Chamber and committees

I will move on to my other remarks—I have finished that section.

During the budget process, I always enjoy this particular debate, which I feel brings out the best of the Parliament. Ideas are shared in a calm and rational manner, away from the hurly-burly of political posturing. I am struck by the fact that all the committees that have reported have, invariably, agreed on their reports without division. That is certainly the case for the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which is heartening.

Many points have been brought out ably in the debate. Zero-based budgeting is still an area of interest to me. During our trip to Estonia, the FPA Committee heard evidence of its use in the public realm. It has its critics but—perhaps because my previous experience in the commercial world had a sharpness around budgeting—I think that it has merit.

I add my voice to the calls to publish a variety of forecast information in a form that is described as a strategic approach. In the FPAC’s report, there are multiple calls for that, as either an MTFS—a medium-term financial strategy—or a fiscal sustainability delivery plan. There has been considerable uncertainty due to various events but, as the old mantra says: if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

I have a thought about the issuance of bonds, which I am aware continues to be actively looked at. As well as a best-value test, bonds also have the benefit of embedding skin in the Scottish game. Investing in worthy public-realm projects can also provide an emotional commitment and be a draw for bodies run by affinity Scots or our global diaspora.

My final point is about reviewing how the fiscal framework operates. I draw members’ attention to the SFC’s report “Fiscal Sustainability Perspectives: Climate Change”, which makes clear that in no way can the framework be considered adequate for the scale of investment needed to get to net zero. Any further review must bear that in mind.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Falkirk Council is to consider a motion calling for immediate action by the Scottish Government to support the Grangemouth chemical cluster and the future of its industry. (S6O-04273)

A motion that has been lodged today by the Scottish National Party group calls, critically, for the Grangemouth future industry board to expand its scope to focus on the here and now. The workers in Grangemouth do not just want jam tomorrow; they want bread and butter today. Is the Scottish Government hearing the call for real action to protect the skills base and the vital chemical cluster? The UK Government is doing nothing. I implore the Scottish Government to do as much as it possibly can.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us.

I want to follow up on one wee thread off the back of what has been said. David Robertson, you mentioned a credit check. Can you remind me of the nature of that, because that will frame my question, and I did not quite hear all of what was said?

Okay. What tests have you done on the possibility of fraud? I heard what you said about checking, but, if that checking is predicated on an SC number that was set up through Companies House, the problem is that it is extremely easy to set up a fraudulent body via Companies House. There are umpteen examples of Scottish limited partnerships, in particular, and no checking is done via Companies House.

I appreciate that it is a long shot, because, as one might ask, why would somebody go to the trouble of setting up and then putting in place a fraudulent transaction on the registers? I just wanted to explore how much you have tracked that through, because, in and of itself, an SC number, as well as the other associated detail, does not mean that someone is acting in good faith.

There are a number of different scenarios. I am just thinking about Scottish limited partnerships, which have been written about a great deal. They are used for a variety of mechanisms, but the whole point of them is that they give the impression of probity, because you can see them registered in Companies House and it is a brand: Scottish limited partnership. Part of the issue is that there is a footprint giving the illusion of legitimate activity when, actually, it might not be at all legitimate.

I am not certain that you have considered all the potential fraudulent situations if there has been a complete lack of testing by Companies House. The record has shown us that the volume of fraudulent companies is alarmingly large; there is ample evidence of that. For example, hundreds of Scottish limited partnerships have been registered to addresses in Dumbarton. You might ask why someone would go to the trouble of doing that, but that is the essence of fraud. Somebody did that, but for reasons that we have not yet thought of.

I suppose that that leads us in a neat circle back to the opening point about the veracity of the registers in general terms—a lot of our questions have been about that—and about the rules and regulations. There might well be scenarios—in fact, a lot of them have come out this morning—that have not necessarily been thought about in great detail.

I will leave it there, but if you have any further thoughts, feel free to write to us.

It would not do any harm to wait a week, because a lot of detail has been brought out. That is my personal view; I am sure that other members will have their own views.

On whom do you perform the credit check in that role play?

I note the earlier question and answer about Forth Valley royal hospital and am pleased that a full investigation is under way. However, there are conflicting reports about the exact length of time for which the generators were offline, with those varying from the short period of time noted in the original statement to the hour outlined by the cabinet secretary. Will the investigation establish the exact length of time, which some anecdotal reports suggest was closer to two hours?