���˿���

Is that because alcohol is legal and commonplace? You would not need to walk very far from this room to buy alcohol this afternoon—arguably, the same could be true for drugs—but my point is that we have a different view of alcohol. Drugs are illegal, for want of a better term, but there is societal acceptance of everyday drinking—the phrases “acceptable norms”, “social drinking” and “safe levels of drinking” are all used. Is it just the case that we have a different take on alcohol? If the law suddenly made alcohol illegal, perhaps everyone would have a bigger focus on it, and if drugs were legalised in some shape or form, perhaps there would be a different societal view. Is how we perceive the harms just relative?

Based on some of the focus group work that you did and your conversations with stakeholders, would you say that the issues are massively underreported? Back in 2014, public health research showed that only one in four people who were dependent on alcohol or drugs was engaged in services. I believe that we are waiting for updated figures for the past decade to see whether access to and take-up of services have improved.

Do you think that alcohol issues are massively underreported? With alcohol, it is more difficult to spot problematic behaviours and to identify people who have dependency issues until they present with an extreme issue, whereas people with drug dependency issues perhaps present more quickly and sooner to health services and in a much graver or more extreme condition. Is the Government on top of that? Is it identifying the undercurrent of underreporting and the problem that exists in society but that is not being helped in any way by a public service?

I know what is in the report; it is here in black and white. However, if the ministers are sitting watching this committee meeting—I know that everyone watches the broadcast of the Public Audit Committee on a Thursday morning—what is the overarching theme that you want them to take away from your report?

That is really helpful. Perhaps those are questions for Government departments to answer in the future.

I will move the conversation on to strategic commercial assets, on which your report helpfully provides some analysis. The strategic commercial assets division is a fairly new venture, in governance terms. My understanding is that it employs around 40 staff and spends a considerable amount of money on external consultants. I use the word “considerable”, which is subjective. It spent £1.6 million last year. Is there any indication of the cost of that operation to the Government? In your opinion, does it represent good value? It is a fairly new set-up.

I guess that that is the question. We know the total value of money invested from the public purse and we know what it was thought might be recoverable, or what the value of the loan was, which is not necessarily the value of the business itself. That would be a whole other conversation. That value seems to have jumped up massively. Are you confident that there is sufficient rationale for what is almost a doubling of the recoverable value of the loans?

I look forward to that work, if it occurs.

It is interesting that you picked up on local government. That is the only line in the accounts that seems to suggest an overspend—of £5 million. Every other budget line that has been presented to us has a considerable underspend, totalling £509 million—half a billion pounds. Is that normal? I am new to the committee, but a £0.5 billion underspend, in the final outturn versus the budget, seems like an awful lot of money.

Okay. This is an observation, more than anything—I am not necessarily criticising the presence of the division—but 40 people is a lot of folk. Really, there are only two strategic commercial assets that are wholly owned by the public, and another two that have had public financial intervention. Therefore, it is not a huge portfolio to manage—if that makes sense. We often hear that those are independent self-managing organisations with their own executive management teams, directorships and reporting mechanisms. The question, then, for a future date is whether this is just overkill or the division is doing its job effectively. I understand that the division is a response to your recommendations.

Here is the conundrum. If the accountable officer identifies that there will be a fairly substantial additional cost and that, in their view, the project does not represent value for money to the public, yet ministers decide, as is their prerogative, to put more money into that project, what is your role in that process? Clearly, a process is being followed, but it is not necessarily leading to a good outcome in terms of value for money. What are you looking to see from the Government should there be further cost overruns?

Good morning. I have a broad range of areas to cover. I will start by taking us back to something that Carole Grant said about outstanding accounts from 2022-23 that are still to be produced, published and made available. In correspondence from the chief financial officer just last week, we received a summary of the final outturn for 2022-23. I want to have a quick look at that, because it is relevant to this year’s consolidated accounts. Does that financial outturn take into account best guesstimates for those departments that are yet to report? Is it your understanding that there may be another version of the final outturn—a final final outturn, if you like?