Chamber and committees

I want to look at the transparency of reporting on the record amounts of money that were spent on the Covid pandemic last year and the year before. At the beginning of the meeting, you summarised the situation, and the fact is that record amounts of money—£10.7 billion more—were pumped in in 2020-21, with £8.6 billion of Barnett consequentials from the UK Government and a budget underspend of £580 million. Looking at those figures, do you agree with the Auditor General that there should be greater transparency in the Government’s financial reporting of Covid-related expenditure?

Looking at the overall levels of public expenditure in Scotland, including non-Covid moneys, I would suggest that we have seen record amounts of money and perhaps more complex arrangements than we have ever seen in the history of devolution. We have record spending, the levelling up agenda and huge Covid disbursements through local authorities as well as the upcoming health and social care levy. Given that that set of spending arrangements is perhaps more complex than we have ever seen since this Parliament was created, would you welcome and possibly encourage greater UK-level oversight and scrutiny of spending in Scotland?

You mentioned that there were three quite significant in-year budget changes in 2021. Can you give the committee a flavour of how such changes are monitored and reported, particularly in relation to that Covid-related expenditure?

I want to put on record some concerns about the instrument and suggest how we might satisfactorily address those concerns.

I have a general concern about the extension of the powers at this time, given that we are emerging from the Covid pandemic and that it could be perceived that the emergency powers are being extended into a non-emergency period. A number of the provisions come into effect from 24 March to 24 September. There was an opportunity to use either the affirmative or made affirmative procedure—the Government has clarified that both routes were open—but the Government still decided to use the made affirmative procedure, which limits the scrutiny by the Parliament of the measures in the instrument.

I therefore propose that we delay further consideration of the instrument and write to the relevant minister, who is the Deputy First Minister, to ask whether we can have an evidence session with him so that we can put those concerns to him and seek reassurance in relation to the measures that will be extended and the use of the made affirmative procedure for the instrument.

In relation to the draft Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Directions by Local Authorities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022, and in light of the discussion that we had on the extension of the expiry date, might there be an opportunity for us to have further discussion and scrutiny of the instrument if we have the Deputy First Minister in next week?

I appreciate that—thank you.

I want to flag up the draft Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No 4) Regulations 2022 as an instrument of concern. If approved, it would come into effect on 27 February, which is a matter of days away. I am concerned about the expedited nature of the process. I accept that it is an affirmative instrument, so the Parliament will get a vote on it, but the measures in it are really quite fundamental. They include measures on the on-going wearing of face coverings and the use of vaccination passports. Certainly, the committee has taken considerable interest in the latter of those issues. Given that we are no longer in an emergency situation, it is hard to see the justification for gifting the powers to the Government any longer.

We are debating the use of delegated legislation this afternoon, so I do not want to rehearse the arguments on that. However, we do not have much time to scrutinise the instrument, and the lead committee has expressed reservations about the window of opportunity to examine the regulations and their extension. I cannot see the justification for the regulations or for using a delegated route to extend them, especially given that primary legislation is coming that will deal with the issues—we will discuss that in private later and the Parliament will debate it in future. On that basis, I am not content for us not to draw the attention of the Parliament to the instrument, and therefore I seek to have a vote on it.

On those areas of evaluation, paragraph 26 of our briefing paper says that there was no clarity on who should lead the process of alignment—I think that you just referred to that issue. If we do not know who is leading it, how will it get off the ground? As we move to a three-stage process—the three strands of sectoral and regional projects, national initiatives and analytics—is there any clarity that this three-strand model, as it is now referred to, will make much more progress? Your report notes that that approach is already showing signs of stagnation, so is this model not just going to repeat the mistakes of the five-strand or the five-step model?

That is reassuring. In paragraph 18, the report states:

“SEPA has been open and transparent from the start to ensure that staff, the public and other public-sector organisations”

were aware of what was happening. You have also referred to the fact that no ransom was paid. Can you outline the benefits of SEPA taking that approach? Are you aware of any other examples in the public sector in Scotland where that approach was not taken and, for example, public funds were used to make a ransom payment?

Before we go into some detailed questions on the structure, role and remit of the ESSB, I want to take you back to your opening remarks, Mr Boyle. I agree with your comment that the skills agenda is vital for the economy, business and individuals’ career progression. I ask you to reflect on your second key message, which is:

“The Scottish Government has not provided the necessary leadership for progress”.

You go on to say that the leadership and oversight functions have failed.

In paragraph 10 of the report, you refer to the letters of guidance. It strikes me that, if they were not fit for purpose, the whole system was set up to fail. Is it fair to say that the failures of leadership and oversight were failures of ministerial leadership and oversight in respect of everything about which we read in your report?