Chamber and committees

I am sorry, Mr Brannen—I will come to the recent correspondence between the permanent secretary and the Finance and Public Administration Committee of this Parliament—but you just said that the piece of paper had been found. That is not the view of Audit Scotland, is it? Its view is that the piece of paper that was found and presented to Parliament a couple of weeks ago represented more information on who. Now, you have said that it was entirely the then minister for transport. That seemed to suggest that, actually, the then finance secretary was involved in the process. However, the piece of paper that was presented does not fill the gap identified by the Auditor General, which is that there is no substantial recording of the considerations of ministers and their response to the risks that were clearly identified by CMAL in presenting the contract to Ferguson Marine.

We may well return to that.

That is fine.

I will now bring in Craig Hoy; I can come back to Sharon Dowey shortly.

Fran Pacitti made an extremely important point about the role of challenge in making decisions. The cost was going to be £97 million of public money. In the end, it has ended up being considerably more than that. The role of challenge in such decisions is primary. As the Public Audit Committee of the Parliament, we would expect challenge.

Will you explain a bit more about the relationship that ought to exist between the portfolio accountable officer and the decision maker? Will you also explain whether there is a role in the process for the director general of finance? Is part of their role not to challenge investment decisions that are taken at portfolio level to see whether they pass the tests that are set out in the public finance manual?

I begin by putting a question to Roy Brannen and Hugh Gillies, but I will take you first, Mr Brannen. You mentioned current and previous roles. You have both held the post of designated accountable officer for Transport Scotland, so can you outline what is required in that role in providing formal advice to ministers and recording decisions, particularly where significant concerns or risks are involved?

Audit Scotland’s report notes that there were 15 intervals of payment rather than the typical five. For the record, can you tell us the reasons for that?

One of the things that I have drawn from today’s session is that a lot of responsibility and accountability seems to have been placed at the level of the builder and the buyer, but the whole apparatus of accountability in the civil service does not seem to have been applied.

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 16th meeting of the Public Audit Committee in 2022. The first item of business is for members of the committee to consider whether to take agenda items 3, 4 and 5 in private. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I have one final question, for the moment. Helen Carter, Nick Ford and Andrew Watson are on the IIB. Who is on the infrastructure advisory group?

Are they published on the Scottish Government website?