Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will move on. I understand that the bank is still in a loss-making position—we know where you are in your journey. However, I found myself thinking about what will happen to profits when the bank starts to make them. My view is that it is very important that the bank is able to reinvest profits so that you can get to the scale that will effect change, but I know that the Scottish Government claws back money from the likes of Registers of Scotland and enterprise agencies. Have you considered what the position would be with the investment bank?

I look forward to hearing more about that.

My last wee point leads on from that and is about impact. One of the points that I picked up from the recent report by the bank and the Good Economy, “Unlocking the potential of impact investing in Scotland”, was the lack of identity within the impact investment community in Scotland. The report makes various points about that. How do you see your role in establishing a proper impact investment community, particularly given Scotland’s strong hinterland in that regard, which we might attribute to our history of ESG investment?

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?