Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much for that comment.

I have one tiny question about small and medium-sized enterprises and women-led businesses. Obviously, all the deals are entirely different, but it is not unfair to say that the argument about the need for a seat at the table for SMEs and a focus on women-led businesses—as you will know, that is an interest of mine—is not always heard. We recently took evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses and Women’s Enterprise Scotland, and the evidence on that was fairly mixed. Are you giving any guidance across the entirety of the city and regional growth deals on the need to keep a relentless focus on making sure that SMEs and women-led businesses get a fair share of the pie?

I have one more point on that. We talked earlier about Rachel Reeves’s announcement on Wednesday about the AI corridor. It struck me as somewhat ironic that she made an announcement that the green book would be looked at with a view to ensuring that there is not a dominant focus on projects in London and the south-east, while at the same time she announced that the UK Government wants to create an AI corridor and that she has centred Oxford at the heart of that, rather than Edinburgh, as we talked about earlier.

Have you had any further indication of what the implications of the green book changes might be for city region deals in Scotland?

Good morning. I want to pick up on the point that Gordon MacDonald raised and ask about something that has come up in the committee before and which, from a legal perspective, I explored with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Both the Scottish Government and the UK Government might have a seat at the table; however, when I asked the secretary of state who the ultimate legal liability rested with, once commitments had been made, he confirmed that it rested with the Scottish Government. You might have a view on that, but what follows logically is that, if funding is withdrawn or paused by the UK Government vis-à-vis the spending review, if the Scottish Government, having made commitments, is on the rack from a legal liability perspective, that represents quite a significant risk. What risk assessment has been made of that by the Scottish Government?

So it is a risk to monitor, rather than a risk of significant concern.

Okay, thank you.

That is a clear answer, albeit a technical one.

The point that I was making, which is perhaps more one for the Deputy First Minister, is that, despite the fact that the green book has been looked at—I accept what Anne-Marie Martin said about that—it seems somewhat ironic for the green book to be looked at with a view to removing the relentless focus on London and the south-east, only for there then to be a relentless focus, potentially, on the Oxford to Cambridge corridor without any awareness of the fact that there was already excellence in the extreme at the University of Edinburgh, to which money had been committed. That is potentially now back on the table, although the situation remains uncertain.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us.

I want to follow up on one wee thread off the back of what has been said. David Robertson, you mentioned a credit check. Can you remind me of the nature of that, because that will frame my question, and I did not quite hear all of what was said?

Okay. What tests have you done on the possibility of fraud? I heard what you said about checking, but, if that checking is predicated on an SC number that was set up through Companies House, the problem is that it is extremely easy to set up a fraudulent body via Companies House. There are umpteen examples of Scottish limited partnerships, in particular, and no checking is done via Companies House.

I appreciate that it is a long shot, because, as one might ask, why would somebody go to the trouble of setting up and then putting in place a fraudulent transaction on the registers? I just wanted to explore how much you have tracked that through, because, in and of itself, an SC number, as well as the other associated detail, does not mean that someone is acting in good faith.

There are a number of different scenarios. I am just thinking about Scottish limited partnerships, which have been written about a great deal. They are used for a variety of mechanisms, but the whole point of them is that they give the impression of probity, because you can see them registered in Companies House and it is a brand: Scottish limited partnership. Part of the issue is that there is a footprint giving the illusion of legitimate activity when, actually, it might not be at all legitimate.

I am not certain that you have considered all the potential fraudulent situations if there has been a complete lack of testing by Companies House. The record has shown us that the volume of fraudulent companies is alarmingly large; there is ample evidence of that. For example, hundreds of Scottish limited partnerships have been registered to addresses in Dumbarton. You might ask why someone would go to the trouble of doing that, but that is the essence of fraud. Somebody did that, but for reasons that we have not yet thought of.

I suppose that that leads us in a neat circle back to the opening point about the veracity of the registers in general terms—a lot of our questions have been about that—and about the rules and regulations. There might well be scenarios—in fact, a lot of them have come out this morning—that have not necessarily been thought about in great detail.

I will leave it there, but if you have any further thoughts, feel free to write to us.