���˿���

Thank you. My final question is about an issue on which I want to get a sense of your thinking. I have been doing work to examine the implications, or rather the risks, of looking at some of the work that we need to do to get to net zero in isolation, without taking cognisance of the financial elements. Part of the reason for why we have landed where we have is that while this Parliament can look at the issue from a policy perspective, much of the financial side is reserved. There seems to be a clear mismatch.

I always bring to mind the fact that this is a deeply serious issue. Recently, the Scottish Fiscal Commission, drawing on information from the Office for Budget Responsibility, stated that we can expect the debt to gross domestic product ratio to be at 289 per cent as a result of funding all these projects. How do you think that we will be able to square that off? We will not be able to do it without the money if we end up in a position—as you outlined in relation to the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, for example—where we cannot move forward. That is one small example, but it strikes me that the issue is one that is not being talked about much. We will not be able to make progress on it without considering the financial structuring and so on.

I have a couple more questions—thank you for bearing with me. I would like to get a sense of things in the light of the new governmental structure and the new ministers—I am thinking, in particular, of Ivan McKee. Have you had any discussions thus far about public sector reform? Have you been given a steer on what he might be looking to do, given that we have all recognised that public sector reform needs to be undertaken? For example, the number of quangos that we have seems way out of kilter with the wider fiscal environment. Have you managed to have any initial discussions about what is intended?

I have one quick question. Thank you very much for being here. It has been an extremely informative session.

I was particularly taken by Lynda Towers’s compelling articulation of the considerations of different types of rights. As you know, we spoke to the permanent secretary in our earlier session. The committee has struggled to get people to think beyond their own silos—they think that their commission or commissioner is good—and look at things across the piece. My question is for Lynda Towers only. If the Government is advocating for the creation of a particular commissioner, how should things be looked at across the piece, as you so clearly articulated?

I am sorry, but other members want to come in.

If you do not mind me interrupting, the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill is a good example, because of the uncertainty of funding. It is more appropriate to concentrate on bills where there is not that same uncertainty. For example, with the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, I recognise that the bill team and the minister did a lot of work to address our concerns around the FM and so on, but we still face the risk that there will be a considerable uptick in spend that the Parliament and members will have much more limited opportunity to scrutinise. The details that you have outlined were about how you will monitor and the general governance. That may well address your concern, but it does not address our concern as to how we scrutinise things. What risks therein have you articulated and how are you managing them?

I certainly look forward to hearing from you, with a focus on the generic risks and so on rather than the specific ones, because we are seeing a pattern emerging.

I will move on. I want to ask your thoughts on an issue relating to the emergency budget review. I have previously raised a question about the moneys from the ScotWind auction being used for day-to-day revenue. From the point of view of fiscal sustainability, is the fact that the £700 million and the £56 million have been folded in a lost opportunity to start to embed more fiscal sustainability?

I think that what you are articulating is that there is a renewed appetite for such reform. Is that correct?

That goes back to the convener’s point. Let us have something a little more specific than “making progress”.

Thank you very much. That is very clear.

The fundamental point is that in no way will that scrutiny be to the same level of detail as the committee would apply on an FM up front. We often go through things line by line and say, “This is what it started off at, and this is now what it has arrived at.” That is exactly my point. How are you assessing, managing and mitigating the risk of a diminished amount of parliamentary scrutiny once we have been through the process? Setting aside some of the issues with that particular FM, the point applies generally when you are using agile methodologies. From your response, I am not entirely clear exactly how you are assessing, quantifying and mitigating that risk from a parliamentary perspective.