Chamber and committees

Okay, thank you. Other members of the committee may want to ask questions on that part of the report.

I will move to another area. One comment in the report that jumped out at me was about agency staff. Presumably we cannot name the department or identify the person concerned, but you cite one example of somebody who I think was a former employee of the Scottish Government and who came back on an agency basis, part time over four months, and billed the Government for £85,000 or more. Is that a common occurrence? Was it something that stood out as an isolated incident? What is your take?

Mr Simpson will ask you about Historic Environment Scotland in short order. However, the deep dive took place way back, did it not? I presume that it was after the initial WICS section 22 report.

Okay. The deputy convener, who I will turn to next, has some questions on one of those projects.

My final question for now is about risk management. In paragraph 69, you say:

“Risk management is key to the Scottish Government’s assurance arrangements.”

What evidence have you seen that this is being applied to the relationship with the GFG Alliance?

As we have previously noted, the GFG Alliance is facing litigation because it has failed to lodge accounts with Companies House, including, I think, for Alvance British Aluminium, based at Lochaber. It is facing investigation over suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering by the Serious Fraud Office. Its auditors, King and King Chartered Accountants, resigned in 2022 following their concerns about the business. Only last week, MHA, which is part of Baker Tilly International, also resigned as auditors from part of the GFG Alliance’s subsidiary arrangements because they, too, were concerned about some intercompany interactions.

In other words, this company is riddled with question marks over its conduct and is facing litigation and investigation. Do you think that the Scottish Government has properly managed the risks and has it understood the implications of its relationship with the GFG Alliance?

Thank you. That exhausts our questions for this morning, but I want to take the opportunity to thank you very much for the evidence that you have given us and for being prepared to talk about the Historic Environment Scotland report, which is only just hot off the press. That has been useful, but we will return to it, I am quite sure, in the future.

For the time being, Carole Grant, Richard Smith and Stephen Boyle, Auditor General, I thank you for your evidence this morning, and I take the opportunity on behalf of the committee to wish you a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year.

Okay, but people such as me and Mr Simpson have a longstanding question that we have raised about the fact that there were Barnett consequentials from action taken after the Grenfell tower disaster, which were given to the Scottish Government and did not appear to have been spent. You are reporting today that that continues to be an outstanding area of underspend, at a time when people have many concerns, especially those who live in buildings where cladding remediation is required.

I will move on to social security. Once again, there is a qualification in the audit about social security spending. Can you explain why that is? Do you expect that to continue, and if so, for how long?

I say this without getting us into policy areas, but Parliament will consider legislation that is about raising a levy to pay for cladding remediation. What you are saying is that, at the same time as Parliament is considering that, you are reporting to Parliament a significant underspend, including an underspend of funds that have been set aside to carry out some of that work.

Okay. My final question is: as the Auditor General, what is your view of a company that does not have auditors and has not filed accounts with Companies House?

Thank you very much. I now invite Colin Beattie to put some questions.

Yes, and obviously, as a committee, we will consider who else we may want to take evidence from on this report, up to and including the permanent secretary. That is for us to decide.

I am conscious of the time, and I wanted to raise one other point with you, which is about the industrial interventions, which are a feature of this year’s report, as they have been in previous years. During the time that I have been chairing this committee, the Government has established a strategic commercial assets division, which has express responsibility for oversight of these interventions, most obviously Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Ltd, but also the Lochaber smelter, Glasgow Prestwick Airport Ltd and Burntisland Fabrications Ltd. Do you think that the strategic commercial assets division is working effectively in ensuring value for money?

We will get to it when we take evidence on Historic Environment Scotland, but I suppose that the timeline is interesting. At what point was Historic Environment Scotland identified as a red risk, and how long was it before action was taken? I invite Graham Simpson to put some questions to you.