Chamber and committees

Let us say that a million miles were driven by combustion engine cars and that was reduced by 20 per cent in the way that the target seems to suggest. It is assumed that that would reduce emissions. That assumption underpins the strategy. However, if we went in the other direction and 1.5 million miles were driven by electric or hybrid cars, instead of a million miles being driven by combustion engine cars, there might still be a reduction in emissions, even though the mileage that was driven by the public would have gone up.

I would have some sympathy if the Government simply dropped the target, provided that it did so for the right reason. If it was trying to reduce emissions and could demonstrate that other policies would achieve the same result, the target in itself would perhaps be irrelevant.

Realistically, given that we are sitting here in the Parliament, I have to ask which Government in its right mind, particularly coming into an election year, would implement punitive measures such as national charging or road tolls, or start rolling out national measures—rather than doing things at a local level and blaming the councils—by introducing primary legislation that imposes expensive measures on drivers. Surely that would be political suicide for any Government in any jurisdiction. The measures might help to meet the target, but they are very unlikely to happen.

Can you talk me through exhibit 1, on the block grant adjustment, just so that we can get our head around this? A Barnett-determined block grant is allocated to the Scottish Government, but that is not what we actually get, due to adjustments based on devolved taxation. Can you, in very simplistic terms, talk me through how we get from the block grant allocation, through a net adjustment up or down, to what the Scottish Government actually gets?

Moving on to exhibit 3—this will all make sense in a moment—can you tell us about the relationship between any increase in taxation that is received through Scotland’s tax policy differences and what is described as the “net position”? Let me take the year 2021-22 as an example, as, according to the table, it was perhaps the starkest with regard to tax divergence. In that year, £749 million extra in taxation was raised, but the net position—however you describe it—was only £85 million, or 11 per cent of the tax raised, which is a tiny amount. Indeed, it is even starker than the figure of a fifth that the convener referred to. Again, can you talk me through the effect of that on the original Barnett-derived block grant versus what the Scottish Government gets? Is the Government getting the tax receipts, or is it getting this 11 per cent net figure?

Good morning.

I will start by reflecting on the most recent correspondence that the committee has had, which is a letter from Ms Berge to the convener of the committee on 14 February. Thank you for your St Valentine’s day letter—it was the only one I got. I want to focus on the content of it and to give you an opportunity to clarify what happened.

My understanding is that when the committee looked at appendix 4 of the business case for the settlement agreement for departure of the former chief executive, the original draft was, of course, famously heavily redacted for us, but there was a signature on the document. The accountable officer stated that the business case was appropriate and that it complied with the Scottish public finance manual guidance. It was signed by Roy Brannen on 4 March 2024. Your letter seems to allude to that being an error. How so?

I am sorry, I am not trying to be difficult; I am trying to get to the bottom of this. Someone has not been entirely truthful with the committee. Someone is not being entirely honest about what has happened: either the former chair of WICS, in his commentary to us about the approval process, or someone sitting in this room. I want to get to the bottom of it. I know that we have laboured this in the previous committee session, but it is important. Did someone from the Scottish Government give approval for the package? He says that that is what happened.

There was; it was part of the conversation. He said that there was a phone call on 19 December—

Mr Brannen, does this whole line of questioning not strike you as concerning? We have heard conflicting views from all the protagonists involved and the committee is as yet unable to establish the truth of the matter about this business case. There is an opinion from the board, there is an opinion from the individual who has since written to us about his departure, and there is an opinion from the cabinet secretary, Ms Màiri McAllan, who, in letters to the committee, expressed a view about who was at fault. On two occasions, this committee has heard from members of the Scottish Government about what they think happened.

Our poor clerks have to write a report on this, and I think that they will struggle to identify the truth of the matter. What is your view?

The exit, for the record, cost the taxpayer £104,000. Is it normal for agencies that are sponsored by the Scottish Government to come to you after they have spent the money and ask, “Can you retrospectively approve this?”

Is it malpractice?