Seòmar agus comataidhean

The last time that we took evidence on this issue, we heard that, unlike bigger businesses, small to medium-sized enterprises tend not to use the appeals process, so there might be an imbalance with regard to the benefits of such a process. A targeted fund might, when it arrives, be a better and perhaps fairer way of distributing support around Scotland’s businesses. Perhaps Martin Clarkson, David Magor or Charles Golding can comment on that.

The wholesale sector has sent a submission to the committee. It was caught between a rock and a hard place during the pandemic in that it was legally able to trade and perfectly able to do so, but it had nobody to trade with. It has made the valid point that, in the absence of any clarity about the relief scheme from the UK and Scottish Governments that I mentioned, it would prefer the appeal process to remain in place. I think that it fears that it might again fall through the net and not receive any support through a relief scheme. Do you have any views on that, particularly in relation to the wholesale sector?

I want to touch base with you on the question that I asked the previous witnesses. In March, the UK Government announced a £1.5 billion business rates relief scheme. Scotland’s share of that is £145 million, but we have not received the money yet. In principle, is that a better way to target support for local businesses compared with the MCC appeals process?

The previous witnesses told us that bigger companies and businesses tend to benefit more from the appeals process. Conversely, we were told that small and medium-sized enterprises tend not to benefit—they either do not appeal at all or they are not successful when they appeal. What are your views on the two approaches that are in front of us to choose from?

That is very helpful. Thanks very much.

That is an incredible achievement, and it is worth putting it on the record so that the public can be aware of the pace with which Government officials, the NHS and the companies moved to produce the material. I recall that the skies were empty at the beginning of the pandemic—few planes were flying, so, when you saw something coming in, you knew that it was that material.

Auditor General, you mentioned that 470 jobs have been created in relation to the production of PPE in Scotland. Is that likely to be sustainable? Will that become an established production industry for Scotland? Looking ahead, are we now able to contribute to the international healthcare supply chain and help the world to access those products?

Is the issue of establishing such a local supply chain likely to be a Government-level decision?

Ultimately, the board approved a budget that it had no part in developing—neither did its audit and finance committee. However, they all collectively decided to approve it and are, I presume, running with that budget. How are they getting on? Is the budget in place and working, or is the organisation in trouble?

Has the board recognised that these are, as the convener noted a minute or so ago, serious and major issues, and has it accepted that that is not the way to develop a budget?

It is important to probe further what happened. When you were doing the audit, you must surely have asked what on earth the board thought it was doing by proceeding in such a manner, which basically breaks all the guidance for organisations that is known to us and has been known to the committee for many years. What explanation was offered to you for that?

I have a question about the online portal that the Auditor General mentioned earlier. In the Public Audit Committee, we usually receive the opposite type of reports about information and communication technology initiatives, but the online portal for PPE ordering seems to have been a success. Do you have any information on who developed it? Is it still in place and working well?