Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will leave it just now in the interests of time.

I am sorry to jump in, but, on your comment that you have “sought to keep close” to your staff, do you have specific, regular communication sessions with them? If so, what and how frequent are they? It would be helpful to hear about them.

If you were in charge of legislation and the operating framework, would there be one particular change that you would like to make?

I know that other colleagues want to come in, so I will leave it there.

I will stay on this theme. An article from Tes Scotland on 7 July noted that attendance at school has historically been a problem but that Covid has exacerbated it. Covid still casts a long shadow, particularly over certain socioeconomic groupings. In your decision making around removing alternative assessment evidence, how did you reflect on there still being significant pockets of children for whom attendance has fundamentally shifted?

I have no relevant interests to declare.

I am sorry to interrupt. I absolutely get that, and you have made it clear that certain brownfield sites would not otherwise be developed. I accept that point, but it is difficult to make it without being aware of the wider environment. I will again quote a figure that I dug out a couple of years ago: the estimated loss to UK gross domestic product because of money laundering is conservatively estimated to be £262 billion every year, and the National Crime Agency says that the figure could be £100 billion more.

To my mind, we should be very concerned about that, so my question goes beyond the general principles, which, frankly, are not working. What specific discussions have you had with the UK Government to establish how it will counter tax avoidance and tax evasion? Clear warnings from the European Union in 2018 led to the EU issuing a commentary and taking further action on freeports. What recent discussions have you had?

To be fair, I recognise the challenges that the Government faces in the wider environment, and I look forward to hearing calls for greatly increased devolution in order to avoid such challenges in the future.

I consider Ross Greer’s comments to be valid. Minister, you talked about maintaining parity. I took from that that you knowingly accept the considerable potential for tax avoidance that should feed into all of our bottom lines. Am I correct in that assessment?

I have indicated some of my concerns about the use of green freeports for money laundering and other nefarious activities. I will support the motion, with the proviso that I will look for a strenuous querying of the UK Government over its pretty appalling record in stopping money laundering. I recognise, yet again, the constraints within which the Scottish Government must operate. That is a function of devolution.

All of that is pretty standard, and having it all in place does not stop considerable money laundering and fraud—it is an epidemic—in the UK economy, overseen by the UK Government. I fully accept that most such powers are reserved, but Ross Greer made the important point that we have two choices—we can say, “That’s not very good,” or we can start to rattle the cage and use the powers that we have, which could absolutely disallow any offshore company or structure.

Another point that has a bearing is that Scottish limited partnerships are well known for money laundering—they were at the root of the bombing in Beirut, and money that was being funnelled through them nearly brought down the entire Moldovan economy. They are well known and well understood.

Scottish limited partnerships affect our global brand name. If you have not had discussions with the UK Government, I ask you to have them and then return to the committee to set out exactly what assurances you have had and where you dispute points. This is our global brand, which is why I care passionately about it.