Chamber and committees

Right—I thought that it would include Northern Ireland.

I guess that that is it—I have set out my concerns, which are broadly in line with those of others.

So, at present, there has been no assessment of what the impact of the deal would be on businesses that are competing for those contracts.

In my experience, most public sector contracts are pretty tightly priced. That might be seen as a good thing from a taxpayer value point of view, but it is difficult for businesses—particularly SMEs—to compete or even make a bid, because of the scale of the commercial risk that they face if they price low. That is the story behind many highly publicised contract failures in the UK in general, such as that of Carillion, which was pricing for public sector work at a very low margin. I am asking you to concede that it is another pressure on businesses to have to respond to low-cost bids.

I understand the technical aspect, but I am always interested, as I am sure you are, in the practical implementation of such policies.

09:45

It is important to note, given the numbers that the minister shared with us moments ago, that there are huge opportunities for Scottish businesses in India, but, similarly, it has to be said that there are now clear opportunities for Indian businesses in Scotland. That is the nature of trade.

We need to constantly assess the impact of any trade agreement, simply because free trade exists only on the basis of the appropriately applied remedies. If there is any form of unfairness in a trade agreement, it can quickly become less than the asset that we think we have. Therefore, it is a case of constant vigilance.

I know what the minister has said about the fact that this is a UK trade agreement. It is a reserved matter; trade is reserved. However, there is a part to be played in Scotland by our public authorities and our Government to make sure that this trade agreement is properly balanced and fair. I hope that the minister will take that on board. He has mentioned a few times that there is provision on the part of Scottish ministers, working with UK ministers, to assess the impact of the trade agreement—I think that I have understood that correctly.

There are the social value dimensions.

Well, you are being cross-examined, cabinet secretary.

You—

To be absolutely clear, the cabinet secretary is trying to shade my questions on the basis of it being one person’s account versus another person’s account. I am trying to get to the facts and hold up to examination his performance as cabinet secretary. I have the HES model framework document—or executive NDPB document, or whatever it is called—here. It says:

“The Chair and Board Members are accountable to the Scottish Ministers”.

It goes on to say that the CEO

“is employed and appointed by the Board with the approval of the Scottish Ministers and is the principal adviser to the Board on the discharge of its functions and is accountable to the Board.”

What I cannot get my head around, having done some executive work in my career, is how you, cabinet secretary, as the person to whom these people account, did not once challenge them in person, did not meet them and did not say, “Right. We’re going to have a meeting. We’ve got to discuss this face to face.” Your predecessors did, but you did not. You have not fulfilled your responsibilities as the cabinet secretary with a direct responsibility for what is happening in Historic Environment Scotland. People inside that organisation—many of whom have contacted me and, I am sure, other members of the committee—are making it clear that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of all the various leadership configurations in HES before and since 2023, you have not fulfilled your duty.

09:00

The timeline that you have given us begins on 23 April 2025, so there is no reference in there to the difficulties that the chair and the board were reporting to your team about the performance of the new chief executive officer. Whether or not that is because they were discomfited, as Kenneth Hogg says, by her inquiries, that was a point at which you could have said, “Right. What are the issues? Let’s talk about it.” What it does not include, as you have now highlighted, is the fact that the new CEO brought a grievance against the then chair. By the way, I understand that he learned about that a month after it was made and did not receive any of the details of what he was being accused of until July, which seems a very wrong state of affairs. Regardless of who is right or wrong, that does not seem to be appropriate at all.

One of the communications from your office to the chair, which we are all now privy to, shows that it was not standard practice for you to meet the people whom you appointed—that is, the chair and the board of these non-departmental public bodies. That is not right, is it, Kenneth?

But the chief executive is not accountable to the cabinet secretary. I am reading from the model framework. They are accountable to the chair and the board.