Chamber and committees

Sharon Dowey has a couple of questions that follow on neatly from that.

I think that Boyd Robertson wanted to come in but, given that we are pressed for time, I will bring in Craig Hoy. If Mr Robertson still wants to say something after Craig Hoy’s questions, I will see whether we have any time for that.

We have only a couple of minutes remaining. I mentioned at the start that Rhoda Grant joins us this morning. Do you have any final thoughts or questions to put to the panel from NHS Highland, Rhoda?

Item 3 is the continuation of our evidence session with the Auditor General and his team on the report into new vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides. We are pleased to welcome back the Auditor General, who is joined again by Angela Canning and Antony Clark. I thank them for coming back so quickly to help us keep the momentum of our scrutiny going.

Auditor General, you gave an opening statement last week and I will not ask you to repeat that. With your forbearance, I will move straight to questions.

Rhoda Grant is also joining us again remotely. If she wants to come in, she should indicate that via the chat function and we will attempt to bring her in.

I will begin by recapping a couple of areas from last week and seeking a bit more clarity. In the evidence that you gave last week, Auditor General, you said that we

“do not know on what basis”

ministers agreed to take the risk of placing the order for vessels 801 and 801 with Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd on the basis of a non-standard contract. You said that

“there is no documentary evidence of how those risks were considered or how it was intended that they would be managed during the running of the contract”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 21 April 2022; c 28, 27.]

I ask you to reflect on something that the First Minister said to Parliament on 24 March. When asked about documentary evidence, she said:

“Many of the documents that relate to the decision have been in the public domain for some time. They clearly narrate the issue of the lack of a full-refund guarantee. They also clearly narrate the mitigations that were put in place to reduce that risk.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2022; c 11.]

Please give your comments on the view expressed by the First Minister.

I was going to turn to that next.

In the light of the questioning of the First Minister last Friday, a Scottish Government official was reported to have said:

“A thorough search has been conducted and the ... documentation cannot be located.”

On Tuesday, that was confirmed in the Parliament by the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise, who said that, following “a thorough search”, the documentation could not be located.

I turn to section 24 of the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, which, I am reminded, is headed

“Access to documents and information”.

The 2000 act is fairly clear that, for a section 23 report such as this one, the examiner from Audit Scotland is entitled under section 24(3)(a)

“to ... have access at all reasonable times to any document in the possession, or under the control, of the body or office-holder in question which the examiner may reasonably require”.

It appears that that document does not exist. However, the 2000 act goes on to say under section 24(3)(b) that the examiner is entitled

“to ... require from any person holding, or accountable for, any such document any assistance, information or explanation which the examiner reasonably thinks necessary”.

Does that cover information and explanation as to why documents do not exist?

Okay, Mr Clark, I will leave the redresses to you or the Auditor General. Did you get an explanation as to why that documentary evidence did not exist?

That brings us to the end of the time that we have this morning. Once again, Auditor General, I thank you for your willingness to answer the wide range of questions that we have put to you. I also thank the team that has joined you. We very much appreciate the input of Antony Clark and Angela Canning, which has been illuminating.

We will have to consider what our next steps are. You have given us some suggestions on where it might be useful for us to look further. We will reflect on those and, as a committee, we will reach our own conclusions on our next steps. I thank you again for your evidence.

We now move into private session.

Good morning and welcome to the 13th meeting—I hope that that is not an ominous sign—in 2022 of the Public Audit Committee.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take items 4, 5 and 6 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for that opening statement, Mr Robertson. It sets the scene very well for the questions that we have. I intend to direct my questions to Pam Dudek as chief executive and, therefore, accountable officer, but she might in turn refer them to Mr Garden or you.

You touched on NHS Highland’s financial position, which was one of the reasons for the section 22 report being required in the first place. I think that there were three consecutive years in which the in-year financial balance was in the red. In your opening statement, you highlighted the extent to which savings are required; from my reading of the Audit Scotland report, those savings are of the order of £32.9 million.

My opening question is about the progress that has been made. Where are things now financially with NHS Highland? Do you consider the board to be on course to make the cost improvements and savings that were identified, and how have things been affected by Covid? I will come to Pam Dudek, first.

The next questions are from Willie Coffey. Willie, over to you.