Seòmar agus comataidhean

The plans for how that design process works are not yet in the public domain. Is that correct?

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?

Perfect. Thank you.

Yes but, just to be clear, median remuneration went from £45,197 to £46,226, and that delta of around £1,000 is 2 per cent. I understand that those are all different cuts of the pie, and I do not dispute what you are saying, but it does not contradict what I was putting out there.

In the interests of time, we need to move on, so I have one last question, which is about pension contributions. Without wishing to point to anyone in particular at the table, I note that, in 2022-23, there was a £198,000 pension contribution made for Vicki Bibby and similarly, in the previous year, there was a £144,000 pension contribution to Antony Clark. Those figures are very high, certainly in comparison with annual salaries. I understand that there might be technical reasons, but I would be keen to get the explanation on the record so that we understand what is going on there.

Professor Alexander set out very well the context that everyone has operated in. The cost of living crisis is still with us, and inflation remains stubborn at 10 per cent, much to the surprise of various forecasters. However, your total resource requirement was £1 million under what was forecast. That in itself is somewhat surprising.

Could Stephen Boyle set out why that was the case? My understanding is that the majority of that was to do with staff underspend but, given the pay pressures, we might find that surprising. Do you apply underspend thresholds to the forecasts? Can you talk us through why and how you go about the forecasts, and whether they were correct?

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.

You mean small “i” independence.

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?