Skip to main content
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 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 7 February 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 3715 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee

“Planning for skills”

Meeting date: 10 February 2022

Richard Leonard

That is fine. That would be helpful for us in navigating the myriad of organisations, committees and boards that are supposed to be working together to further the skills alignment agenda, but are not in all cases doing so.

A proposal to increase the funding to the Scottish Funding Council and the advanced learning and science directorate in 2022-23 was also mentioned in the report. Is that money that has been ring fenced to boost the skills alignment agenda or is it additional funding that will be given to the directorate and the agency?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency”

Meeting date: 10 February 2022

Richard Leonard

The report covers the year 2020-21. Will we at some point—even if it is three years hence—see signed off accounts for SEPA for 2020-21, or is that possibility gone forever?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency”

Meeting date: 10 February 2022

Richard Leonard

The next item on our agenda is consideration of “The 2020/21 audit of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency”. We are joined by the Auditor General, Stephen Boyle, and, via videolink, by Morag Campsie, who is a senior manager of audit services in Audit Scotland, and Joanne Brown, who is a partner in Grant Thornton UK LLP and carried out the audit.

I invite the Auditor General to make an opening statement.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency”

Meeting date: 10 February 2022

Richard Leonard

That is great. Willie Coffey, who joins us online, has a question.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency”

Meeting date: 10 February 2022

Richard Leonard

Auditor General, one of the striking things in your opening statement was the fact that the auditor issued a disclaimer of opinion on SEPA’s annual report and accounts for 2020-21 and, therefore, the accounts have not been signed off. You used the word “unusual” for that choice, and it is extremely unusual. You also said that that was principally because of unsatisfactory records or evidence around a notional £42 million of income from fees. Who takes the decision to put in that disclaimer and not sign off the accounts? Is it Joanne Brown at Grant Thornton, or is it you, the Auditor General, at Audit Scotland? At what level is that decision taken?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency”

Meeting date: 10 February 2022

Richard Leonard

I presume that that means that you—I do not know whether it is just you or a team—have to work closely with SEPA’s finance people and audit committee to ensure that things remain on track and go at the fastest pace that can be done while retaining the integrity of the accounting systems. Are you devoting a lot of your time to developing the situation from where it has been?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency”

Meeting date: 10 February 2022

Richard Leonard

Thanks, Willie. I will come back to you before the end of the session for the other area of questioning that you have.

Craig Hoy wants to explore SEPA’s response, both immediate and in the medium term, to the crisis and attack when it happened.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 February 2022

Richard Leonard

Thank you very much, convener, for allowing me to take part in this morning’s evidence session—I really appreciate it.

Some of my questions reflect on what you have already told us, cabinet secretary. Did I hear you say earlier that those convicted of an offence under the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 will now be included in the pardon?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 February 2022

Richard Leonard

Okay, so it is not covered. I think that most people accept that, if there are public assaults involved, they are not included in the pardon. However, the 1875 act—I think that only a handful of people in Scotland were convicted under it—is about encouraging people to take part in strike action. That seems to me to be directly related to the activities around the strike, which in my view ought to be covered. However, I am sure that we shall debate that as the bill goes through Parliament.

Another thing that you mentioned earlier—again, keep me right on this, because I was obviously wrong about the first thing—was in relation to answers to questions about community-based convictions, which are currently excluded. You said something about “going through” communities. That reminds me of the case of one of your constituents, Jim Tierney, who was arrested and then convicted in Alloa sheriff court for allegedly throwing a missile at a working miners’ bus outside the Fishcross miners welfare club. He was convicted, but he disputes the conviction and he has evidence to support his disputation. Are you saying that you are willing to accept that such a case could be covered by the pardon?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 February 2022

Richard Leonard

This is a related point. Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the eastern villages—Fallin and Plean, for example—which were a flashpoint in the strike back in 1984 and 1985. Let us consider the village of Fallin, which is where the Polmaise colliery was. The miners at Polmaise were 100 per cent out, so there was no question of there being a need to take action to discourage people from going into the pit. However, it was reported to the Scott inquiry that there was nonetheless a very heavy police presence in the community, which led to tensions in the community and to arrests and subsequent convictions in the community.

Do you not think that there is a case for extending the scope of the bill in recognition of the fact that the dispute was conducted not just at the gates of the colliery or at demonstrations, but in communities as well?