���˿���

A number of companies are named in the report, including Paradigm Futures Ltd and Fuel Change Futures Ltd. I see from Companies House that Fuel Change Futures Ltd is now called Powering Futures Enterprise Ltd and that it has two directors, one of which is the consultant. The other is the former director of strategic partnerships and regional economy, and it was she who lost her job and went to the employment tribunal.

If you do not mind, convener, I will read from the judgment of the aforementioned tribunal, which was held in June last year. The section that I will read relates to a trawl of the email account of the director of strategic partnerships and regional economy. There is an email dated 8 January 2023 from the consultant to the claimant in the case, titled “FC cashflow” and with an attachment named “true cash flow Jan onwards”. In it, Mr Reid stated:

“the attached is what I think our real cashflow is and I have moved some income to when I think it will arrive. We have not been invoicing due to the issues and I am concerned Paradigm invoicing is either illegal or at best clandestine. However if the college invoice it could extend the project beyond 31st March and I cannot imagine they want a tail”—

that is, T-A-I-L. He goes on to say:

“In a reasonable world we would say paradigm is invoicing and as this will be the modus operandi until FC Ltd is set up properly and trading”.

The report from the tribunal later says that

“an internal auditor report”,

which we have mentioned previously,

“was produced dated 31 May 2023. The report found that the email”,

to which I have just referred,

“represented ‘false representations by words, or writing or conduct’, and that there has been an ‘intention to deceive’”—

that is what the convener quoted—

“by not disclosing all of the income relating to Fuel Change activity”.

The judgment says:

“The report went on to conclude that ‘because the amounts due to the College have not been lost the false representation and deception’”—

strong words—

“‘in withholding details of income due to the College has not been successful in gaining benefit or advantage, in that Fuel Change will not benefit as long as these amounts due are paid over to the College. Therefore a fraud is not present at this time because no financial loss has crystallized to date’.”

Well, what if there had been a loss? You have already alluded to that, Auditor General. Has the college had a lucky escape here?

I want to clear something up, if I can. Paradigm Futures, which has one director, was given work that was not advertised and for which there was no competition. Has anyone explained why the work went to Paradigm Futures rather than someone else?

It is quite key, is it not? Paradigm Futures is basically one person. Was there any evidence that that individual—we have not named anyone today and I will not—knew people at the college before the job was awarded?

What event was that?

Right. Okay.

It is for accuracy.

As you have said, colleges might increasingly go down the route of setting up such bodies, so rules or strong guidance need to be in place. I would have thought—and you can comment on this—that the Scottish Funding Council should be heavily involved in that.

So, £76,000—that is not an insignificant sum.

In one of the main points of your report, you highlight a “procurement breach” and

“failure by the college to obtain approval to appoint a supplier without competition.”

From whom should that approval have been sought?

Thank you very much for your welcome, convener. It is good to be back as it is it has been a while since I have been here. As you know, I enjoyed being convener of the committee and found it to be one of the most valuable parliamentary committees. I am not saying that to butter you all up so that you will give me an easier time—it is just the reality.

If it is okay, convener, I thought it would be useful for Catriona Lyle to set out the background, and I can then respond more fully to your question.

I hope that that was useful, but, in essence, the question is whether it is appropriate for the Government to confer powers on somebody else to make legislation.

Frankly, I think that this is an example of the committee doing its job, which is what I want. I want the committees that deal with the bill to scrutinise it thoroughly and properly, because, inevitably, as it moves through the parliamentary process, I will want to see people coming up with good ideas to improve it. I think that you have landed on something that we ought to look at for stage 2.

Between being invited back to the committee and coming here today, I got in touch with the Electoral Commission, which, as a body, could be invited to put together the subordinate legislation. I wanted to get its take on that, because I have been in contact with it about the bill and I will continue that contact; in fact, we might work on amendments to the bill for stages 2 and 3. Therefore, I wanted to know what it thought about that provision, and it was pretty clear in its response to me. It said:

“We wouldn't seek to take on the writing of secondary legislation, given our role as an independent statutory body accountable to the Scottish, Welsh and UK Parliaments. Drafting secondary legislation would raise policy questions which would be for the Scottish parliament to decide. We would expect it would be for Scottish Government ministers to write the secondary legislation, as is currently set out in s21 of the Bill as introduced, and we would expect to be consulted on the relevant draft legislation.”

Given that that is the Electoral Commission’s position, which is pretty clear, I think that we should probably be looking at that matter for stage 2.