Seòmar agus comataidhean

My specific point is that, as a direct consequence of the co-design process, there is a risk of overspending, of inefficiency in spending and of sunk costs. That is against a backdrop of significant public sector cuts. Understanding that, and any understanding of how money operates in such programmes, goes against the use of framework bills, because those bills bring significant risks. Within your hierarchy and your understanding of what is going on in the Scottish Government, what active discussions have you had about the risk that adopting that approach might lead to inefficient spending?

It is not part of the standard process, but it sounds to me as if you are saying that quite a number of departments inside the Scottish Government have not got the message about the chronic shortage of public funds. It sounds as if people might get round to thinking about that at some point. In all honesty, if that were me, I would be developing a detailed assessment of the financial risk of using a framework bill for this sort of legislation and would be disclosing all of that.

You may be picking up from the committee that this all plays into confidence. If, in your preparations for today’s meeting, you and others in your directorate looked back at the committee’s deliberations on a number of bills, you would quickly and easily have gleaned that we have concerns about framework bills, which would have prepared you adequately for that question. It is a significant concern.

A lot of points about the FM itself have already been picked up. After I heard your opening comment, I realised that all the questions that I had were, in effect, moot.

Can you explore a bit more how on earth we got here? I notice and acknowledge that you have clearly had conversations with Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Federation and so on. I am interested in understanding the nature of those conversations, given that they suddenly had no meaning when we got to giving evidence. What happened and why are we where we are?

My last wee comment, which I suspect is probably moot, is about ranges. I will look at a range and the scale of the range will add to my confidence. In other words, if a range is significant, that makes me less confident. A range is entirely acceptable because we realise that we are talking about estimates rather than final figures. I noticed that the estimated upper cost of the bill’s provisions was 2.7 times more than the lower figure. Do you anticipate, or is it your intention that the ranges will be more acceptable in the updated financial memorandum that will come back before the end of stage 1?

I apologise for not joining you in the room. I have to leave early and did not want to disturb the flow of the meeting.

I want to ask a framing question that will support some of the later questions. We know that we have had increased inputs into the education system in general—average spend per pupil for primary and secondary has gone up, there are more classroom assistants, and so on—yet there is still a perception of a lack of support for pupils with ASN. I am, as you are, mindful of the increased demand, but I would appreciate your reflections on why that perception persists, despite the increased inputs that we have had for a long time.

I think that you fairly reflect the new, post-pandemic environment. My follow-on question is this: given that the perception of a lack of resources persists, for the good reasons that you have set out, what actions are you going to take to manage perceptions and ensure that people start to see that things are in train?

So, we are not really all that confident at all. Leading on from that, what risk assessment have you taken? The minister alluded earlier to the complex BGA and we all agree that we would not start from here. I am keen to understand whether the Scottish Government is cognisant of the risks up front—that there will be a fundamental mismatch between what you think you will collect and what you are actually collecting. Have you done a proper risk assessment and have you discussed it? I should direct that question to the minister, rather than you, Mr Souter.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us. I have a point that picks up on what Liz Smith said earlier about a finance bill. I listened to what you said, minister, about the implications, the complexity and so on. Before I start on my substantive questions, I will make an observation that a finance bill would benefit the Parliament because it would require all the MSPs to talk about and understand the financing. At the moment, I would gently suggest that this committee is viewed with some disdain by some parliamentarians who have no need to worry about where the money is coming from, but I think that we all need to do that. That is my tuppenceworth. I do not necessarily need a response.

I will move on to my first question. I understand why data is not collected in company returns, because I have completed them, but I think that HMRC seems to have gotten off incredibly lightly. I want to drill down a wee bit on the survey’s approach. We know that not all quarries are registered. Therefore, the survey must have interrogated only those quarries that are registered. Can you give me any more data on how many quarries were polled, what the percentage rate of return was and, therefore, what your confidence level is in that return? Some hard numbers from the data would be helpful.

How confident are you in the figure that you have given?

I accept that you are where you are.

Earlier, Jonathan Waite made a comment that intrigued me. I hope that I am being accurate when I say that he said that the bill allows Revenue Scotland to tax anyone in the supply chain if a non-registered site is used. Am I correct in saying that?

I understand why you might do this, but is it wise to proceed without having fleshed out the question of whether there will be any implications of that? If someone is going to be taxed as part of the supply chain, there will surely be a situation in which they might object to that and open a dispute, which is important because, as Michael Marra noted earlier, Revenue Scotland will be able to offset an outstanding amount of tax if there is no dispute. I am interested in the detail of how that is going to work.