³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

There are two clauses that we can highlight. Clause 83 gives UK Government ministers powers in devolved areas on the implementation of international agreements, which is concerning. Clause 103 likewise gives powers to UK Government ministers on cross-border arrangements. We think that both those clauses need to be amended. Are there any other aspects, Alasdair?

If we get the issues resolved to our satisfaction, we will return with another recommendation at some point. That could be later this year or early next year—yes.

That reinforces the point that I made about the importance of the UK Infrastructure Bank having an understanding of the Scottish context. We need to consider the impact of the decisions that it makes on the national performance framework, which is central to the Scottish Government’s priorities and the way that we work.

Officials might want to comment on the audit of the impact of that, but it will depend on what the investment is. I will take the current work on broadband as an example. If that goes as planned, it will have an impact on our broadband roll-out aspirations and contribute to our metrics on delivery of those. We monitor that as a separate piece of work. We can check and come back to you on the specifics.

Divergence of priorities is an issue, and that is one reason why we want to have better processes for alignment in order to guard against that in the future. A memorandum of understanding will also help to ensure that the two institutions work together where it makes sense for them to do so and do not bump into each other, for want of a better phrase, when it comes to support for specific projects. When a project is looking for funding, it can talk to a number of institutions or investors. If the two banks understand each other and how they are operating in that space, it will make the process a bit more streamlined and efficient.

Yes, that is part of it. If you look back at the process for negotiating trade deals, you will see that, in a paper that we published in 2016 or shortly thereafter, we highlighted how we saw the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations being involved in defining, negotiating and implementing those trade deals. The UK Government has been very unhelpful with regard to working with us on those aspects, and the opportunities for scrutinising those deals are very, very limited. As you have said, the deals could evolve and change, and how they would then be implemented is something that would have to be taken forward. Through this process, UK Government ministers are giving themselves powers in that area that impinge on devolved aspects.

Yes, the Procurement Bill will to some extent supersede this bill. Officials can talk about that in a minute, but the fact is that, at this stage, we have the same concerns about both of them. We are not comfortable with either.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the draft order, which relates to the audit of the Scottish Futures Trust. SFT is an non-departmental public body that acts as a centre for expertise on infrastructure. It works across the public and private sectors in Scotland to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure investment.

SFT was established in 2008 as a public corporation and company and, as such, it was audited by commercial audit firms. In 2011, SFT was classified as a non-departmental public body by the Office for National Statistics. The majority of NDPBs are audited by the Auditor General for Scotland, and the Scottish Government and SFT have agreed that SFT should follow suit. The order will give the Auditor General the power to appoint an auditor to SFT in future.

The change is not a reflection on SFT’s previous audit arrangements and it has no bearing on its functions. SFT has always been audited by reputable commercial auditors. SFT’s annual accounts to date are available on its website and they have been laid at the Scottish Parliament each year. This is an administrative change to bring SFT’s audit arrangements into line with those of other NDPBs.

In practical terms, we do not expect the change to have a significant impact for SFT. Audit Scotland could undertake the audit itself or it could contract the audit to an external audit firm such as the firms that were previously used by SFT.

I am joined by Rebecca Winterstein from the infrastructure and investment division and remotely by Ninian Christie from the Scottish Government legal directorate. They will be happy to join me in answering any questions that the committee has.

That is a good question. A number of bodies had to go through the process and we have been working our way through it. As a private company, the SFT will have had contractual arrangements with commercial auditors for a number of years and it will have had to work through them. That was not the whole period; it was the latter period. In effect, this is just an exercise to bring things into line.

I do not know about looking retrospectively at previous accounts. I will ask officials to comment on the technicalities on that, but I think that there will be a discussion with Audit Scotland on the best arrangements. It is quite likely that it will look to continue using a commercial audit firm, as has happened in the past. However, that will be a matter for Audit Scotland. Rebecca, do you want to comment on the retrospective aspect?

Those accounts will have been published, so they are available to be looked at anyway.