Seòmar agus comataidhean

If that is the case, I will not move it.

Amendment 52 simply seeks to insert into the legislation Co-operative Development Scotland, which was established in 2006. It has, in my view, been cut to the bone. It has been allowed to wither on the vine. It is woefully underresourced, although I have not had a chance to look at yesterday’s budget announcement. The long-term position is that it has been allowed to become marginalised.

Somebody said to me that there is one part-time member of staff working on employee ownership and one member of staff working on co-operative development. For Co-operative Development Scotland, that is a clear indication of massive underresourcing. It still appears on the enterprise agencies’ websites as the arm of the enterprise agencies for co-operative development. It is still on the Scottish Enterprise website, advertising one-to-one sessions with specialist advisers for those interested in converting to co-operative and employee ownership. For that reason, I think it should be explicitly included in the bill.

My second amendment in this group, amendment 53, revisits the suggestion from the Government that we review statements and plans only once every five years. I am quite interested in five-year plans when it comes to economic development—[Laughter.]—but I reflect on the fact that an interval of five years could mean that a statement is not made within a session of Parliament.

I am concerned, from listening to what Lorna Slater said, that perhaps she thinks that an annual return to such things, which is my Chartist instinct, is too frequent, but I put it to her and to others who take that view that every five years is far too big an interval. For that reason, my amendment asks the committee to consider a statement being produced every year.

The review group’s report, which was published in September 2024 and to which we have already referred this morning, had the full title of “Developing Scotland’s Economy: Increasing The Role Of Inclusive And Democratic Business Models”. In its opening pages, it said about inclusive and democratic business models that

“Around the world, they are not considered a ‘sideline’ to the mainstream economy, but a vital, growing and essential part of economic success.”

To achieve the goal of mainstreaming such models and making them successful, we must collect data and measure what is happening. My amendment 54 picks up from the review group’s findings—namely, recommendation 3, which states:

“Investment in data and evidence on IDBMs is required to support policy and service design.”

That is the main point that I wanted to make on this group of amendments. More generally, I think that there need to be transparency, openness and data sharing, so that we can make informed public policy choices.

I am a little confused because I would have thought that an observer from the UHI’s court going along to meetings of the college board of management would have had some kind of role in communicating and challenging some of the decisions that were being made, particularly given that we have ended up with you appearing before the Public Audit Committee of the Scottish Parliament and there having been a section 22 report by Audit Scotland. We have heard from Tiffany Ritchie that this is almost an unprecedented situation. I suppose the question is why that was allowed to happen.

I think that Mike Baxter wants to come in, so I will bring him in and then I will ask Graham Simpson to put his questions to the witnesses.

The SFC has been mentioned. Jacqui Brasted, what is your view of what happened with the failure to set a budget? I know that you said in your submission that, because of the nature of the regional strategic board, you did not have direct access into the college.

Thank you very much.

Can each of you tell me whether you accept the findings that are set out in the Audit Scotland section 22 report, beginning with Catherine Etri?

Thank you. Again, in the evidence that we have taken, it has been recognised that this was not just a short-term issue. There was a long-term legacy of inadequate internal audit and inadequate resourcing in the finance department. As was mentioned at the committee before Christmas, there were five directors of finance in a very short period of time, which suggests that something was not quite right—I see Mike Baxter nodding his head.

I will move us on, because Colin Beattie has some questions to put. Colin, over to you.

I turn straight to Vicki Nairn for her opening statement.

Thank you very much, and a belated happy new year to you, too.

I will start by looking at progress through the lens of your annual reports, Auditor General. To some extent that is captured in appendix 5 of the report that the committee has before it today, but when I went back to look at the equivalent report from 2024, I saw that you made recommendations that certain things should happen, and I want to check the extent to which progress on those fronts has been made.

One of your top recommendations was that there ought to be a capital investment and asset management strategy. Is there one? You talked about the need for a revised medium-term financial framework for health and social care. Has there been one? You also talked about the importance of lessons being learned from the negotiations following the contractual end of the private finance initiative/public-private partnership contracts, which have been a long-standing feature of the NHS. Could you update the committee on the progress on that front?

There is no shortage of challenge. I am sure that the committee will consider whether we want to put some of those challenges to the Government’s representative, as the accountable officer, in future weeks.

For the purposes of today, I will draw the evidence session to a close by thanking Bernie Milligan, Leigh Johnston and the Auditor General for the evidence that they have presented to us. As I said, we will consider our next steps.

As agreed by the committee, I now move the meeting into private.