Seòmar agus comataidhean

One of my concerns is that, although taxation has been devolved since 2017-18, there still seems to be no long-term analysis of tax behaviour. In fact, I think that one of the reports—or perhaps both of them—refer to 2027 as the year when we might have a better understanding. That is a decade on from the taxes being devolved, and it is not helping Governments either today or next year make decisions about tax policy.

I am not asking you to comment on the policy itself, but surely the source of this data—that is, HMRC—and the people who analyse it, including the Scottish Fiscal Commission, would be in a better position to inform Government policy if we had that sort of analysis. How can we not know this? You have talked about net inward migration figures being on the increase, for example, but knowing that is irrelevant if we do not know how much extra revenue is being brought in. The number of people is not important; what are important are the amount of money being paid and the net benefit. Is there more that we should be doing in that respect?

I have one final question. Auditor General, at the start of the session, you talked a lot about Scotland’s economic performance relative to the rest of the UK. I want to delve slightly deeper into that. When you talk about slower economic growth, what metrics are you specifically talking about? Has there been any analysis of the effect of that on the Scottish economy?

Thank you for your candour and what I think was an apology. At the end of the day, we received a document that was key and fundamental to the whole conversation around the business case, as was who signed it off or who did not sign it off. There was a name attached to it, which we now learn was erroneously added to the business case.

I presume, Mr Brannen, that you had no sight of the business case and that you had no involvement in the sign-off. The business case was written after the severance package had been agreed between, and signed by, the two parties, which in itself is a worrying development that the committee has looked at.

Thank you. It is good to see you back in good health.

I understand that. On 19 September, the former chair said this to the committee:

“we sought approval from the sponsor team for that approach. The approval was given in a phone call involving the deputy director in the sponsor team”.—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 19 September 2024; c 30.]

I will repeat the question. Was that approval given erroneously?

Let me ask another question on this in light of what we heard in the opening statement from Mr Hinds, the new chair. He said that he was “shocked and dismayed” by the content of the section 22 report. He talked in detail about weaknesses in financial governance and a loss of public confidence in the agency. My question is quite simple: why on earth was the former chief executive allowed to resign from his position? Why was he not sacked?

And what about the public perception? If anybody in this room had been subject to the damning report that was issued and everything that has since come to light around financial mismanagement of public money, we would have been out the door on our ears in seconds—we would be on the front page of newspapers already. There is no way any of us could walk away from that with six months’ pay. WICS is a public body, and we are talking about public money. Can you understand why there is so much public anger around this?

In November, after the last time we met to discuss this in September, we received a submission from Mr Sutherland, which I want to refer to. I do not know whether you have a copy of it. There is one particular item that struck me as of interest. I am quoting:

“On leaving WICS, I was required to delete or destroy all materials relating to my employment. I did not question this request.”

He goes on to say:

“I was required to destroy any and all materials ... I did so diligently.”

Who asked him to destroy any and all materials relating to his employment, and why?

There are lots of other questions around this, but my final one on the severance issue is for the Scottish Government, because, ultimately, you are the sponsor of this public body.

What are you doing differently now, given what we now know about the sponsorship arrangements between the Government and WICS? Can you give me and the public some reassurance that we will not see public money similarly spent and squandered in future?

Okay. That sort of answered the question.

Over the past couple of years, one of the major sources of pain has been the fact that the vessels that were due to be delivered involved complicated systems that the yard had not made before. By that, I mean the dual fuel LNG systems that had to go into the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa. Does that also present an opportunity? Are you coming out of that experience with expertise and with proprietary knowledge or IP that is sellable in the open market? Alternatively, do you think that you have really burned your hands on that technology and that your business would rather do something else?