Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a point of clarity for me, while I accept what the minister is saying about the ambiguity in the context of amendment 189 itself, has she done any further thinking on the principle of the victim’s right to be kept informed, particularly for a very traumatic thing, as is done in other areas? Is she therefore suggesting that further consideration will be given to that principle in time for stage 3, or is the Government discounting the principle altogether?

Sorry to interrupt. What you are articulating increases my confidence level that you have taken on board what we said before. Those are all examples showing that, but the issue is the basis on which you will proceed. To go back to Liz Smith’s point, even from a well-estimated framing, the continued co-design means that there is the significant potential for cost overrun, unless you have us breathing down your necks saying, “You said this. It’s going to be that.” I have heard a million times, in another life, people saying, “We thought it was going to be A plus C plus E, but, actually, the person over there has made a very good point about G”, after which they go away and look at it again.

That is the critical risk factor for the costs that you are outlining. I have seen that kind of situation in private industry, where people have taken the approach that you are, which is a function of complexity. They have said, “Right. There’s going to be a fixed budget. That is it; end of.” Then, as managers come in and change, they might entertain the idea that option E looks quite interesting, but that approach would require them to de-scope and take things out because of the fixed budget.

Ultimately, despite my crediting you with doing all that work, we have no control over the end cost. Therefore, perhaps the question is whether anybody has said that, allowing for an inflationary uplift, which we cannot control, and potentially for other variables, they will put a fixed cost on that. For me, that would be the real test of how much extra work you have done.

Yes, I am talking about the investment time. That is the activity where significant costs are often incurred. For example, if people are doing a good job, taking in soundings from other elements and there are multiple stakeholders with whom changes need to be worked through, it can incur a real on-going cost. If you are operating to a fixed budget, there will be a sharpness to that, but if there is no fixed budget line, that will not be the case.

That is my point. Thank you.

You are almost making my point for me. There is a very good rationale and a very good reason for doing things like that, but having that detailed discussion will take time, and using all that resource—as opposed to spend through capital expenditure or whatever—will, by necessity, increase costs.

I am just trying to set out my conclusion from a financial perspective that, despite the good work that you have done, there will inevitably be significant cost overruns over time. That is a concern, which is counterintuitive to a very difficult fiscal environment. I appreciate that that is a bit technical.

I have been called a lot of things on this committee, convener.

I want to follow up on the points that Liz Smith has been making. What she was trying to flesh out is also a concern of mine. I can see that you have done a huge amount of work since we last met, and I absolutely give you credit for that. However, this talks to a question about the co-design process, and it mirrors our concerns as a finance committee about the extent to which we can be confident that the end cost will bear some relation to the start cost, accepting that the end cost is never accurate. That is the only point when your costings can be accurate—I understand all that.

As we move to stage 2 and amendments, that will be done by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, so this committee will not undertake financial scrutiny of them or have oversight. Also, as the co-design process carries on and further business cases are developed, that will incur costs. I accept what you are saying about their being framed, but that will still introduce further costs over which we will have no oversight, over a 10-year period.

You have clearly done a huge amount of good work, and I am not saying that I am against a co-design process because of the issues that have been brought out today. However, I am saying that, as it stands, I cannot be confident that we as a finance committee have any sense of the ultimate cost. From a parliamentary perspective, against a backdrop of huge challenges around public sector funding, that is a concern. Do you accept the framing that I have set out and the rationale that I have given?

So, in other words, it will not take any longer than the time for which you have already costed.

What happens if someone comes up with a really good idea that you have not yet thought of?

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.