 Fy wir yn ymgyrchu'r Gwladau Llywodraeth a Llywodraeth Cymru, ond wef yn ôl yn ymgyrch gweithio'r cyd-degwydd. Felly mae'n gwaith yn gweithio'r gwaith, os ymgyrch yn gweithio'r gwaith yn gyfysaig. Rhywbeth bod ni'n gwybodaeth i'r wneud yn ddod i'i cyd-degwydd. Fy nesaf, mae hi'n cymryd yma. Fy ymgyrch i'n cymryd yma hwnnw i'n cymryd i'r cyd-degwydd, ac i'n cymryd i'r cyfrwyddiant, Fyín neg wybodaeth me goods today is a decision to take item five in private, are we all agreed? Thank you very much for that. a Our second agenda item is a decision on taking our future work program meeting in private as well in the future are we all agreed on that. Thanks very much. an, our agenda item three is our main item of business this morning. It is obviously due to hear from the audit carb Inspector General of Scotland on the five fifteen of September. Fy hoffi'r cwestiynau o'r cyfnodau parlymentol. Felly, rydyn ni'n rhesweddol y gwasanaeth ar gael ar gyfer Ysgol Llywodraeth a'r cyflugiau ar y Llywodraeth, a'r gwasanaeth ar gyfer Ysgol Llywodraeth a'r gweithio ysgol, yr ysgolaf ar gyfer Ysgolaf. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'r gwasanaeth Stephen Boyle, yng Nghymru gyda ysgolaf general a'r Cysgr Rhyddi Rydd, yw'r ysgolaf yng nghymru gyda'r gwasanaeth. at Scotland. We have a few themes to get through this morning. We are going to be discussing themes around transparency and accountability, agile approaches, workforce, implementation costs and remaining work to date and the key risks ahead of us. I will turn to members for their questions. Stephen and Kirsty, if I can ask you to give a few seconds for broadcasting to turn on your microphones. Members, if I can ask you to direct your questions to Stephen, who will bring in Kirsty as he needs to do so. We are going to turn now to Jeremy Balfour for the first questions to be followed by Pam Duncan Glancy. Over to yourself, Jeremy. Thank you. Thank you, convener, and good morning to you both. Thank you very much for coming on a Monday morning. A couple of questions just around where we are at the moment. I think the last contact we on it team had with Social Security Scotland and the programme was February of this year. I'm just wondering, could you give us an update of what contact you had with them and anything to update us on around that, please? Good morning, committee. I'm delighted to be with you this morning. Thank you, Mr Balfour, for your question. I'm happy to start, actually, and I'll bring Kirsty in a moment. Does the committee know we published our report in the spring based on our work up to the end of February 2022? Clearly, as we can recite in the report, this is a really evolving picture and a fast-moving programme of activity. I'm sure the committee will want to know a bit more detail as we progress. At a high level, our annual audit is continuing, and we expect to conclude that later this month. Some of the issues that we touch on in the report around financial management, workforce planning and some of the performance information will also feature in the annual audit report. In addition to that, the committee will know that there's been some major milestones that have taken place since the publication of our report, notably around the launch of the adult disability payment. Our interest in social security is live. As ever at the conclusion of the annual audit, the auditors and I discuss progress, I take stock of findings, and we'll factor that into our future work programme. I think that, as is set out in the report, there is welcome progress, but there is still a lot of work to do. From an audit perspective, we recognise the need to continue reporting publicly on that. I'll pause for a moment. I'm going to hand over to Kirsty if there's anything she wishes to add to what I've mentioned. Thank you. Nothing significant to add at that point. As the Auditor General has mentioned, we are continuing our work on the annual audit of Social Security Scotland at the moment, with an aim for that to conclude later in the autumn. We continue as part of our routine engagement with Social Security Scotland and colleagues in the implementation programme, but nothing further to add at the moment. Just to follow that up, if I can, Auditor General, clearly over the last year or so we've seen an increase in regard to the number of people employed by raising, say, we've seen aspiring of cost on an upward trend. Have you concerns around that? Are these issues being raised with Social Security Scotland in regard to, are they able to keep control of their budget and offer staff the needs that they require? Thank you, Mr Belford. Your signal or my side will cut out for a moment or two, but I think that you've picked your question up. It's really the overall cost envelope that they're operating in, particularly the workforce. I'll have to answer that. You're right. Both those teams are really important. I think what we sought to do in our report really was to track back to the financial memorandum through to the circumstances at the end of 2021 and beginning of 2022. We noted a couple of things. One was the scale of change in the programme and the agency in terms of workforce numbers. We are content that workforce planning is progressing. We haven't formed an adverse judgment, I should say, about other workforce or finances relative to the financial memorandum. Primarily setting out that perhaps what was anticipated when the financial memorandum was published and subject to scrutiny in the Parliament, matters have evolved at pace, so just with the understanding of the implementation cost, the number of people required to deliver these benefits are reflected of some of the updated numbers that we see. There is still a lot to do. I think that this is one of the points that we sought to make in the report and there are still financial risks for the agency and the Government. The committee, I'm sure, will be familiar with some of the updated forecasts that the Scottish Fiscal Commission have made on a couple of points. When we reported, we noted that by 2026, the benefit spending forecast would be £760 million higher than the equivalent block grant. That number was then updated to £1.3 billion by Social Security Scotland. That number brings management challenges and brings fiscal sustainability challenges and requires options and opportunity cost management for the Government and the Parliament when it scrutinises and sets the budget. However, the workforce numbers are also going to have required careful management as well. There is a workforce plan in place. Kirsty might want to say a bit more about how that is operating, particularly given perhaps some of the more background as to why that has evolved. Thanks, Auditor General. On the workforce planning, there are the two aspects that we have touched on, firstly, the programme itself and staffing in there and then the staffing for Social Security Scotland. At the time of reporting, we referenced a number of around 1800 staff in Social Security Scotland. We have more up-to-date figures published now, so the Scottish Government most recently published on its workforce figures in September, which reported a position up to June 2022. At that point, we are looking at a number of around 3000 staff in place, which is the sort of trajectory that they were setting out at the point when we reported. Indeed, we referenced a figure of about three and a half thousand staff by spring of next year. That gives the sense of the progress that has been made in the scale of increase that has been made in the staffing. We commented in the report that the workforce planning is developing within Social Security Scotland, but there are inherent uncertainties in the staffing that they will require and that will need to be managed as they bring forward new benefits and as they adapt to how the processing of those benefits actually takes place once they are fully embedded. In terms of the programme staffing, as the Auditor General mentioned, we have taken a reference point of the financial memorandum, and we have provided some of the updated figures in the report on where that is now. We have commented on looking for the on-going reporting from the Scottish Government on the overall implementation costs and the workforce is something that would absolutely feed into what we would be hoping to see in that updated reporting. In regard to the actual benefits being delivered, we saw over the summer, for example, Bess Grant had a fairly major delay in people getting the money that they were expecting. Have you looked at whether there are enough people at the moment working on their appropriate benefits? Have you come to a conclusion of why those delays have been taking place over the summer? I am happy to start. I will ask Kirsty to come in on the specifics of the best art grant, as to the circumstances that we are aware of. In overall terms, we look at the operational effectiveness of the agency and public bodies in the discharge of their management of public funds through our annual audit process. Public bodies themselves are accountable for this, the accountable officer of each public body is personally responsible for the effective management of their funds, and they set that out through their own annual report and accounts. We are looking at that closely, just in terms of overall effectiveness. I think it builds on the work that we set out in the report that the committee has in front of it. Really, just one that we are taking to talk about where we go next as part of our own forward work programme. Kirsty mentioned some of the detail on the scale of change of people employed by the agency. We also noted that Covid has been a real factor in terms of the pace of roll-out and implementation of the benefits and some of the change of working practices within the agency. We are keeping a close eye on that as part of our forward work. However, I will hand over to Kirsty again if there is anything further that she wants to add. The issues around the best start grant that the member raised are not something that we looked at specifically in this audit, given the timing. As the Auditor General has mentioned, we would look to comment further on the performance management arrangements and what that information is telling Social Security Scotland when we report on the annual audit later in the autumn. I think that there are a range of things at the moment with a significant scale delivery of adult disability payment over the summer period. Social Security Scotland has been quite clear that there will be bedding in issues around delivery of new benefits and that that will need to balance out over time once benefits come on stream and the operation of those becomes more business-sized usual, if you like. There may be issues at that, but it is something that we did not look at in detail as part of this audit. I will leave it there at the moment. Thank you very much for that. We will now move on to questions from Pam Duncan-Glancy. Pam. Thank you, convener, and good morning, Auditor General and to Kirsty. Thank you for answering the question so far and also for the briefing that you sent in advance. It was really helpful. I want to talk a little bit about transparency and you said in your report that you would expect to see more detail in the updated business case. Could you set out what more detail you would be looking to see and how frequently you would expect costings to be published? Thank you. Good morning, Ms Duncan-Glancy. One of our key recommendations in the report is to note firstly that implementation costs have not been routinely reported in public. As I mentioned in the previous response to Mr Balfour, we are not drawing a critical judgment per se on the scale of change in costs. I think that is given that the scale of responsibilities have changed. The roll-out of benefits have been interrupted by Covid. There have been quite high-level assumptions in the original financial memorandum that have changed and evolved as the programme has been developed. One of the things that we have not seen is the regular updating of costs. We do make that recommendation that that needs to be a much clearer feature of the implementation programme as it moves forward. The timing and frequency of that is probably one for the agency, perhaps together with the committee and the Government, to take a view of what would best suit parliamentary scrutiny and public understanding, whether it is annual or more frequent than that. That is a call to be made. Our overall point was that, given the scale of public spending that exists in the programme, it requires clearer and more frequent public reporting than we have seen thus far. On that point, I am slightly concerned about some of the concerns raised by the Scottish Fiscal Commission on data gaps and, in particular, the difference between the data that they have been able to collect in Scotland from Social Security Scotland and the data that was previously given through the DWP. Are you able to comment on that? In your report, you also say that the impact of benefits and what the Government expects out of it is not really clear, but it is able to report on qualitative measures about the approach, but not so much the impact in terms of quantitative methods. Can you talk about why that is important and what you would expect to see? Of course, I am happy to start on that. I will certainly bring Kirstian on both the points that you raised. Data gaps is not a unique feature, unfortunately, of this report. For the committee's interest, what it has got regularly comments on the need for better data, the Public Audit Committee and its predecessor committee, the Papels Committee, also commented on the need for better high-quality data to support transparency, scrutiny and more effective implementation of public spending programmes. It is a feature here, and we recognise the fiscal commission's concerns in it. It would be concerning at any stage, but given the scale of public spending that we are talking about through the roll-out of the devolved benefits programme, referencing the fiscal commission's own analysis of a potentially £1.3 billion gap, all of that requires high-quality data, reliable forecasts, and I guess it does not just relate to this programme in and of itself as really significant fiscal consequences that we all want to see that are produced with reliable forecasts with an indication of how that will evolve. Before I hand over to Kirsti, I think one of the things that we have not seen necessarily done any detailed work on is the relationship in detail between the data gap and then what that means for the roll-out of the devolved benefits so far. We are keeping a close eye on it, but it is really an important point for the agency and the programme to be clear on what the fiscal commission's expectations are in terms of the future roll-outs of the devolved benefits. I am going to pause again with Duncan Glancy, and I am going to bring Kirsti in, so she can say a bit more. As the Auditor General mentioned, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has reported clearly on its concerns around the data gaps and what it means for its work. That links very much to something that we were saying in the report about thinking about how systems are being developed at this stage where they are in development, and there is the opportunity to build that in from the start. They are thinking about how they work with data users such as the Scottish Fiscal Commission to understand what is needed and how they ensure that that is considered appropriately when they are making choices about what aspects of digital systems features to build in and what the implications of that are for the future in terms of being able to access data back from the system. That is something that we have touched on at the latter part of the report about the need to have that information so that that can be evaluated and assessed in terms of understanding the longer term value for money and the impact of the benefits that are being rolled out. We have commented previously on the wide-ranging work that has been done by Social Security Scotland and its partners and those people who use the system. A large package of work around building up that charter measurement framework and that positive approach to doing that is just moving beyond those qualitative measures, which are really important, but to also balance that with some other measures that allow, as Auditor General mentioned, that robust and routine understanding of the impact of the benefits as we move forward. Thank you both for your answers there. Do you think that the data and therefore the forecast are reliable? It is going to be hard to be definitive on that point, actually, with the scale of the programme and the scale of change. Certainly, I think that I am just looking at other committees' attention as opposed to the civics in our report. Apologies, Ms Duncan. The civics 5 in the report, actually, where we set out, I suppose, the scale of change that has taken place since the financial memorandum with anticipated cost at that point of £308 million through to the programme business case of 2020 of £651 million, and then up to £685 million. The scale of change has reduced between 2020 and 2021. We have no reason to doubt the related forecasts, but given the complexity of this programme, its scale really goes back to your original point, therefore that needs to be set out clearly, subject to public scrutiny, with appropriate regularity. The scale of difference is really important here, with the fiscal commission suggesting that there is £1.3 billion. It is not just the programme in itself. It will influence the choices that will lead to public spending across the piece, the opportunity cost that might be so really important that they are as reliable as possible. The fiscal commission may be better placed as opposed to give a detailed answer on that point. I appreciate that. That is everything from me just now. Thanks, convener. We will move on to questions from Paul MacLennan. We will be back to Paul MacLennan. Paul MacLennan, thank you very much, convener. Good morning. The question for me is about the focus. The focus on the systems has been around what matters most to the client. What is the state of functionality in systems that have not been prioritised? Just really to lead on from that, we met with the Scottish Fiscal Commission about a month ago or now, and we are talking about data gaps. It is just really to see what if you share those concerns around that, whether the systems have been designed in a way in which to take account. I suppose that the key thing about taking account of that is that it is obviously the need to produce data to inform the budget on how accurate that was. Good morning, Mr MacLennan. Thank you for your question. I will try to cover off as many of those as possible, but as ever, I will bring Kerstian to supplement anything that I respond. I think the phrase that we used when we published our report in terms of agile and data was one of trade-offs. That is a feature of the agile project management implementation choices. We generally felt that that was an appropriate choice to make with the scale of programme in front of us with the implementation of devolved benefits as we set out in the report through the programme. It was deemed appropriate to focus on those components of the system that will make the most impact to service users. Some of that is borne out well. We reference in our report that customer satisfaction levels are high with people who use the system. Over 80 per cent of those that were surveyed found it easy or very easy to use. 94 per cent say that they were treated with kindness. That mirrors the overall tenets of the approach about dignity, fairness and respect. See that coming through and what it means for customer experience. The other handle is that there is that trade-off. There does then need to be a need in terms of the integrity of the system, the long-term functionality for it to be subject to better expression, to go back and do the work needed just to secure it in future. That will come at a cost. That will need to be factored into future budget setting and so on. The point you make about data gaps and does that impact on the forecast is not something we have seen yet, but it is important that the agency, the Government programme team, is alert to what that will mean. However, it does not detract from the overall point that the Fiscal Commission is concerned about the quality of data and what that will mean for the reliability of forecasts. Pause the progress thus far, but a lot of work is still to be done to conclude the successful roll-out. Ensure that the data is reliable, supports the longer-term forecasts and that integrity point of the system can be secured for the future. I hope that I am going to pause again. I think that there are a couple of points that I have missed. I am just going to check in with Kirsty. Thank you. I was just going to mention that with the move of the chief digital officer and his team of staff from the implementation programme over into Social Security Scotland itself, what we have commented on in the report is a strengthening of that focus and understanding within Social Security Scotland about the technical aspects of the systems that are being developed and the strengthening of the operational voice within the decision-making processes around what systems need to be developed and what aspects are being prioritised or potentially traded off. We do see a strengthening of that and that is something that we will be keen to keep an eye on as we do our annual audit work to see how that develops and what impact that has. Chair, just a supplementary if that is okay, just on a little bit more detail. Obviously in regards to the data gap, and Kirsty has done for herself or back to the general in terms of what we do not want to get to is obviously to get to the next audit and it is looked upon saying there are still issues with the data gap. It is really just to see what work will be on going between now and the next audit, if you like, between the data gap, because when we spoke to the fiscal commission there was obviously an issue that they had and it is what is going to go on between now and the next audit rather than raise it in the next audit and it is still a concern. Can you highlight or outline what that piece of work would be in terms of how you are going to continue to monitor this, particularly around the data gap, because it does inform, as we said, the budget going forward and what is a particularly difficult time to almost track demand in where we are just now? I am happy to start again, and Kirsty can say a bit more about what we understand the steps that the agencies are taking to resolve. From our perspective, you are right that we do not want to repeat audit recommendations from one report to the next. We want to see the impact of that. It is not just ourselves, as you rightly mentioned, that have focused on it. The fiscal commission too are clearly highlighting it, so we would expect to see focus from management on engagement with the fiscal commission primarily, that they are clear on what information they need to support their forecasts. We know also that the agency has good relationships with the DWP, that they are engaging routinely with them, their sharing services and sharing resources. I particularly note that the fiscal commission has made that comparison between Social Security Scotland and the DWP with the quality of data. I do not want to oversimplify it, but given that there is a level of contentment about DWP, we would expect that that relationship to be used to better understand what the fiscal commission's requirements are. However, the overall point for me is that we are keen to see the impact that we are not repeating audit recommendations a number of years down the line. Kirsty might have more detail. Nothing too much to add to that, but just to comment that we mentioned in the report that we see the early establishment of dedicated digital teams to support some of the more routine capacity building within the system and understanding of where data might need to flow out of the system and how that is worked into digital updates to systems, as opposed to the work that is on-going on the kind of major benefit launches and major benefit design. That is something that we would be keen to see how that is being maintained and make sure that that capacity is being maintained within Social Security Scotland to support that work. Pam, do you want to come back in on that theme? To be honest, all my questions in this area have now been answered, so I am okay. I kind of thought that that was going to be the case, thank you very much. We will move on to our next theme, which is roundabout workforce, and we are going to start with Jeremy Balfour. Over to yourself, Jeremy. Thank you, convener. I think that we have dealt with some of this under the previous theme, so I hope that we can move on quicker. There has always been a slightly strange relationship between the design of the system, which has been done by the Scottish Government, and the implementation of the scheme, which has been done by the agency. Do you know how many people are still working from the Scottish Government perspective in regard to the design and the practical running together of the scheme? If so, do you know what cost that is? Obviously, the agency does not carry that cost, but it is a cost related to Social Security. I am happy to start, I will bring Kirsty in a moment or two. At a high level, you are right in your analysis, Mr Balfour, that there was the split between the new agency and the programme team in terms of progress. We would recognise, I think that we say in a report, that that has generally worked well in relationships and roles and responsibilities. We have got a point there to support the overall implementation of the programme. At various points, we have noted that the agency might have been more closely involved, but that is not a theme that we are seeing in current state of affairs. I am going to turn to Kirsty in a moment, but you asked about costs and what that means for the future. At a high level, we have looked at the budget for the indicative spending. In the spending review, it talks about a level to spend around £0.4 billion, £400 million. We think about three quarters of that relates to Social Security Scotland. It is still a feature of a significant amount of public spending, also in the completion of the roll-out of the programme. We note that the overall estimate in terms of the delivery of the programme is £685 billion. That is the number that we reported up to the end of 2025. Clearly, much of that will be in terms of staff costs. Some reliance on consultants that we have reported previously as well to deliver the technical expertise and the complexity of the system. I am going to pass over to Kirsty in terms of the split that you asked about and anything further that she wishes to supplement. At paragraph 61 of our report, we set out the current staffing levels of the implementation programme, or as they were in February 2022. At that point, there was about 650 full-time equivalent staff working within the implementation programme. At that point, they were intending that that would raise to about 780 staff. We anticipate from what the information that was put out in the last programme business case that this period in time 2022-23 will be the expected peak of the programme. We would expect to tail off as more of the activity is delivered and more of the focus shifts to the on-going operation of the benefits under Social Security Scotland. We also set out at Exhibit 5 the breakdown of the costings from implementation, which at the moment, or at that point in time, the programme was estimating that about £349 million would be the expected staffing cost as a share of that whole implementation. That, again, is something that we would expect to be updated in the revised programme business case and updated estimates, which the Scottish Government has indicated at plans to publish by the end of this year. That should give an updated position on where they see that staffing level going and the overall costings that they expect the staffing to contribute to the overall implementation cost. Thank you. That is very helpful. Just one quick follow-up question, if I shall convene it. Just around that, in regard to good practice and going forward, is it acceptable to have almost two separate teams working on this? Or, from an auditor's perspective, would it be better practice for those who are working within the Scottish Government to be actually, I don't know whether I can attend it, to peer across, plot across, so that we have one team working under this? I mean, I appreciate that it has worked okay to this extent, but as the service continues, is it better practice to have simply one team who deal with those who are in Scotland, a bit like DWP, rather than having two separate teams working on those identities? I think that we understand the rationale for why there were two separate teams. The complexity of both the system development, the policy development on one side, and then the policy implementation through the agency on the other. Inevitably, as the programme reaches maturity, the level of employees in the programme development side will ebb, and it will become about the delivery of the implementation in the agency and a much smaller team. I don't think I've got a particularly strong view about whether it would be that it was the right model or whether it should have just been entirely through the agency. What we would say, what we see of agencies elsewhere is that agencies are much closer to the centre of government than NDPBs or non-ministerial offices, so there will always be a close relationship. From our perspective, we'd say that it's about the quality of the relationship that matters most, that there's a clarity around roles and responsibilities and relationships with it. I think that's something that we've seen with a couple of tweaks here and there over the course of the programme, but we'd also say, and I'm keen to make that point, that we've had really excellent engagement from both the agency and the government team in terms of our work on benefits over many years, that we've had strong engagement, no clarity of message and understanding, and that has really helped our audit approach at the same time. I hope that's helpful. That's helpful. Thank you. I've got normal questions on workforce. Thank you very much for that. We'll move on to questions from Emma Roddick, and then we'll hand it back to Pamdan Muglanzi after that. Emma. Thank you, convener. A lot of employers are really struggling at the moment to recruit staff, particularly for fixed-term or temporary contracts. Is it a good sign that Social Security Scotland is managing to recruit staff at pace despite that? Yes, it is. It is a good sign. I think that there are challenges in the employment market. You rightly pointed out that, for some people, they want a temporary job or a fixed-term level, so there are circumstances, but for more people it's that security of employment. The agency that I have been able to recruit is positive and particularly borne out by the scale of change of numbers working for the agency. That's a fair assessment. Going back to what you were just saying about engagement being really good, part of the reason why we are managing to sit here and scrutinise changing in staffing forecasts is because we have been given the figures. Do you feel that there is also an overall commitment to transparency by the agency? Just to echo the point about engagement, we have had really strong engagement from both the agency and the Government team. We welcome the publication that is planned later in the year about the future spending plans. We think that there is a little bit more to do, particularly looking at the scale of change of spending that is set out in the report, but it hasn't been a routine feature over the course of the programme to note the change in spending profile. As Kirsty mentioned a few minutes ago, as well, it is keen to see closer connection as the programme moves forward to the Government's national performance framework as well. We are looking at a broader range of measures that have up until now largely been qualitative in assessment to bring in more quantitative values as well. I note that this morning, if not a chance to read it yet, that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has published its latest report on the national performance framework. It is important for the programme and for the agency to take stock of that that they are appropriately connected so that those outcomes, ultimately in public spending, to deliver outcomes that people's experience and what the significant amounts of public spending are delivering for users of the benefits. I think that it is worth noting that there is a significant portion of the changes to staffing and costs over time or due to things such as reprioritisation in the DWP and data sharing issues that took longer than expected for that Government to resolve. In terms of responsible spending and governance, is it justified that the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland prioritised a safe case transfer for users? It is really important to have a safe case transfer. Perhaps some of that is borne out by the experience that people have had in dealing with Social Security Scotland. I will mention to Mr McClellan a few minutes ago about the satisfaction levels that people have had. Yes, there is always a connection to what it costs to deliver it and the scale of changes to the roll-out of the adult disability payments in August and more to come. I have all had a bearing on some of the costs. I think that we have made a final point. That is why we have not made a critical judgment about the scale of changing costs in the roll-out of the programme. Some might have expected us to do and we have done in other cases where public spending has gone significantly higher than the original budget, just because of the amount of variables that were in place when the financial memorandum was first published. The scale of change, the relationship with DWP, the uptake from users—all of those are really significant components that have led to the numbers that we have, but it really perhaps reinforces the point about the need, therefore, for regular reporting to support transparency. That is great to make with that. Pam, do you have further questions on that? I know that members and the auditor general have helped to ask quite a few of the questions that were coming down the line, so just to double check, Pam, whether you want to back in. I do. I have one specific question, but forgive me if it has already been asked. Some of my signals have not been 100 per cent, so it has been asked briefly just to see what it has answered. Do you have any concerns about the impact on the workforce planning in Social Security Scotland and the programme from the DFM's announcements on cuts in that area? Services to manage their budget with the resources that they have. I think that it is clear to see that there will be some real fiscal challenges for the next Scottish budget and the years beyond. That is clearly set out in the resource spending review and the medium-term financial strategy. Add to the point that we have discussed this morning about the fiscal commission's concerns, not just about data quality but looking at the divergence that the Scottish-specific choices are compared to the block grant. Their forecast was published after we completed our report of £1.3 billion. Inevitably, that leads to difficult choices. They will not just be limited to Social Security Scotland that will affect all the Scottish budget. For any Government to manage within the financial resources at its disposal, clearly our role is not to comment on policy choices but to note that those choices will have to be made to remain within the confines of the fiscal environment that Scotland operates on. The other questions that I have have already been answered. Thanks very much for that, Pam. Auditor General, maybe just to pick up on something that you said there before I moved to Paul McLeanon, who has got another question. It takes us back to the Scottish Fiscal Commission and its discussion round about the data gaps that were already touched on this morning. Understanding how a policy implementation realises the outcome that was intended. I think that our committee's concern is round about those missing pieces of data at the moment. How will we know whether policy is achieved at subjective, looking back if we do not have robust data as we are being told at the moment? Sorry to bring us back to that subject but I think that it is something that we are quite focused on. I am glad that you mentioned it again, convener. It is hugely important and it has been a feature of some of our other audit reporting about the need for robust data to support implementation of policies but also that evaluation piece. Not just many years in advance but actually over the course of implementation because looking at the complexity of this programme is that it is no surprise that it will take different turns during the course of the programme. Policymakers' implementation of those policies by officials really need high quality data to make that assessment. There is an opportunity now to get that right with the Fiscal Commission's recommendations, the relationships with the DWP. The views of service users as well as a key factor in that is very welcome that service users are reporting that they are getting a positive experience. One of the findings from our report is that as I mentioned a moment or two ago is that to bring in some more high quality quantitative data we are also a wider evaluation strategy as part of the how will the agency, how will government make that assessment of the success of this programme of public spending. So we are keen to see progress on that. Elevitably there are risks if it doesn't happen for our own work as well. Ultimately we will want to form a value for money judgement in due course. We are not at a position where we can quite do that and of course for your own committee we will want to be satisfied about how well the programme is being implemented and to make some of those assessments using high quality data so some work to do it. Thank you very much for that, Auditor General. Paul McClennan, over to yourself for a question. Thank you, convener. Two questions, one general and one specific. The specific one is really just on about. In light of what remains to be done in the programme, do you have any comment on the administration and to get a budget, social security administration and to get a budget set out in the spending review? In the more general one, Auditor General is really wondering about what are the key risks in developing the remaining aspects of the programme? Thank you, Mr McClennan. I will check with Kirsty about the intake of the budget. I think that I mentioned a figure of £400 million but I will check if I have that right and then I will come back in on the key risks in a second. Yes, as far as I am aware that is the figure that we were looking at the £400 million and I think that £401 million set out in the spending review. Is there any comment on that? Do you have any issues about that, whether that is enough or is there any comment on that and to get a budget for that at this stage? I think that ultimately that will be for the agency and the Government to decide if that is appropriate or not. I mentioned to the convener a second or two ago that it is a complex programme and there is no doubt that when you look at the scale of benefits still to be administered, I will come back to your second question. The number of people that are employed, Kirsty mentioned a second or two ago about that is going to peak as well. All manner of significant, there are workforce challenges to be overcome and then if I can move on, I think that there is also looking at the scale of what is yet to be delivered is still significant. For me that would be the biggest risk. When we try to set that out on exhibit 1 to the paper, there are still a number of large complex benefits to be implemented and the agency's track record so far is strong. It is done well in implementing benefits in Scotland but there is work to do and inevitably there will be some high quality data that is going to be required to assess the implementation and there is obviously the other risk that I think is appropriate to mention. There is some of the scale of the fiscal risks that are relevant to the rollout of the programme. There are expectations among service users of what will be delivered and when so the agency will clearly have to manage those but as the fiscal commission clearly set out that doing all of the delivery of the programme within the confines of Scotland's budget as it diverges further from the block grant that is supporting those benefits, that will lead to policy choices from the Government. All of those will have to be managed in the round. Thanks very much. We will go back to Jeremy Balfour who will have some questions around remaining work and key risk. Paul McLean will go back to you and then if any other members have any questions, please type in the chat bar that would be helpful because we have covered questions as we have went along just to round us off at the end. Jeremy, over to yourself. Thank you convener. I think that a lot of what was covered in the previous questions, I suppose that you have talked about the risk going forward in regard to staffing and implementation of the larger benefits. Any other things that we should be looking at, any other things that we should be monitoring as a committee over the next couple of years? I would repeat the point about the fiscal risk that exists. Staffing, programme roll-out and the fiscal position feel like the most significant components. The programme has been well managed thus far, but it inevitably requires even further attention. The point that we have touched on in passing as well—forgiving to Kirsty, because she might have mentioned these as well—is that some of the system implementation brings risks as well. Agile is the right approach, but it does have those trade-offs, so there will be a need for the agency just to satisfy itself, satisfy users' parliament, that they are dealing with all of those aspects of system development that have moved a different pace from the roll-out of the programme, so that is going to be an important part as well. It is a risk as well as an opportunity for the Government and the agency to set out the evaluation of the impact of the implementation of the programme. The significant sums of public spending are delivering what they intended, so looking to see some of those data gaps in that strategy set out as soon as possible. I am going to pause again. I am sure that there are a few points that Kirsty will want to mention. Thank you. Nothing substantial to add to that, but to highlight, as the Auditor General was talking about, the on-going delivery of the digital systems will be something that we are keen to keep an eye on as they progress, with a mindset that we are now into large-scale day-to-day delivery or administration of benefits over the next few years alongside on-going implementation of new benefits, which is a change in scale for social security Scotland now that it is into delivery and case transfer of adult disability payment, and just that ability to focus and have the attention on both aspects of their business in terms of the digital systems delivery. We have highlighted in the report a few areas where there will need to be decisions made about long-term digital solutions. We highlighted specifically the payments platform and just things like that, which will need to be delivered and given the time and space alongside the on-going administration of the large-scale benefits. Thank you. Just one very final question. It is just going back to the issue around staffing, and I think my colleague Emma Ward pointed out that we have got very positive pick-up. Have you any information of where these individuals are coming from? Are they local people in Dundee? We used to be the story where everyone was moving from DWP to Social Security Scotland, whether that is true or not. I suspect that we never know, but do you do any looking at where people have come from in regard to previous jobs or geographically where they are coming from? I am not sure that I have that information at hand. I can check with Carstine in a minute whether she has got any more detail on that. It is certainly something that the agency knows that we will be closely monitoring through their workforce planning, and we will take a view on that through the annual audit, but I am not sure if we have that detail. If we do not, we will come back to the committee in writing if we have it, but I will check with Carstine first. Thanks. We do not have any detail about where employees are coming from, so previous employment, for example. Alongside the workforce statistics that the Scottish Government publishes on Social Security Scotland, it publishes a breakdown of the location of staff that once are into Social Security Scotland, where they are based, and that shows the split between staffing in Glasgow offices and in the Dundee head offices. As the most up-to-date data that was published in September, reflecting a position up to June 2022, showed that around 55 per cent of Social Security Scotland staff are Glasgow-based, and around 33 per cent are based in Dundee across the various offices, with the remainder being in various other local or regional areas. That is information that is published, but not more on the side of where they have come into Social Security Scotland from. That is very helpful. I suppose that that leads on to a quick question. We at the committee on a number of occasions have had the pleasure of visiting the offices in Dundee. The fairly large building, as we come out of Covid and as people come back, do you look at whether that office is of good value and is it being used and how many people work in that office and what is your cost to Social Security Scotland? I may be happy to start on that one. The agency will need to do that. As it will, all public bodies need to take a view about their estate and whether it is occupancy levels, costs and the respective roles and responsibilities that they have and public access to the building. We know, of course, through the medium-term financial strategy, the resource spending review that the Government set out earlier in the spring, that the use of the public sector estate is expected to be a key feature of spending plans associated with efficiencies over the years ahead. It is obviously the case that for this programme that the presence in Dundee and Glasgow is currently, Kirsty rightly mentions, a key part of bringing opportunities, secure jobs, well-paid jobs to these cities. However, it is probably too early to tell yet what that will mean in terms of delivery of services for the public and what hybrid working might yet look like. Our view is clear, though, that if the estate is to be changed and used differently, then that has to be done through longer-term planning, public consultation and set out in financial plans. Something that we will keep a close eye on. Thank you and thank you for any normal questions today. Thanks very much for that. Thank you, Auditor General, and thank you both for coming along with us this morning on a Monday morning quite early and helping us to facilitate this rescheduled meeting. That is very helpful. If you think that there is anything that you need to follow up and write in, please do so. You are able to leave the meeting by hanging up that we read telephone button up in the corner when you are ready to do so. Thank you both for coming along. The committee is now going to consider our next item of business, which is agenda item 4, which is a negative instrument, council tax reduction and council tax discounts, miscellaneous amendment 2, Scotland regulations 2022. The background information is outlined in paper 3. The instrument is laid under the negative procedure, which means that its provisions will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to annul them. No motions to annul have been laid. Do members have any comment on the instrument at all? No. As we do not have any comments on it, I invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any further recommendations in relation to that. Are we all agreed on that? I can only see Jeremy right. I have seen everybody nodding heads. That is great. Thank you very much. I will now close the public part of this meeting and invite the committee members to move into private session. Members are invited to join the private meeting via the link provided. I will see you all over there shortly. Thank you very much.