Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, Mr Gove. Thanks for joining us. Is it not the case that the real reason why the money for all these funds cannot match EU funding is that the UK is trading broke? The debt to gross domestic product ratio is nearly at parity and the cost of servicing UK debt interest is £380 million a day. Is that not the real reason—that the UK is trading broke?

Of course, that is not actually the case. The UK has been in economic decline, and the figures are quite stark. I note that

“In 1980 the UK’s GDP per capita was in line with or exceeded most advanced economies. By 2019, the gap between UK GDP per capita and the small advanced economies average had increased to 38%”.

That is by the by, however, and I am aware of the time, so I will come on to what I wanted to ask you about today. You have mentioned green freeports a number of times. The important port of Grangemouth is located in my constituency of Falkirk East. You may recall that, the last time you were in front of the committee, I asked you about the role of, and your accountability to, Audit Scotland. One of the concerns that have been expressed about freeports is the possibility of corruption. The regulatory environment is all managed by the UK Government.

I will just flip over to the record of what each of us said on that occasion. You said:

“I am accountable to the UK Parliament, to Audit Scotland”

and so on. I then asked:

“What specific agreement have you made with Audit Scotland in that respect?”

You replied:

“I am waiting for Audit Scotland to make any suggestion to me about what it would like to do”.—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 24 February 2022; c 25.]

My first question therefore is whether Audit Scotland has been in touch with you or you have been in touch with Audit Scotland, as to how the green freeports can be given oversight to avoid potential risks of corruption.

It is for that reason that I am asking. You will of course be well aware of the potential for corruption in Teesside. I noted with interest your decision to exclude the National Audit Office in England in setting up your own investigation. The National Crime Agency suggests that £262 billion is lost to UK GDP each and every year as a result of money laundering and corruption, so you will see my interest in a stated role and full inclusivity for Audit Scotland, so there is no hint of that at the green freeport in Grangemouth.

I will ask this again. Given that Audit Scotland has not been in touch with you—which I will pick up with Audit Scotland—will you share any findings with Audit Scotland as to what, if anything, has gone wrong with the freeport in Teesside?

For the record, just before I leave this—I know that the convener wants to come back in—you will submit yourself to the full scrutiny of Audit Scotland if it looks under the covers of what is happening in any green freeport in Scotland. Just a simple yes or no will be fine.

Just for the record, then, there can be no possibility of your avoiding Audit Scotland’s scrutiny of any potential risks associated with green freeports in Scotland and you will not seek to exclude it as you have done with the National Audit Office in England.

Well, it is not involved, is it? It is playing a very limited role in the current inquiry when it should be leading it—and, certainly in Scotland, I would expect any such inquiry, if it came to pass, to be led by Audit Scotland. I appreciate that that is hypothetical, though.

In using the term “trading broke”, I am referring to the debt to GDP ratio. Debt is 98 per cent of UK GDP.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I thank the rest of the panel for attending as well.

Before other members come in on the budget, I want to discuss briefly public sector reform, which was trailed extensively, although the budget does not contain any specific plans for how that will happen. I appreciate that the issue is complex and challenging, and that real costs are associated. I understand that the approach thus far is for some 129 agencies to look at where they could make improvements. Arguably, that is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. I therefore want to explore with you, from the perspective of your portfolio, your understanding of the approach that is being taken. Is it top down or will it work in alignment with your education reform programme—in which case, how will you dovetail that programme, which is extensive enough, with the wider public sector reform?

I have a couple of follow-on questions. Purely in terms of delivery, if the deadline was 10 years hence and there were no electoral cycles, the approach that one would choose to adopt—and public pressure—might be different to what they will be given intervening events such as elections. How will you square the nuanced approach and the pressure that there will be for demonstrable delivery, cabinet secretary? People will be crying out for real, evident change but with a nuanced approach against a 10-year delivery plan. Perhaps you can reflect on some of the complexities that you see in that.