Chamber and committees

I will bring in Willie Coffey, who has been itching to come in.

I am conscious of the time, Colin. I am keen to bring in two members of the committee before we finish up.

I will take you back to some evidence that we heard from the Auditor General about correspondence on 8 and 9 October 2015 that took place between your predecessor as chief executive of Transport Scotland and Government ministers. An email from Transport Scotland reflected Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd’s concerns about the award of the contract to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd. The board of CMAL went so far as to say:

“The Board feel it is their absolute duty to point out the risk to their shareholder and in that respect would expect approval, should SG wish this project to proceed, and to receive direction to that effect”.

The next day, a reply was submitted to Erik Østergaard from the director of aviation, maritime, freight and canals—your predecessor, Fran Pacitti. Transport Scotland used the word “authorised” in relation to CMAL being able

“to enter into the Contracts and any associated documentation.”

At the bottom of that letter, it says:

“I confirm that the Scottish Ministers have considered and approved the contents of this letter.”

One of the issues that are at stake is whether written authority from ministers was sought and secured but not recorded or whether the correspondence does not constitute that at all. Mr Brannen, will you address that point?

Okay, but in light of the view of CMAL, which also reports directly to the ministerial team, why do you not think that it was asking for written authority?

My final question, Roy Brannen, is to ask whether it was in your gift to advise ministers to terminate the contract. If it was, did it cross your mind to do that?

You kind of recused Transport Scotland from that, but, as the accountable officer, you gave advice at the end of April 2017—it is among the 200-odd documents that are now in the public domain—in which you said that, if flexibility on the surety bond were to be introduced, you would require written authority for that.

The cost has gone from £97 million to two and half times that much.

Even though the First Minister had been to the yard to announce that the contract had been awarded before the negotiations were concluded.

You mentioned paper trails. One of the big concerns that are expressed in the Auditor General’s report is about the lack of paper trails—the lack of paperwork—to cover the implications of the decision to award the contract under the circumstances that it was awarded under and the risks that that entailed. What is your reflection on that?

Would it not go to a Cabinet meeting, for example?