Chamber and committees

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 18th meeting of the Public Audit Committee in 2024. We have received apologies this morning from Colin Beattie.

The first item on our agenda is for the committee to consider whether to take agenda items 3, 4 and 5 in private. Are we content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for that. We will get into a bit more of the detail of that as the morning develops. I invite Willie Coffey to open the questioning.

Okay. Mr Reekie, in your broader survey of PFI contracts, are you aware of the quantum of PFI contracts that are coming up over the next few years that have these exit fees?

I want to revisit a question that was asked earlier. Is it a policy position of the Scottish Government that, on expiry of the PFI contracts, they will all transfer into the public sector?

I want to explore that dynamic a little bit more, particularly your relationship with the minister or the cabinet secretary, for example. As the Public Audit Committee, we are interested when we hear about a written authority being sought by civil servants from ministers. Last year, we had such a case with the decision to continue with the procurement of MV Glen Rosa, as it is now called—at the time, it was vessel 802—from Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow. The only other instance in recent memory went all the way back to 2007, and that was a decision by the justice secretary at the time not to proceed with the construction of Low Moss prison under PFI. Presumably, the civil service advice was against such a move and, therefore, a written authority was required. Is there any possibility of such conversations being had or outcomes being reached as the PFI contracts expire?

It was before my time, too, Mr Rennick, but these are instructive lessons from history.

My final questions are predominantly for Mr Reekie and Ms Alexander. First, on the capacity of the Scottish Futures Trust, are you able to give advice to the extent that you would like? Indeed, what form does that advice take? You are, in a sense, an investment arm. What advice are you giving Mr Rennick and other directors general as well as other parts of the public sector, including people such as Ms Medhurst? What does your advice cover?

It is a matter of concern for the Public Audit Committee of the Scottish Parliament, too.

I will bring in the deputy convener.

Later in our session we might get further into that perceived tension between the commercial interests of FMPG’s board and its responsibility to be accountable through the Scottish public finance manual—not least because, at the last count, £0.25 billion of public money had been put into the company.

I will move on and ask you something else. When we asked the Auditor General to review what the strategic commercial assets division was, he said that it exists to increase capacity to respond to cases that arise that are seeking support. When I questioned you back in January, Mr Irwin, you said that it was about the commercial expertise that is required to manage strategic assets effectively. The instance that I raised with you at that time was the Grangemouth refinery. I asked whether you considered that to be a strategic commercial asset. That was the point at which you said that the job of the assets division is to manage existing assets. Will you explain a little more about how proactive or reactive the division is, what it does to horizon scan, and so on?

What about his predecessor? Parliament was told that the Government had nothing to do with the termination of Mr Tydeman’s contract. That looks a bit odd, does it not, given that the Government is the sole shareholder in the business?