Seòmar agus comataidhean

Last year’s figure was £60 million.

Good morning and welcome to the 27th meeting in 2024 of the Public Audit Committee. James Dornan joins us online. Graham Simpson has to present amendments to another committee, but may join us later, depending on how that goes.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of whether to take in private items 4 and 5. Are we agreed on that?

Members indicated agreement.

Before we move away from this area, can you update us on whether the GFG Alliance has appointed auditors and whether it has filed audited accounts?

The company has also been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office for money laundering, suspected fraud and fraudulent trading. Is that factored into the assessment that is made about the exposure to risk of the investment arrangement? You previously described the transaction in relation to the Lochaber smelter between the Scottish Government and GFG Alliance as “complex”.

We have been told that the Government is carrying out a transparency review of its commercial assets. Have you had any input into that?

I will bring in Colin Beattie.

The Government’s performance reporting might not be as clear as it could be, but your answers to those questions were very clear and contained a distinct message, which I hope the Government is listening to.

I ask Graham Simpson to come in with a final couple of questions.

Okay—thank you.

I have a question on the extent to which the consolidated accounts reflect all assets and liabilities in the public sector, which has been a long-standing bone of contention for you, Auditor General, and for the Public Audit Committee. As far back as 2016, we were promised greater transparency and much wider coverage of the assets and liabilities—what is owned and what is owed—in the accounts.

We have received correspondence from the Government’s chief financial officer, who told us that there

“is not a further set of consolidated accounts”,

and that

“It has been discussed with Audit Scotland that the value that would be derived from a full set of accounts would not reflect the efforts required to deliver it.”

Is that your view?

Graham Simpson has been able to join us, and I will bring him in in a moment to ask the final few questions. Before I do that, I turn to the final section of the section 22 report, which is headed “Performance reporting”. It starts off with your usual diplomatic tone, Auditor General, when you say:

“The complicated landscape of priorities is hindering the achievement of outcomes”.

However, when we go on to look at paragraphs 66 and 67, you are a bit harder hitting. You say:

“There is an absence of clearly defined performance measures with measurable targets for all priority areas.”

You also say that

“It is unacceptable that six indicators for the previous NPF remain in development.”

That is quite a stiff judgment. What are the reasons that the Scottish Government gives for those deficiencies?

As I mentioned earlier, we may well invite the Scottish Government to give evidence to us on the consolidated accounts, because we would be keen to get a bit more detail from it about the area that you just mentioned, as well as about what its plans are.

I will move on to expenses associated with litigation. In previous years, the committee has taken an interest in the payments that have had to be made to former directors of Rangers Football Club: £60 million-worth of unplanned spend—as it is called—were paid out from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and the settlements left a large hole in the accounts.

This year, the payment that you have highlighted is considerably less than that—I think that it is £0.34 million, with provision for a further £7 million. Where are we in the trajectory of those cases and those settlements? Have they all been, or almost been, settled? Do you expect any further claims?