Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I appreciate what you have outlined about engagement behind the scenes and at official level. Have any discussions taken place in either of those ways about the breadth of powers and about specific examples? Can you give any more colour to that?

It may be that this question should live with the Public Audit Committee, but have there been any discussions about how moneys that are spent by the UK Infrastructure Bank will be actively scrutinised, audited and aligned with the national performance framework, given that the Scottish Government is responsible for outcomes?

I highlight the issue because of the suggestions of an MOU and a representative who will consider the proactive, up-front aspirations in various areas. However, I am also thinking about the reactive scrutiny element in relation to value for public money. Those are the two sides to the coin. However, you can come back to us on that.

I suspect that this has already been covered, but is part of your concern about getting this on the record now that, even if the power were to be subsequently changed a year down the road, it establishes a precedent that could be used for other potential disbenefits in similar trade deals, given the GDP figures that you outlined at the start of your statement?

It is not often that I get the last word in any session of the committee. I am looking at the four men on the panel, and I am reminded that significant structural inequalities for women remain in the economy. Covid has had a big impact. The cost crisis has had a disproportionate effect.

Close the Gap suggests that narrowing the gap could add £17 billion to the Scottish economy. That organisation has expressed the view, with which I strongly agree, that equality must be seen as an economic issue, not an equalities issue. Will you give a commitment to testing every element of what you bring forward for the Scottish budget as to its impact on women, in terms of contribution and reduction?