Chamber and committees

Was any of this in writing, or was it all done over telephone calls?

Okay, let us ask the Scottish Government—

It was described in open correspondence as a “toxic environment”.

A senior individual?

Yes, I know that, but do you accept—

Okay, so you do not accept that the board failed to follow due process. You think that you followed due process—just to be clear.

It is quite unusual for the chair of a board of a public body such as this to take umbrage with a Government cabinet secretary on their assertion that the board has not followed adequate processes for such settlements. Indeed, your evidence this morning seems to push back on that and to be expressed in rather defensive terms, rather than accepting that failings occurred. Why is that? It is unusual.

It did not happen.

Does all that not paint a picture of there being wider issues? There are two, in particular. One is the board’s oversight of what was going on at WICS at an operational level. The other is the breakdown in the relationship between the sponsoring division of the Scottish Government and the board itself. I will ask each of you to comment on those.

I will come to Mr MacRae first. Given the content of the section 22 report, including numerous references to matters such as patterns of culture and behaviour, which clearly did not happen overnight but had developed over a period of time, how did it come to this? How did we get to a scenario where we needed a section 22 report, the involvement of external auditors and the resignation of a CEO for things to change? What on earth was the board doing for all those years?

That is fine. It sounds like something that may have potential for growth in providing more inclusive services or access to more public services, as part of a wider strategy, if the infrastructure is already there.

The second half of my question—I am sorry to be cheeky, convener—is on the social tariff issue, which I am still trying to get my head around. Around 5 or 8 per cent—I was not sure which—of those who are eligible to take up a social tariff are doing so.

I had a quick look, and those tariffs range from about £12 to £25 per month, depending on what sort of speeds you want, from 15Mbps up to about 150Mbps. It is not bad; it gives you basic access. Is there a place for Government subsidy in that area, even at a basic level? For example, 100,000 households connected at basic speeds at £12 a month would cost the Government £14 million per year, but it would bring 100,000 households straight into the digital sphere. Is that the sort of intervention that you think would be helpful and which we should be probing the Government about?