Chamber and committees

Evidence about that was responded to by the Government and by the witnesses that you had at the time. In our response in May, we also said that it is important to keep minutes and records of all meetings. That is what happens—as is appropriate.

My understanding is that, as given to the committee in the extensive documentation, there was an email exchange that reported the meeting. You have it in the evidence that you have but, if you want to refresh the committee’s memory of it, we can provide you with it again.

Clearly, the Government—through Neil Gray—will reply to that request in the timescale within which the committee has asked for, and I do not want to second guess that reply. I understand that the Auditor General is going to give evidence to the committee on his responsibilities. I am not sure whether he has asked the Government directly for that power or whether he has asked the committee. The request is for the power to look at the accounts of a private company—in this case, Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd—and that is a request for the cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, to respond to.

In general, there are issues around private companies working with the Government in any shape or form being subject to the Auditor General and their being able to investigate them at any time by request of a special order. That has risks in relation to what that might mean for investment and partnership and whether companies would want to enter into any arrangement. That is a risk element that is nothing to do with this specific case, but the unintended consequences of doing that in principle, as opposed to the merits or demerits of this particular case, are worth exploring. I also reflect on my point that the committee had feedback and evidence from David Tydeman as to where he thought the spend went and where the problems were, as well as from CMAL, which the committee evidenced in its report.

I know that you want me to say either yes or no, but that is not my decision, and I will not take it on behalf of somebody else. You will know this from your experience in dealing with public bodies, but the issue is whether you can have the Auditor General investigating a private company. Technically, you probably could, but what would be the consequences for other situations with private companies in the future if there was a risk that the Auditor General could seek and secure powers of investigation? That is stating the fairly obvious to you as a committee.

Again, I note that there are clear recommendations and asks of Government in the report, and that is what Kevin Stewart’s response of 23 May identified. Throughout the report, the committee—quite rightly—makes statements with regard to your views and conclusions on certain situations, and the committee has taken a view on Transport Scotland.

Clarity and understanding are sought with regard to Transport Scotland’s role then and now. On that work, Transport Scotland advises Government and provides information. I think that information was being provided previously, but we have now formalised that process far more. For example, in relation to CMAL’s advice and information to us about what is happening in Turkey with the four vessels, I hear that directly. I have regular direct conversations with CMAL, and I work with Transport Scotland on that.

However, with regard to the management of the contract and the parties to that contract, that was private to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd and CMAL, as I have said previously.

Therefore, information does flow and that process is far more formalised, and probably far more direct, than it was previously.

On the project steering group, the issue is what its role was then and is now. Again, to unpick that in detail, you can have criticisms of what has happened before, which the committee does and has set out in its report. The Government was not asked to comment on that, so I have given you a view just now.

Alison Irvine or Chris Wilcock—whoever is more appropriate—please can you set out the role of the project steering group then and now in relation to that type of work.

I think that that could be answered in different ways, depending on what you think that its role should have been.

There are specific requirements for notification in the Scottish public finance manual. It is an area that I want to seek clarification on, in terms of what is shared and when. It is obviously published and it goes to the Auditor General, and my understanding is that the accountable officer wrote to the Auditor General when the latest written authority was provided.

Written authorities very rarely happen in ministerial directions—they are few and far between. I never gave a ministerial direction during the period that I was previously a Government minister. I emphasise that they can be appropriate and there is a process for issuing them. However, the issue is whether they are routinely sent to the clerk of the Public Audit Committee, which I think was one of your recommendations—I think it was in paragraph 408, on page 77 of your report. My understanding is that the last one was sent to the clerk. However, that would not necessarily happen often. Colin Cook, can you confirm that I have got that right about the process?

That is a matter for the CMAL board. I think that it will be fairly soon, but I am not responsible for the timescale for that.

The issue is about what is in the public interest. Is it in the public interest to ensure that vessels are completed for the islanders? As transport minister, I have spoken to island communities and I want all six vessels to be completed, because we need that resilience—that is the risk element that we have just now. The issue is also about the yard and the capacity for shipbuilding jobs in the future. There is the question, too, of how we ensure that the yard can be successful, which is obviously Neil Gray’s responsibility. In this instance, there are many different aspects to decision making around spend.

The safety approvals for the two vessels are progressing well, and that will be reported to the NZET Committee by the end of the month, in the next update. I understand that, once we have got through that process, the vessels will then go to sea trials. Then we will start on the launch of 801, which will be a great relief to the islanders. My job, as minister for transport, is to support island communities to receive their vessels.

You can make a judgment—and all MSPs will make a judgment—about our saying yes or no, but the cabinet secretary for the economy, Neil Gray, clearly set out how important it was that 802 in particular—which is obviously a challenge—should progress and be delivered.

At any point in time, there is a question about whether the Government should stop funding something. Decisions will be taken across the piece, and sometimes the decision will be taken not to continue with something. All that I am saying is that the cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, made the position quite clear—he came straight to Parliament to report that forthrightly and openly, which is what Governments should do around such major decisions. There might be instances in which the answer is to do the reverse, which could happen in any ministry or portfolio at any time, so it depends on the circumstances at the time.

Well, as you know, an official was there.