance framework? I call your attention to the fact that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has asked that the UK Government has cognisance of this, because there are specific measurable outcomes that the Scottish Government will be measured against, even if it is not directly linear—we appreciate the complexity of the budget. Has any consideration been given to that or is that an additional area of concern for you?