³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

My last question is about the difference between accountability and responsibility. The Scottish Government is accountable for many of the outcomes in the national performance framework, which is very outcome-driven. Our discussion today has been about the areas where the Scottish Government has responsibility, or those where it has no responsibility, despite having accountability for a range of areas.

There is also the reverse situation in which the UK Government is accountable for many areas but is not subject to scrutiny by the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament.

If you were to have a choice about the areas in which responsibility was aligned with accountability, which top three areas would you pick, given the considerable short and long-term economic challenges that we have explored today? Which three things would you like to place on record?

I will follow on from the theme of tax avoidance that Ross Greer highlighted.

I understand that there is a historical dispute going back to devolution of further powers in relation to proceeds of crime and £30 million that it was originally assumed would remain with the Scottish Government but which the UK Government now assumes will go back to it. Is that still the case, and can you give us any insight into the discussions that you are having with the UK Government on the matter? Can you also confirm that, if you moved resources from Police Scotland into dealing with more financial crime, none of the benefit of such a move would accrue to the Scottish Government budget?

Given the focus that there has been on supporting capital investment in early-stage businesses, what progress has there been in managing that with Scottish Enterprise, the SNIB and so on? Where is that at the moment? Can you give some insights?

Following on from that point, have you had any indications of any possible or reasonable rationale as to why the UK Government would not accept the amendment, given your stated concerns about standards? Is there anything that you can share in that regard? If the UK Government is saying that there is no intention of lowering standards, why not simply accept the amendment? Can you clarify the situation?

The situation around FTs has been mentioned, and clear concern has been expressed about the changes in funding. I want to allow you to put on the record any mitigations and your planned approach, given the Scottish Government’s undoubted focus on supporting business and growing the economy. Can you give any further insights on how you will mitigate the loss of FTs going forward?

Thank you for those responses. The problem is that, as we all agree, we do not know anything until the data is there. Obviously, your function fits in with that. However, how do we strike the right balance between retrospective assessment and future forecasting, particularly if we are to adhere to good principles of accountability and responsibility? Do you have any plans to put some meat on the bones? How will that make your scrutiny role—and ours—more complex? It may be that, as you start to get more information coming through, you will also consider reflecting on that. The situation is beyond complex already, and this will make it complex cubed, in my humble opinion.

We have spent a large part of this evidence session looking at and evaluating the complexity of Audit Scotland’s scrutiny and our scrutiny. As Mark Taylor pointed out, it is the case that we can start to understand a lot of spending only once it is in the past.

I will ask about something that I am struggling to get my head around. In my former life in management, there was a clear difference between accountability and responsibility. I see that difference writ large here, because the Scottish Government is accountable for spend outcomes via the national performance framework, which we have talked about, but it has no responsibility in certain areas. We have the curious situation where the Scottish Government is accountable for the outcomes but it has no responsibility for efficient and effective delivery. The UK Government is responsible, but it is reluctant to be held accountable, or it has no accountability in the area.

It is on the record that the replacement for European Union structural funds will be spent by the UK Government and administered by a local government minister—I think that it is the English communities minister—direct to local councils. How on earth can you audit that effectively? I can see that Mark Taylor thinks that that question is a belter. How are you reflecting on that additional complexity and linking it back to outcomes?

In terms of the stats for your group, where does Grangemouth fit in all the measures that you would apply—particularly, I imagine, around profitability? I do not mean in relative terms to Scotland’s economy, but in relative terms to the group.

You must have sensed the point that I was coming on to. I was going to ask what you would need to do in order to move Grangemouth to number 1. In particular, what structural issues would you seek to overcome?

Just to finish off on this point, with reference to the current structure of the owning company, does the level of debt leverage limit investment?