Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 1 May 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1505 contributions

|

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 5 February 2025

Michelle Thomson

Okay, thank you.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 5 February 2025

Michelle Thomson

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.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Michelle Thomson

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?

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Michelle Thomson

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.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Michelle Thomson

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.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Michelle Thomson

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.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Michelle Thomson

It would not do any harm to wait a week, because a lot of detail has been brought out. That is my personal view; I am sure that other members will have their own views.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Michelle Thomson

On whom do you perform the credit check in that role play?

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Michelle Thomson

You have taken another opportunity to put further commentary very effectively on the record. On the point that I asked about, aside from capacity—which, of course, is linked to funding—is there more that you feel you could have done if all things had been equal? I ask that because many of our evidence sessions are starting to feel like groundhog day for me, as we hear similar messages, and there is a commonly held understanding at the front of people’s heads that we need to do this, but something always seems to happen. That means that key groupings—not just women in business but small and medium-sized enterprises—are not necessarily thought of in the way that they should have been thought of. Is it simply an issue of capacity and funding, or is it more systemic?

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Michelle Thomson

Given that, and your earlier commentary about how you do not feel that the perspective of SMEs is understood—you have given various examples—what, then, is the issue? Has there been an issue with how representation has been given? Indeed, you have clarified that for me—thank you. Have SMEs not been listened to? Is it more complex than that?