Seòmar agus comataidhean

In a number of your answers, minister, you have said that the bill will enable the Parliament to look at the detail when the secondary legislation comes forward. Do you acknowledge that secondary legislation, by its very nature, is a process by which the Parliament delegates its authority and powers to ministers? Furthermore, the secondary legislation process does not afford the same ability to scrutinise and, critically, amend legislation as the primary legislation process does. Do you acknowledge that secondary legislation gives the Parliament less, rather than more, ability to scrutinise?

Minister, with all due respect, you are here representing the Government, and it is for the Parliament to decide whether it will have a sufficient level of power. You are conflating Parliament and Government powers. On the nimbleness, I accept that secondary legislation might well enable the Scottish Government to be more nimble, but it does not necessarily enable the Parliament to be more nimble because the Parliament, by definition of that nimbleness, has less ability to scrutinise. Indeed, part of the reason why primary legislation takes more time is that we have more ability and a greater length of time to look at the detail. We do not have that with secondary legislation because, in your words, it is more nimble. However, it is more nimble for the Government. Is that not correct?

Frankly, the classic exchange is that Opposition parties, as the convener alluded to, say, “You must do X, Y, and Z,” and the Government, with some justification, says, “Where does that come from?” Until you have a complete level of clarity about how things, especially those that are below level 1, are flowing through and pan out, it is difficult to have that conversation. That information would improve the level of debate. The level that you get to is for further discussion, but I will make that observation.

You mentioned that I prefigured some of your response; you prefigured my next question, which is about COFOG. I am glad that it continues to be there. I will ask one last clarification question. We had a brief exchange about capital borrowing regimes and, in recent weeks, there has been some discussion about the issuing of bonds. That is interesting, but people’s minds have been racing ahead of themselves in some quarters. My understanding is that the process will fall within the limits of the fiscal framework. It is probably worth all of us being very clear that extra money is not being raised; this is happening within the fiscal framework and would be an alternative to the other sources of capital borrowing that are available to the Scottish Government. Is that a useful clarification?

I find it interesting that Stephen Boyle mentioned the 1973 act. During some of our previous deliberations I looked into the act and was quite surprised at how distinctly different it is. Although the work that is undertaken under the auspices of Audit Scotland and the work that is done by the Accounts Commission are functionally the same, the bodies are very different in terms of accountability, with the Auditor General being accountable to Parliament and the Accounts Commission being accountable to the Scottish ministers. I wonder whether, because of the nature of the day-to-day work, accountability is worth collective thought and reflection—not just on your part, but on ours, as well.

Vicki Bibby said that the current vacancy rate is higher than the long-term rate, or your target. What has it been over the past year?

I wonder whether you have a recruitment and retention issue and whether that is the reason for the underspend. I note that your recruitment spend was over budget, but I see that the median salary is only 2 per cent higher in the year just gone than it was in the previous year. Layering all the things that we have alighted on, such as the cost of living and the tight labour market, and given that you have increased salaries by only 2 per cent, do you have an issue with recruitment and retention? Does that ultimately boil down to how much you are paying your people?

You take my point. I understand that these things all wash through and that sometimes the aggregate position can be different, which can feed into your overall recruitment and retention.

It is an accounting change and not a cash-flow change.

I just want to ask a couple of broader questions. There has been the resignation of William Moyes from the Accounts Commission. Has this point in time been used to reflect on the fact that we have parallel structures, certainly in terms of statute? I always reflect on that when I read your reports. I am not sure that someone coming fresh to an annual report would necessarily see the hard distinction. Is there, from Audit Scotland’s perspective, a discussion to be had, in advance of a new permanent appointment, about how the two entities will move forward and interoperate?

I will ask a final question. I will do a Daniel Johnson special and ask a very left-field question. We have had some discussion about how different accounting treatments for leases have impacted on your accounts. I think that there are a number of quite challenging things coming down the line. There has been a lot of discussion about generative artificial intelligence. There are also questions about carbon accounting. What are your thoughts, collectively, on those issues—but not limited to them—and how they might impact on your work in the future? How are you tracking them? Are they on your radar and are resources being allocated to thinking about these potentially big changes?