���˿���

Your report says:

“The SFC and the Scottish Government should also revisit their Protocol for Engagement to strengthen mutual understanding and reinforce adherence to agreed timelines.”

It goes on to say:

“To ensure accountability, the SFC should also continue to highlight non-compliance with deadlines through publicly reporting, creating a reputational incentive for timely co-operation.”

That is the equivalent of a gold star. However, should the SFC have some powers of sanction beyond just a critical report or press release? If that is the gold star, what equivalent to the naughty step should we be looking for?

The convener alluded to the fact that the report lists countries with national organisations. We have a devolved Government and a devolved Parliament: ergo, we have a Scotland-focused institution. Given that many of the issues that we look at are spending decisions that relate to Westminster, there is a far greater interplay between the two.

I also want to address some of the political concerns that some people have about Scottish exceptionalism. Could there be an alternative model in which the SFC is part of the Office for Budget Responsibility? Would that address the concern about the proximity to the organisation that gives funding to the SFC? Your report identified some questions about the implications of the relationship between the SFC’s independence and its source of funding. Might that be an alternative model that could make the organisation further removed from the Scottish Government and enable it to look at the whole of Scottish public finances in relation to Westminster?

This has been alluded to, so I will not labour the point, but we have identified that the communications apparatus in the organisation is very good—the people are very effective communicators—but its impact is considerably lower than that of the institution in the Netherlands and that of the OBR. What lessons can we take from that, which the Scottish Fiscal Commission could perhaps look at in order to bolster the impact of a very effective communications operation that just does not seem to be cutting through?

The financial memorandum anticipates significant savings in the long term. If we think about social harms, family breakdown and loss of employment—we can go through the range—£4 being saved for every £1 that is spent certainly looks to be a pretty decent equation, but that will come in the long term. Have you an assessment of the long-term horizon? Is it three to five years or five to 10 years?

You said in your opening remarks that the bill would have a significant impact on those who live in Scotland’s most deprived communities, who are more likely to die from drugs and alcohol misuse. A lot of Government funding is focused on ending child deprivation and we know that those things are all inextricably linked. Is it fair to say that the expenditure will yield the greatest improvement in quality of life for the people who live in deprived communities who, in many respects, still fall through the cracks?

The act that we are looking at dates from 2010, so this is the third extension to it. I accept that we need to do something, as having some process is better than having no process, so can you give us some assurance to convince us that this is not just a holy grail and that we are not going to keep renewing it while seeing no material change?

In 2011, the Christie report said:

“It is estimated that as much as 40 per cent of all spending on public services is accounted for by interventions that could have been avoided by prioritising a preventative approach.”

You are now talking again about the need for a preventative approach when the Christie report, which was commissioned by John Swinney, came to that estimate of 40 per cent back in 2011. Roll forward 14 years, do you have any basis on which to assess what that percentage is now? Have you made any positive impact in relation to that?

Finally, the Auditor General said in the same report that the Government

“has not provided enough leadership to help public sector bodies deliver change.”

You had the summit recently, and you are leading the charge, so is your neck on the line in relation to delivering that holy grail?

Thank you very much.

Given that we are again talking about preventative spending, it would probably be good to see on what basis it was assessed and whether any progress has been made.

Jumping forward to last autumn, Audit Scotland took up a similar position, in which it said that there is still

“no evidence of large-scale change on the ground”

and that the Government

“does not know what additional funding is required to support reform”.

You have put £30 million in the budget this year for invest to save. Can you give the Auditor General some assurance that you are working towards getting an actual figure that you will work towards to leverage in the reforms that ultimately might meet the initial objectives of the act?

Finally, finally—sorry, convener—you identified the concept of the single authority model in relation to health boards and councils. Is that a lesson that you should roll out through Government more widely, given that you say that it is quite difficult for you as the minister in charge to drive reform? Do you need to consider coherence in relation to the number of public bodies that are out there?