Chamber and committees

Okay. I am sure that people will draw their own conclusions from that.

I will ask about the bit of paper. The reason I asked you what you were asked to look for, Fran Pacitti, is that there is simply a dispute about what the bit of paper constitutes. The Audit Scotland report clearly said in its key messages:

“There is insufficient documentary evidence to explain why Scottish ministers accepted the risks and were content to approve the contract award in October 2015.”

In paragraph 28 of the report, Audit Scotland says:

“We consider that there should have been a proper record of this important decision.”

Do you think that that is what you found?

Mr Gillies, you are free to come in at any point in this exchange. I have to say that Transport Scotland’s view is different from that of Audit Scotland.

Another point to consider is that paragraph 5.1.9 of annex 1 to the Scottish public finance manual says that it is the duty of an accountable officer to

“ensure that risks, whether to achievement of business objectives, regularity, propriety or value for money, are identified, that their significance is assessed and that systems appropriate to the risks are place in all relevant areas to manage them”.

Does such a document exist?

Fran Pacitti, can you tell me who Alexander Anderson is—or was in October 2015?

Nobody knows who Alexander Anderson was, even though he is on those email trails that you unearthed on 11 May.

My understanding is that Alexander Anderson was a senior special adviser to the First Minister of Scotland, and he was copied in on those emails. Again, I ask the question: if you are saying that the decision was entirely for the transport minister, why was the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities copied in, why was the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and the Economy copied in, and why was a senior special adviser to the First Minister of Scotland copied in?

The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report shows that the first of the summary of conclusions and recommendations is:

“Transport Scotland and CMAL applied inadequate due diligence in scrutinising and signing off the procurement process”.

Do you accept that?

Again, that seems to be rather at odds with the conclusion that was drawn by Audit Scotland that Transport Scotland had some oversight responsibility for the procurement process. Last time, we heard the mantra from Mr Brannen that it was all about buyer and builder, but this is public money. As an accountable officer, do you not have some accountability for how that money is spent?

I will put to you a final point, which relates to whether the First Minister was involved, whether through a special adviser or directly or indirectly. In his evidence last time, Mr Brannen was quite clear—it is a pity that he is not here today—that there was no involvement whatsoever of the First Minister, and we accept him at his word. If that is the case, will you give us your understanding of why, when the First Minister was questioned on 29 March by Glenn Campbell of the BBC about whether it was on her say so, and he asked her,

“Did you say ‘go ahead’?”,

her reply was,

“I didn’t say don’t go ahead”?

Why would she not just give an unequivocal Roy Brannen answer and say, “No, I was not involved”?

I thank Willie Coffey for his questions. I turn to Craig Hoy, who will pick up on the same theme, so Mo Rooney might be able to come in in response to his questions.

I have a couple of final questions before the evidence session ends, which go back to our previous evidence session with Transport Scotland. I think that Fran Pacitti addressed the issue at the time, and I am interested in hearing Hugh Gillies’s view. We were told that all port, harbour and ferry infrastructure projects now go through the investment decision-making board at Transport Scotland. Back in 2015, what was the value threshold that meant that the two vessels did not go through that process?

Do you expect that he was talking about financial issues, procurement issues, things that might have been subject to challenge or political issues? What do you think?