Chamber and committees

I will provide an initial response, particularly about what happens now but also reflecting on what happened, and then I will bring in Alison Irvine.

It is important to set out that the contract is between CMAL as the procuring authority and the private company Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd. It was a use of public funds, so the decision to approve it would need to be provided by the relevant ministers. Obviously, the transport minister would exercise a degree of authorisation or approval but would not be party to the contract.

Particularly in tight fiscal circumstances, the authorising officer has a key role on any major spend but, clearly, the finance secretary has to identify whether we have resources to do it. That is based not on the merits of the individual case but on whether the Government can afford it in its wider spend.

I hope that that gives you the shape of the situation, but I ask Alison Irvine to reflect on anything in the process then or now.

There might have been an expectation on the part of the contracting parties, because there was clearly a breakdown in how the contract was working between the two parties. However, on the point about Transport Scotland not being party to the contract, what it was looking at was in terms of support for a process that needed support.

I am not the minister responsible for public procurement policy, but I think that you are inviting me to give a general response as a Government minister. Obviously, there is the specific example of the ferries. You said that there had been a litany of public procurement issues, but I make it clear that the Scottish Government has embarked on a number of major transport projects that have come in on time and on budget. Clearly, the ferries project has not, which is why the committee and others have held inquiries into it, but I make it clear that the general practice in the Scottish Government and in Transport Scotland has been good in that respect.

However, it is clear that that has not been the case in this instance, as the committee’s report says. With regard to improvements, I reassure the committee that we will pull together the lessons learned and document those. Some of those lessons are about processes—mention has been made of the Scottish public finance manual—while others relate to CMAL’s practices. A lot of changes to those practices have already had an effect in relation to the four vessels that are being built in Turkey.

As far as governance is concerned, you are absolutely right to say that it is important to get processes right at the beginning. Anyone who has been involved in any major project will know that, if you get things right at the beginning, there is less chance that there will be difficulties later on. I absolutely understand that.

You asked me to give you an indication of improvements that are being made. Transport Scotland has already made changes. That work was in progress even before the REC Committee’s report and this committee’s report. I think that it would be helpful to draw those together at the end of this project, so that we can itemise all the changes and improvements that have been made.

There is now enhanced governance around vessel projects, with dedicated project groups for projects and programmes; there is improved focus on the use of existing risk registers for each project or programme; and there is scrutiny and sign-off of all vessel and major port projects by Transport Scotland’s investment decision making board, which is at chief executive and directors level. There is also greater use of independent gateway processes, and approval now requires an accountable officer template to be completed by the relevant cab sec and the cab sec for finance, which I think Alison Irvine set out in her area. In relation to lessons learned about design faults at the beginning of a project having consequences, we have seen those consequences even more latterly, in relation to some of the processes.

Although I think you are asking for an opinion as opposed to a response, I have tried to provide not only an opinion but also responses as to where the Government is already making changes in specific areas. I also want to reinforce the fact that, when projects go well—we have seen that, for example, in relation to the M8 improvements and the Queensferry crossing—we take them for granted in many ways.

I absolutely accept that there were severe overruns in this project, which is why the committee is doing what it is doing, but the challenge when you are auditing something from a historical time—from eight years ago—is that some process changes will have taken place along the way. I want to reassure the committee that, as the minister, I will keep on top of that to make sure that that continues.

In my detailed examination of the process, I took that part of the committee’s report, and looking into what had happened, very seriously. I have asked what happened, and I have made it clear that I always expect—as I am sure that we do across Government—that there is co-operation and attendance when required.

The situation seems to boil down to one request for absence, which was for the then interim director general—I think that that was his title. His evidence has already been referred to, so he had already appeared before the committee. My reading of the situation is that two previous interim chief executives and other senior officials appeared before you; Chris Wilcock did as well. The committee had one extensive session and you decided to have a second one, at which point the—I am trying to remember what title he would have had at the time—

The interim director general could not come to the second meeting as you had requested but said that he could come to another one and tried to get alternative dates. That was one instance and that is the explanation. You have referred to some instances, but I am not sure whether there were any other instances where an official did not appear.

On the issue of not providing complete information, we have addressed that in response to Sharon Dowey’s questions. There were two issues, which were the letter exchange between the former transport minister and a regional MSP, in which it was identified that, due to a formatting error, a paragraph had been left off that letter—that administrative mistake should not have happened and an apology was given—and the draft press line that was subsequently found and supplied through another route. I can understand the committee’s point of view around the latter arriving the day after you finalised the report, but Transport Scotland would not have known the date on which you were doing so. I accept the explanation that that was sent to you as soon as the press line was found.

Those were the instances; I do not know whether any other instances happened. There seems to be generalisation that a number of officials had not appeared or that far more pieces of information were not given than those that have been identified and referred to. That is my understanding. However regrettable it was—and apologies were given—I do not think that it was, in any way, obfuscation or anything such as that. As minister, I would not expect that from any official at any point and I respect that officials did not do that at the time.

Again, it comes back to the issue of what the allegations are. That is an issue for the CMAL board and what it has asked Mr Smith to look at. It is perfectly entitled to commission that investigation, which it has done. I think that it was the board’s responsibility to do that and, like you, I will be interested to see the report when it is published.

Again, that was in your report, not as a recommendation to Government but as a conclusion and view of the committee. You are asking for reflections rather than an official response to what we will do as a result of that.

I suppose that we should delineate the responsibilities clearly from the point of view of Transport Scotland and Scottish ministers. The Minister for Transport’s responsibilities are for procurement, including of the four new ferries in Turkey and realising the six that will be delivered by 2026.

As for the running of the company and the organisation post-nationalisation, you are talking about Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow, and that responsibility currently lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy. Pre-nationalisation, there were issues with the private company Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd. There are issues involving two separate companies at different times.

If you are asking for my reflections on the role of the workforce, I certainly think that the strength of any organisation lies in how it can involve its workforce in decision making and advice, because the people who are doing the work are the experts in that. At different times, that has been specifically requested and delivered by the board. In the nationalised Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow, it is all to do with the role of the board and impressing on the board the importance of regularly involving the workforce and, particularly, trade union representatives. My understanding is that that does happen.

Your question is whether the workforce should have been listened to earlier and sooner, and I think that you are going back to the 2015 to 2017 period. I cannot really comment because, first, I was not there and, secondly, it was a private company at that time.

You are asking about the principle of that and whether a lesson has been learned about the active participation of the workforce in key deliverables and operational matters, and that is part of the fair work approach that the Government is committed to. You needed to reflect on that and you did. You have taken evidence from the workforce on where that has happened in the past. Under the new First Minister, there is a focus on that, and you have clearly seen that in the approach of the cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, too. That is my view.

I think that it is a bit unfair to expect me to have on tap knowledge about the different times when that was discussed in Cabinet during a period that was both extensive and some time ago. I am not really in a position to answer. I do not have recall of that.

The issue will have come up at different times and progress will have been reported to Cabinet. Those issues were not part of my lead responsibility at that time, but the decisions that had to be taken would have been taken. A lot of that would have come to Parliament in the form of ministerial statements by the relevant cabinet secretaries at different times, as happens now, but I cannot give you instant recall of what happened during that 11-year period. With respect, I am not sure that that is something that you can ask me about now, in my capacity as Minister for Transport, when I am meant to be responding to a report that was published only recently.

There are different issues. I think that the committee has had the evidence on the roles and responsibilities of ministers and cabinet secretaries—including what needs to come to Cabinet and what does not—but I would need to check that. The committee’s report went into quite a bit of detail on the authorisation for the approval of the award of tender and at what level the decision should have been made—whether it was appropriate for a minister to make that decision or whether it should have been a Cabinet-level decision. The committee went through that in the report. Certain decisions will be made at certain times.

I honestly do not want to mislead the committee by saying something that is not true. I do not have instant recall as to when those decisions were made. I am focusing in my evidence today on what I was asked to do, which was not even to give evidence on what happened leading up to your report; it was to respond to your request for a response following the Scottish Government’s existing response, which was given in May 2023.

I do not think that that is new information. I think that it was in your report as well.