Seòmar agus comataidhean

I might refer to officials on what sort of official engagement there has been. You mention Mr Stewart’s letter of 23 May and say that we should have engaged with the UK Government in the past few weeks on the shipbuilding guarantee. I have not, but I expect that my officials either will do that very promptly or will have already done that. It is quite a helpful intervention, depending on how it is used. I think that those issues will tie in.

Colin Beattie and you will be aware from your time on the economy committee that subsidy control issues have developed in relation to what can and cannot happen, particularly post-Brexit, and how we can have support for procurement and support for domestic entities. It is therefore a welcome intervention, but it will have taken some time to develop. We need to work out what we should do on the operation and the underpinning, because it is an underwriting issue, so a lot of that will depend on where we have capacity as a Government to do underwriting and what the source of the funding is.

We have had improvement in borrowing for revenue purposes. Some of those issues might relate to capital spending, which has different challenges for us than for the UK Government. That is the sort of thing that we need to explore.

I will ask the officials to say whether they have had those discussions or intend to have those discussions with the UK Government.

It is up to the board to publish the content of the report. We need to review that content, and then there will be a judgment as to what is merited. I cannot prejudge the content, so I cannot tell you what happens after it is produced.

It was appropriate for the Government to make an announcement because that would have happened in previous contexts and, for example, in relation to the allocation of contracts elsewhere. CalMac received its allocation of that tender, so it would have been appropriate for the Government to make that announcement once the process had gone through.

Your report sets out the idea that either everything had concluded or the announcement was premature. The announcement was appropriate at the time. However, the evidence that you have had includes different views and different opinions on that, which were formed in hindsight.

I will ask my officials to comment, but I will provide an answer based on my understanding. As a minister, I expect my officials—in whatever portfolio, and certainly in this one—to respect Parliament and committees’ requests for information. I think that what happened related to the approval of a press line for the minister. The request was identified through an FOI request that came from another route and, as soon as it was identified, the correspondence was given to your committee. There was no intent not to provide it. The issue was that it came in at the same time as you were concluding your report. Because officials would have no idea when you were concluding your report, they would not know that it was late.

I hope that that makes sense. I know that you have taken a long time over the matter. That is my understanding of the explanation. I do not think that it was acceptable. We need to try to identify improvements in record keeping. That has happened as part of the Government’s response and it has tried to locate things. However, Transport Scotland provided a huge amount of information not just for your committee but for the REC Committee.

Is my recollection of that process correct?

As the minister, I will get advice from officials saying, “This MSP has written in, but we’re in a live situation.” For example, there are a number of public service obligations—not in the area that we are discussing, but for air services—about which MSPs have wanted to speak or write to me. We are not party to some of those issues. They are other parties’ responsibilities, and we do not want to interfere in procurements that are for other parties. It is not just about the Government.

Normally, ministers will accept the advice that is given to them in terms of the drafting of the letter.

I will provide an initial response, particularly about what happens now but also reflecting on what happened, and then I will bring in Alison Irvine.

It is important to set out that the contract is between CMAL as the procuring authority and the private company Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd. It was a use of public funds, so the decision to approve it would need to be provided by the relevant ministers. Obviously, the transport minister would exercise a degree of authorisation or approval but would not be party to the contract.

Particularly in tight fiscal circumstances, the authorising officer has a key role on any major spend but, clearly, the finance secretary has to identify whether we have resources to do it. That is based not on the merits of the individual case but on whether the Government can afford it in its wider spend.

I hope that that gives you the shape of the situation, but I ask Alison Irvine to reflect on anything in the process then or now.

There might have been an expectation on the part of the contracting parties, because there was clearly a breakdown in how the contract was working between the two parties. However, on the point about Transport Scotland not being party to the contract, what it was looking at was in terms of support for a process that needed support.

I am not the minister responsible for public procurement policy, but I think that you are inviting me to give a general response as a Government minister. Obviously, there is the specific example of the ferries. You said that there had been a litany of public procurement issues, but I make it clear that the Scottish Government has embarked on a number of major transport projects that have come in on time and on budget. Clearly, the ferries project has not, which is why the committee and others have held inquiries into it, but I make it clear that the general practice in the Scottish Government and in Transport Scotland has been good in that respect.

However, it is clear that that has not been the case in this instance, as the committee’s report says. With regard to improvements, I reassure the committee that we will pull together the lessons learned and document those. Some of those lessons are about processes—mention has been made of the Scottish public finance manual—while others relate to CMAL’s practices. A lot of changes to those practices have already had an effect in relation to the four vessels that are being built in Turkey.

As far as governance is concerned, you are absolutely right to say that it is important to get processes right at the beginning. Anyone who has been involved in any major project will know that, if you get things right at the beginning, there is less chance that there will be difficulties later on. I absolutely understand that.

You asked me to give you an indication of improvements that are being made. Transport Scotland has already made changes. That work was in progress even before the REC Committee’s report and this committee’s report. I think that it would be helpful to draw those together at the end of this project, so that we can itemise all the changes and improvements that have been made.

There is now enhanced governance around vessel projects, with dedicated project groups for projects and programmes; there is improved focus on the use of existing risk registers for each project or programme; and there is scrutiny and sign-off of all vessel and major port projects by Transport Scotland’s investment decision making board, which is at chief executive and directors level. There is also greater use of independent gateway processes, and approval now requires an accountable officer template to be completed by the relevant cab sec and the cab sec for finance, which I think Alison Irvine set out in her area. In relation to lessons learned about design faults at the beginning of a project having consequences, we have seen those consequences even more latterly, in relation to some of the processes.

Although I think you are asking for an opinion as opposed to a response, I have tried to provide not only an opinion but also responses as to where the Government is already making changes in specific areas. I also want to reinforce the fact that, when projects go well—we have seen that, for example, in relation to the M8 improvements and the Queensferry crossing—we take them for granted in many ways.

I absolutely accept that there were severe overruns in this project, which is why the committee is doing what it is doing, but the challenge when you are auditing something from a historical time—from eight years ago—is that some process changes will have taken place along the way. I want to reassure the committee that, as the minister, I will keep on top of that to make sure that that continues.

In my detailed examination of the process, I took that part of the committee’s report, and looking into what had happened, very seriously. I have asked what happened, and I have made it clear that I always expect—as I am sure that we do across Government—that there is co-operation and attendance when required.

The situation seems to boil down to one request for absence, which was for the then interim director general—I think that that was his title. His evidence has already been referred to, so he had already appeared before the committee. My reading of the situation is that two previous interim chief executives and other senior officials appeared before you; Chris Wilcock did as well. The committee had one extensive session and you decided to have a second one, at which point the—I am trying to remember what title he would have had at the time—

The interim director general could not come to the second meeting as you had requested but said that he could come to another one and tried to get alternative dates. That was one instance and that is the explanation. You have referred to some instances, but I am not sure whether there were any other instances where an official did not appear.

On the issue of not providing complete information, we have addressed that in response to Sharon Dowey’s questions. There were two issues, which were the letter exchange between the former transport minister and a regional MSP, in which it was identified that, due to a formatting error, a paragraph had been left off that letter—that administrative mistake should not have happened and an apology was given—and the draft press line that was subsequently found and supplied through another route. I can understand the committee’s point of view around the latter arriving the day after you finalised the report, but Transport Scotland would not have known the date on which you were doing so. I accept the explanation that that was sent to you as soon as the press line was found.

Those were the instances; I do not know whether any other instances happened. There seems to be generalisation that a number of officials had not appeared or that far more pieces of information were not given than those that have been identified and referred to. That is my understanding. However regrettable it was—and apologies were given—I do not think that it was, in any way, obfuscation or anything such as that. As minister, I would not expect that from any official at any point and I respect that officials did not do that at the time.