Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. Rob mentioned something about capital expenditure, which is the other area that I wanted to ask about. A comment in the minutes of STERG’s most recent meeting notes that the investment models have been challenging. You commented on the financial accountability rules and the fact that the Scottish Government cannot offer any flexibility. Is my understanding correct—that that is simply to do with the fact that the Scottish Government, according to the fiscal framework rules by which it is bound, cannot carry forward? In effect, by law, it is not in a position to offer flexibility. If that is correct, are you any further forward with that blocker around structuring investment models? That might follow on from what Rob Dickson was saying about capex.

Yes. What you have described is careful management of the limitations on that money, which, after all, cannot be carried forward. I would think that if you were running a business, as I have done, and were unable to carry forward any money—particularly capex, with all the implications that that would have—you would have to do a lot of work just to manage that kind of limitation. That is what I am trying to explore. Is that the case? Have you just got used to the fact that you will have to manage things around that limitation and will expend effort and incur expenditure in doing so?

Thank you for that, Marc, but before we move on, do you have hard data on women-led businesses, and do you routinely disaggregate that data in any surveys? I am heartened by the warm fuzzy feeling that I am getting from you, but data is everything.

It certainly does. Does Vicki Miller have anything to add to that?

In my old world of consultancy, I would also be adding up the hours that are spent on the toing and froing, because it seems extraordinarily inefficient. All that complexity is, in effect, a waste of public funds.

I have a daft wee question that goes back to the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the committee’s comment under point 49 that it

“accepts that there may always be a degree of ‘political spin’ about how the level of UK Government funding affects the Scottish Budget.”

You have come back and made the point that there is no difference between the totality of funding in the Scottish budget document and the Scottish Fiscal Commission one, but that the issue centres around comparison with previous years. You also make the point that the Scottish Fiscal Commission uses estimates of 2021 funding.

My simple question is: given the complexity in those late figures emerging, surely it is better to compare actuals, because the only time that a budget is accurate is when it contains actuals? Will you share some reflections on that? It seems that we are trying to spin plates—and that is not assisting our job. I would appreciate a bit more flavour on that.

I have one final wee question. You talked about prudent assessment of the potential scale of additional funds. That term “prudent” has a particular meaning. What do you regard as prudent? What margin of error have you built in?

The cabinet secretary will be pleased to know that, coming last, I have only a few questions because it has been such a comprehensive session.

We have talked a lot about outcome. Of course, everybody is focused on outcome and efficient and effective spend of public money. To go back to your points about the carry forward, do the limits on carry forward ultimately lead to less effective use of public money? We are talking about the complexities of a budget process, and I am trying to sum up why we should care about that, if we are focused on efficient and effective use of public money. If you agree that the limits lead to less effective use of public money, it would be useful to have some examples of where that has affected decision making—particularly in capital expenditure.

You will be pleased to hear that I am not coming in on that matter, although that was a very interesting conversation.

I realised that I missed something earlier. Kate Forbes made a point about the additional costs of grid connections when Daniel Johnson was probing about the net present value of ScotWind. So that I am clear, are you saying that those costs are baked into the ScotWind estimates? The cost of grid connections are historically skewed and we know that that has been subject to a long-running dispute. That could run for another 50 years, even if there is subsequent change. Have you had to factor the additional costs of grid connections into the figures that you mentioned?

I also want to pick up on the issue of procurement, but with regard to the Finance and Public Administration Committee report that was mentioned, I should say that I am a member of that committee and I note that the Scottish Fiscal Commission expects the Scottish labour participation rate to decline by around 0.2 percentage points per year relative to the rest of the UK. As a result, the figure is even less than you suggested earlier, minister.

I have a couple of questions about procurement. Some businesses have asked about the possibility of more pipeline visibility. I think that you mentioned that many businesses will create a component product as an offering in order to make a bid, and that sort of approach would give them time to do so.

My second question is around the use of mandation to help to develop supply chains and further target net zero. We have seen comments about that from the Construction Scotland Innovation Centre.

Good morning, minister. I am happy to see that progress is being made. One of the good aspects of Covid is that it has accelerated something that was intended to happen anyway.

I have a general question. How confident are you that the organisational capacity and capability from an information technology perspective is in place, with particular reference to safety and security? You may have already tested that. We are talking about extremely important documents that go back a long way, and hacking is a concern for any organisation.