Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, Mr Boyle. Your team has provided a report that, in your words, shows “a multitude of failings”. It is a comprehensive report, even with the lack of available documentary evidence, and has raised an awful lot of concerns and a lot more questions. Once again, the issue of transparency in the Scottish Government has been raised.

The report makes it clear that the project has been riddled with problems and delays over six years. The vessels are four years late and it now looks like they will be five years late. Currently, the cost is two and a half times the original budget. Worryingly, paragraph 105 states:

“The Scottish Government is committed to paying the additional vessel costs, regardless of the final price.”

All of that is at taxpayers’ expense and, seemingly, with no accountability from ministers.

Paragraph 141 states:

“Because engines and equipment were purchased several years in advance, warranties have expired, and any repairs required before vessel 801 enters service could be expensive and time-consuming.”

We now know that there will be delays due to cabling being too short for the vessels and, to add another layer to the saga, once the vessels eventually come into service, there is now talk that they are 40m too long for the harbours that they will serve and that the masters of the boats who have been practising using simulators have been unable to dock them safely.

It seems that the story will continue, the costs will continue to rise and there might well be further delays. That is before we start talking about flawed decision-making processes, a lack of documentary evidence and the Scottish Government ignoring alarm bells that have gone off repeatedly. Therefore, it is understandable that there is a lot of interest in the report.

Exhibit 1 shows that, in August 2015, ministers announced Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd—FMEL—as the preferred bidder. Will you tell me more about the decision making on that? I believe that there were seven bids from six companies. Who took the decision to award the contract to FMEL, taking into account the fact that the report says that FMEL’s bid was the most expensive?

In September, CMAL advised Transport Scotland of the risks and stated its preference to start the procurement process again. The report states:

“Transport Scotland fully appraised Scottish ministers of the significant financial and procurement risks”.

In October, Transport Scotland advised CMAL that Scottish ministers were aware of the risk and were content for CMAL to award the contract to FMEL. Is there any documentation to show that, and to explain the reasons why the contract still went ahead?

I am sorry, but did you say that there are two groups? You said that one met for the first time in March—which I take to be March 2022—and another group is due to meet for the first time in June 2022. Are there two different groups considering the matter?

Good morning. Audit Scotland’s 2019 report “Enabling digital government” noted that the governance and management structures for overseeing the 2017 digital strategy were “confusing” and that the roles and remits should be kept under review and “clearly articulated”. Can you tell us about the governance and management structures for overseeing the delivery of the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities digital strategy that was published in March 2021?

One of the most concerning lines that stuck out in your report is:

“Most drug-related deaths are in people aged 35-54, but this is increasing across all age groups, particularly in people aged 25-34.”

Jillian Matthew referred to that earlier. It is a focus of all parties that increased funding gives vastly improved outcomes. We noted that you recommend a number of actions that the Scottish Government needs to take, as you set out in paragraph 31,

“To increase transparency and demonstrate value for money”

in the

“funding for drug and alcohol services”.

Has the Scottish Government accepted that that work needs to be progressed? If so, has it set any interim targets for undertaking it?

So you are happy that you are taking on board all the comments from the 2019 report.

Good morning. This is another question on governance. I refer to paragraphs 28 and 29 of your report. The Scottish Government’s consultation on a new national care service shows that a majority of respondents agree that ADPs should be integrated into community health and social care boards. What is your assessment of the cost of doing that, and would that improve lines of accountability?

Good morning, everybody. The Auditor General’s report outlines that

“The auditor issued a disclaimer on the audit opinion on Scottish Canals’ financial statements for 2020/21”

because

“insufficient audit evidence was available to conclude on the overall valuation of Scottish Canals’ ... infrastructure and inland waterways”.

That was largely because Scottish Canals did not obtain an appropriate valuation, using depreciated replacement cost, for about £51 million of specialist operational assets that had been capitalised between 2012 and 2021. We have touched on some of those issues. Why did Scottish Canals not identify the need to undertake a DRC valuation of its specialist operational assets as part of preparing its 2020-21 accounts?

The completion date is December 2022 and it looks as though you are on target.

As you said, it sounds complex. Will you tell us a bit about the progress in updating the fixed asset register, so that all assets will be appropriately recorded and categorised?