Seòmar agus comataidhean

Specifically, he is saying that you sought the authorisation to proceed from ministers.

Morag McNeill said that ministers told you that the deal was authorised and that you should proceed. Therefore, you were effectively overruled, were you not?

With major infrastructure projects, there are the finances, there is the planning system, and then there is the broader policy dimension. In the past 12 months, we have seen the Green Party come into Government and there is an attitude within the party—I am looking at a headline from a few years ago, which reads:

“Greens launch campaign to stop Sheriffhall spaghetti junction”.

There is a particular quote that stands out, which says:

“Since the 1960s we’ve known that if you build more roads, they fill up with cars. That’s why the proposal to turn Sheriffhall roundabout into a spaghetti junction isn’t an upgrade”.

Is there now a change in policy focus that you think will impede some of these major infrastructure projects, particularly in relation to roads?

Is there a risk that we could get an anti-roads agenda coming in? You guys could all be out of a job.

Paragraph 52 on page 17 of the briefing states that you plan to

“Consider further analysis of business support funding information after the Scottish Government has completed its data cleansing exercise.”

Can you tell us more about that work and its timescales? Can you tell us what you do not know at this point in time or what you are hoping to achieve through the process?

Last time we touched on the matter, you said that you thought the assessment of 1 to 2 per cent for fraud and error was reasonable. How do you come to that conclusion?

On fraud and error, in certain defined circumstances it might be quite difficult to assess whether a fraudulent claim was made or somebody was simply misinterpreting the rules. For example, the principle is that the ratepayer applies for small business support funding. I heard an example where somebody who was subletting within a broader unit made a claim and then the ratepayer, who was also operating from that unit, made a claim, only to find that the person to whom he sublet some space had got there before him. In those circumstances, it would be difficult to say whether that was fraud or error. Where there are clear-cut cases of fraud, you said that by logic there should be recovery action. Do you have any assessment of how much of that £16 to £32 million will, in effect, be error? In those circumstances, should there be recovery action or will some kind of complex repayment process have to be undertaken?

We note that, as a result of the Covid pandemic, some degree of prioritisation has been entered into and some of the more complex benefits are due to be delivered at pace over the coming years, including the adult disability payment. Do you believe that the current timetable, which is in exhibit 1, represents a sustainable pace of change? Do you think that it makes sufficient allowance for unforeseen circumstances or for competing priorities, such as the creation of a national care service? Is the timescale credible, or do you think that we will have to perhaps build in time for further delays?

One of the benefits that were introduced despite the Covid pandemic was the child disability payment, which was rolled out nationally in November 2021, following a pilot in three local authority areas. Your report states that the pilot provided a limited opportunity to test aspects of the benefit and that data collection was still being developed during the pilot process. What were the risks of the Government launching the pilot without sufficient testing and how has that impacted data collection? Are you confident that the current data collection system are fit for purpose?

Mr McLauchlan, you referred to the data cleansing exercise that is being undertaken and that will obviously include local authorities, too. That process will be vital to ensure that we have accurate and complete data. Is it possible to tell us more about what the process entails? Are there any risks in relation to the quality or the completeness of the data that we might get from different local authorities? Is it very dependent upon those processes within individual authorities?