Chamber and committees

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.

I would like to bring in Vikki Manson and Duncan Thorp on that point and on my earlier challenge as to what they have proactively done, knowing what they know about the challenges.

If you do not mind, I will make the same point again. In response to my question, you have described all the good work that you are doing with your membership organisations in pushing outwards, but my challenge is for you to say what, having identified and become aware of the city region deals that are under way in various locations, you have proactively done, on behalf of your members, in relation to those deals. That is my question.

All of you have spoken compellingly, particularly Carolyn Currie, in setting out the context vis-à-vis women. I will lay down a gentle challenge to all three of you. Given your understanding of your respective roles and how the potential for inclusive economic growth could be increased, what have you proactively done to draw the attention of particular targeted city and region deals to your existence and to your compelling messages?

You have taken another opportunity to put further commentary very effectively on the record. On the point that I asked about, aside from capacity—which, of course, is linked to funding—is there more that you feel you could have done if all things had been equal? I ask that because many of our evidence sessions are starting to feel like groundhog day for me, as we hear similar messages, and there is a commonly held understanding at the front of people’s heads that we need to do this, but something always seems to happen. That means that key groupings—not just women in business but small and medium-sized enterprises—are not necessarily thought of in the way that they should have been thought of. Is it simply an issue of capacity and funding, or is it more systemic?

Given that, and your earlier commentary about how you do not feel that the perspective of SMEs is understood—you have given various examples—what, then, is the issue? Has there been an issue with how representation has been given? Indeed, you have clarified that for me—thank you. Have SMEs not been listened to? Is it more complex than that?

Although the movement in bond yields, of course, was the result of recent movements, I concede that other factors are at play in the wider global economy. However, one element of bond yields is confidence in policy at UK Government level. That is one element of it, among many.

You did not answer my direct question. My challenge is, how certain, given your articulation of the UK macroeconomy, can any city and region deal be as to the future profiling and flow of funding on a multiyear basis, given that the chancellor has been quite clear in saying that she will leave no stone unturned to look for potential cuts? This is a chance for you to put on record that the money that the UK Government has promised over a period will remain intact. Can you do that today?