The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 214 contributions
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 October 2026
Alan Brown
I have a question for Mr Rennick. Did you recognise the comments in the report about SDS’s uncertainty about the future? Have any steps been taken to have positive dialogue on that?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 October 2026
Alan Brown
You have said that the benefits realisation exercise is still being developed. In the light of the fact that the value-for-money parameters have not been sufficiently developed, I note the comment in paragraph 26 that delivery partners “questioned” the use of benefit cost ratio. Have delivery partners themselves suggested what outcomes would be a better measure than BCR? If so, what are they advocating?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 October 2026
Alan Brown
Is that causing any tension between partners? If I am picking this up correctly, partly because of the information-sharing issues, each partner will take projects to the investment board almost in isolation. Therefore, if the partners want to use metrics other than BCR, that will make it harder to compare and contrast projects.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2026
Alan Brown
However, that would free up funds elsewhere in the budget. In effect, there would be other transfers. That would surely retain flexibility, because we have already spent money on renewable energy developments this year.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2026
Alan Brown
Capital projects are also funded by ongoing revenue payments, but I might be overly focusing on the semantics.
You have been candid about the need to use the £533 million of Barnett consequentials relating to SEND to balance the books for the upcoming budget. Much of the additional costs seem to be against recurring costs. If the £533 million relating to SEND is used for this year, does that mean that that money will need to be found through additional savings next year? There is also the £720 million negative reconciliation because of the tax position. Does that mean that, given the real-terms cash decrease for the 2027-28 budget, we will start the next budget process in an even tighter position, with all those additional savings needing to be found?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2026
Alan Brown
I have a relatively minor question that is away from the strategic question. On Whitehall transfers, £36.7 million was provided to the health and care portfolio, of which £24 million was reported to relate to capital funding provided to support the Scottish infected blood support scheme. What capital investment or expenditure is associated with the scheme? That is generally revenue and compensation payments.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2026
Alan Brown
There is a target to reduce the workforce head count by 0.5 per cent year on year. Do we know where we are with that for this year? Will that add further pressures on next year’s budget?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2026
Alan Brown
Yes. There was a commitment on supply chain development such as port infrastructure upgrades and other things to facilitate the growth of the renewable energy sector.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2026
Alan Brown
I will follow up on Liam Kerr’s questions on ScotWind. There is some frustration about ScotWind being used as a one-off—as a second fiscal reserve, in effect—and Audit Scotland has talked about the need for greater transparency, given the original commitment for the money to be spent on renewable energy. Parallel to that, though, the Scottish Government has made a £500 million commitment with regard to supply chain development for renewable energy. Would it not be much cleaner and more transparent to allocate the drawdown of ScotWind funds to that supply chain development, as it would actually be one-off investment for growing the renewable energy sector? The current approach just seems contradictory to me in accounting terms, and I wonder whether that suggestion can at least be considered going forward.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2026
Alan Brown
I just think that it would be cleaner to allocate any ScotWind drawdown to such investments. That would involve further internal transfers, but it would make things much clearer with regard to spend on renewable energy from ScotWind.