Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sorry to interrupt but, if it is about complexity, what specific complexities are there for a council finance director function that merits having 32 of them? I can see how, according to a framework principle, every council will have different partners and different methods of payment, but the function itself is duplicated, and I do not understand why we need 32 of them.

Good morning. This has been a very interesting discussion, and I think that you have fairly reflected the complexity of the matter at hand. I agree with the convener that your submission is excellent.

I have a question, however. I still do not understand why we do not have a shared services centre and why we need 32 different finance directorates and human resources departments across councils. I suppose that I would throw in legal services, too.

I can understand the complexities in creating shared functions in digital and estates, Argyll and Bute being a good example, and I could also mention procurement. However, the financial element in particular is fundamentally about accounting for money in, money out. My question to both of you, therefore, is: why have you not been considering creating a shared services centre for that as a simple way of bringing about public sector reform?

I agree. I read that bit of your submission with interest. I agree with you that, clearly, a lot of work has been done on shared services, but I am specifically asking why the finance function is replicated across 32 councils. In some respects, the work that you have done is arguably more complex than creating a shared services centre. I do not understand why that has not been considered. Even if you think that it is not within your gift to consider that, do you think that it is something that should be mandated by the Government?

I have two points on that to finish off.

On HR, you have actually made an argument for a centralised function in that we have 32 different sets of terms and conditions, particularly where many particular role types are broadly similar. There are large global companies with a footprint in a multitude of different countries that have a shared services centre. I therefore struggle to see how on earth we cannot have that across 32 different councils.

Critically, holding the data set in one area also gives us greater insights into making improvements.

I will ask my final question, which I know that Ms Watters may want to come in on as well. If it is not something that you have considered, is it because you have not really thought about it, or should it be mandated? I will hear your last point before I bring in Ms Watters.

I thank the witnesses for attending today. You have mentioned this already, but I want to dig a wee bit deeper into your expedite service. I note for the record that the success rate for approvals for the service was, in 2020-21, 52 per cent and, in 2021-22, 49 per cent, with a jump in 2022-23 to 77 per cent, which is obviously good. I want to explore the reasons for that jump. Was it the result of more purchasing power—or, if you like, volume throughput? It would also be useful to understand whether you have changed the criteria for expediting cases.

It is interesting to hear that you exercise judgment in those cases. A couple of the examples that you give do not appear to fit into the three criteria that you set out—I am not having a pop; you are clearly exercising judgment. Is it fair to say that, at this point, the criteria for expedition are still developing as you get more data on and understanding of particular issues?

Do you have any data that will allow you to say whether the expedition process being more fully realised will eventually feed into your ability to start to target the backlog? You have mentioned that some are historical cases that people are saying you need to crack on with. Have you explored that link?

You will have seen the letter from Mr Keith Robertson, which I will have to refer to, as he refers to me and the question that I asked last time. I will just put it on the record. I said:

“For the record, then, you are saying that if solicitors who lodged cases in 2017 come to you with a request to expedite, because of the time that they have already taken, you will agree to that.”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 7 September 2022; c 18.]

The answer that you gave to that was, “Yes—100 per cent.” However, Mr Robertson asserts:

“This is quite simply untrue. Length of time since submission is not and never has been accepted by RoS as grounds for expedition.”

Can you clear that up? Is he correct or incorrect? What exactly is the position?

I suppose, though, that that takes you into delay territory. I am thinking about an example in which there has been a delay because there has been a change of circumstances with a solicitor or a client. Will a client always be able to draw on the necessary data required to meet your criteria to have the case expedited after that length of delay? I am thinking of an example from 2017.

You lead me on to a wider point, which is that it is difficult for ordinary members of the public to understand the complexity of the fiscal framework and its implications. I appreciate that most members of the public find it hard to understand that there is a direct impact on tax take by limiting the Scottish Government’s borrowing powers to pay for capex projects.

Perhaps a wider area is that people understand that limits on immigration mean that fewer people are paying tax. Are you considering how we make it clear to people that although we agree that there is an issue with the breadth of our tax base—everybody agrees with that—there are standard levers that you might want to pull to increase it? It is probably not mentioned in the report, but can you see that a differentiated immigration policy, fundamentally to increase the tax base, should be part of your discussions with the UK Government?