Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a couple of brief questions off the back of what has been asked.

Going back to the issue of police pensions, minister, you said correctly that this was demand led and that there had been more volatility. That has piqued my interest. To what extent is that an overhang from Covid, when we saw more people choosing to retire as they realised that there was a life out there to be lived? In other words, have you any sense of the extent to which that will continue, or was it a one-off? You might not know the answer to that.

I am asking the question, because if it looks like something that will continue—and you are right that there is more flexibility in the way in which people take their pensions—it would be useful to know that. Indeed, it applies not just to the police scheme—I am thinking across the board.

I have a second wee question. I know that you have already agreed to write to us with what reserves are actually in place, but it would also be useful for me to understand the rules around agencies that are able to gather reserves or not, as you have pointed out, and whether there is any policy thinking in that respect. I think that most of us on the committee are pretty comfortable with agencies being required to use existing reserves where we have this fiscal tightness, but I am interested in, for example, the situation with the Scottish National Investment Bank. When it eventually moves into profit, I think that we will want it to be able to keep its reserves, because that is how we will get to scale. It would be useful to put a bit of meat on the bones of that.

My third wee point is to thank you for your contribution today. I recognise the extra effort that has gone into this, and as a member of the finance committee, I find that heartening. It does not happen often, so thank you very much for that. I also wonder whether you can speak internally to your colleagues about this. The kind of rigour and discipline that we are seeing in this session contrasts with what we saw in our previous session, when we examined a financial memorandum. It made us run over time, and the committee felt that there had not been a sufficient level of rigour, as what we were dealing with were estimates. I do appreciate that, but it would be nice if we could square that circle a bit with the actuals represented in this document. I know that things can only be accurate when we have the actuals, but we are increasingly finding ourselves in quite a fluid position with FMs that are coming to the committee with estimates.

You are making an argument when you say that the costs are as indicative as you can make them for a framework bill. Following that logic, the estimated costs cannot be very accurate at all, because it is a framework bill, as you have emphasised. That concerns me greatly. I absolutely appreciate the complexity, but our job, as a committee, is to scrutinise the FM. In some respects, we almost need to set aside the policy and the excitement that is generated by the policy and the change. Our job is to look at the FM, as it stands.

You have heard from the convener that concerns were expressed by the representatives two weeks ago. Indeed, in answer to my question, Kirsty McGuire from South Lanarkshire Council gave a four for her confidence level, and someone else gave a five, because they were reflecting that they do not know the final costs.

As it stands, from looking at the FM, we can have simply no idea as to the final costs of implementing the policy. In fact, it is fair to say that, in any project, you never know the final cost until it is done—that is just a statement of fact. I am trying to establish the confidence level, given that, in all your previous evidence to the convener, you have set out exactly why we cannot know and the mitigations that will come through co-design. How confident are you, having explained that, that the FM represents the final cost to the Scottish Government and the taxpayer?

The convener made the point that, if those regulations go through as secondary legislation via, for example, an affirmative procedure, that could in no way be considered scrutiny. They might go through automatically, even if they went to a lead committee. For example, I was at a recent evidence session on the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill that was all about costs, and there was exactly the same issue. That bill is a framework bill, and the details on costs were starting to come through but were being considered by the Education, Children and Young People Committee.

I am trying to say that I cannot have any confidence in the FM when the fully disclosed estimates are quite vague because of where the Government is in the process. I understand why that is the case. Witnesses from councils have said, “Actually, frankly, we don’t know.” There are mitigations, but, with some of the ranges, the costs could be seven times higher.

I will frame it in this way. Imagine that you were going to build your own house and you went to the bank and said, “I think that I want to borrow £250,000, but I might actually need £1.75 million. I will let you know once I’ve been through all the various stages.” The bank would say, “Eh—I don’t think so.” It would be looking for considerably more detail.

Given that, critically, our fiscal constraints are so tight, why do you think that it is acceptable for us, as a finance committee, to sign off on an FM when, to be frank, we have no clue? I am setting aside the policy; I am just talking about financial scrutiny. We have no clue. I find it extremely difficult to have the right level of confidence, because there are so many variances. To have some ranges in which the costs vary so much—they could be seven times higher—is unbelievable.

But this committee will not have the chance to scrutinise that legislation. We are gathered as MSPs because—I think that this is fair to say—all of us have some background or experience in finance. I do not think that any of us would claim to be experts, but we have some experience, and we have been selected to represent that. Once legislation goes to general committees, we lose that opportunity.

If we are now agreed that, given that this is a framework bill, we cannot have the confidence that we need in the FM but that there will be further scrutiny, do you share my concerns that that further scrutiny will be much wider? The focus of secondary legislation, by its very definition, will not be exclusively on the costs, although they might be involved. Do you have any worries that that will lead to less control over costs as we go through the parliamentary processes?

From the FM.

For the avoidance of doubt, in giving 10, you are saying that the costs that are set out in the FM will be the final costs to the Scottish Government and to taxpayers of implementing the bill’s provisions.

You are describing a benefit, not a cost.

Good morning. Two weeks ago, I asked the witnesses what number, on a scale of zero to 10, where zero is no confidence and 10 is complete confidence, they would give for their confidence in the FM. I ask the same question to you, minister: what number between zero and 10 would you give for your confidence in the FM?

Thank you.