���˿���

I have given you a lot of leeway, but you know what we are discussing today.

Liz, I think that you should rescind your retirement in order to progress that in the next parliamentary session.

Private companies do it all the time. If you have a budget of £64 billion, even if 1 per cent of that has not been allocated efficiently, that is a lot of money. It is about going back to first principles and asking what we are trying to achieve from the spend and whether we are achieving it. That is really about it.

Yes, I do not think that we are pushing at an open door here, to be honest with you. Nevertheless, we shall certainly valiantly pursue our aims.

Thank you, Professor Cameron, for your very helpful contribution, for taking the time to speak to the committee and for your excellent submission. We will continue to take evidence on the inquiry next week, when we will hear from two panels of witnesses.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. The next item on our agenda, which we will discuss in private, is consideration of our work programme.

I will touch on the subject of your letter and the MTFS shortly, but will begin with other areas that we deliberated on in our report.

You rightly spoke about the improvements in budget transparency that the Scottish Government has delivered in recent years, not least the improvement in the quality of the spring and autumn budget revisions, but there are still some areas where I think that the Government could continue those improvements.

For example, more transparency and consistency of presentation is required, particularly in relation to in-year transfers. On a number of occasions, I have raised with ministers the fact that we see the same sums of money being transferred from the same portfolios to others every single year when it seems to me to be nonsensical that those sums are not already in the portfolios to which they are later transferred. I think that there is politics behind that because of the portfolios concerned and because people might say that money is being cut from one budget and put into another. I understand that, but if that is the case, the Government should be clear and frank about it because it is nonsensical that we keep seeing that.

Over the years, I have also raised the issue of public-private partnership sums. In the past couple of years, I have raised the fact that, if memory serves me right, although there was £133 million of PPP payments in the trunk roads budget, that money does not appear anywhere else to any degree. The committee is looking for a budget that is much clearer and more transparent and that will aid the public, stakeholders and anyone else who takes an interest.

Finally on transparency, I am sure that you would agree that more detailed information on pay and workforce is required, given the huge proportion of the overall budget that goes on that.

It is about inconsistency. You are right to hit on the Scottish child payment; a lot has been said about that. If outcomes can be tied to priorities, it is a lot easier for us and others to scrutinise where the Government is meeting the priorities that it has set for itself. It is a good discipline for the Government to see that its allocation of resources is doing exactly what it says on the tin.

Another issue that has been raised—the committee saw this when we were talking to Government officials in Estonia—is zero-based budgeting. That is about having a refresh every decade or so to ask, “Why are we doing this? Is it because we have always done it?” The value of that is to ensure that we get better bang for the buck. Is that something that the Government would consider?

There are a number of things in your answer. First, are firms motivated to limit costs? There seems to be no real incentive for them to do so.

During last summer, autumn and into the winter, you were saying that relationships had improved, so there is, obviously, concern if that is not the case. On 29 March, this committee and our Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts had a meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It was meant to be an in-person meeting but, a few days beforehand, it was changed to an online meeting of 45 minutes. On the day, that was reduced to 30 minutes and, once he came on the call, it was reduced to less than 15 minutes. There were 11 political parties at the meeting who wanted to engage, and we could not. In fact, his own political party was probably the most critical of that engagement. Is there a wider issue with the UK Treasury or, specifically, with the CST? Obviously, we will have concerns if that is going to be an on-going situation. We do not want relationships to deteriorate as the months and years progress.

The Scottish child abuse inquiry has already cost more than £95 million and has been going for nine or 10 years. That is clearly a concern.

You have made suggestions on alternatives. People who demand inquiries are often looking for a judge-led inquiry, because they say that that is the gold standard. However, in your evidence, you say that witnesses, when meeting round a small table with a panel to give their evidence,

“either individually or in small groups”,

and when

“lawyers were not involved”,

found that to be

“much less formal and intimidating”

but that it

“nonetheless added considerably to the information the panel were able to take into account.”

Your view is that that is probably a more expeditious, less expensive and—for the people who are giving evidence—less daunting prospect.

You mention the fact that, in the Jersey inquiry, two solicitors were required to be involved, “at considerable hourly rates”. In the Scottish Covid inquiry, the rate for senior counsel was capped at some £200 an hour, with around 40—but possibly 60—hours a week, which means that, for that individual, the rate could effectively range from £8,000 to £12,000 a week. So far, the Scottish Covid inquiry has cost £34 million and is still on-going; the UK one has cost £164 million. That is a lot of hours for lawyers, is it not?