Seòmar agus comataidhean

Again, it comes back to the issue of what the allegations are. That is an issue for the CMAL board and what it has asked Mr Smith to look at. It is perfectly entitled to commission that investigation, which it has done. I think that it was the board’s responsibility to do that and, like you, I will be interested to see the report when it is published.

Again, that was in your report, not as a recommendation to Government but as a conclusion and view of the committee. You are asking for reflections rather than an official response to what we will do as a result of that.

I suppose that we should delineate the responsibilities clearly from the point of view of Transport Scotland and Scottish ministers. The Minister for Transport’s responsibilities are for procurement, including of the four new ferries in Turkey and realising the six that will be delivered by 2026.

As for the running of the company and the organisation post-nationalisation, you are talking about Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow, and that responsibility currently lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy. Pre-nationalisation, there were issues with the private company Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd. There are issues involving two separate companies at different times.

If you are asking for my reflections on the role of the workforce, I certainly think that the strength of any organisation lies in how it can involve its workforce in decision making and advice, because the people who are doing the work are the experts in that. At different times, that has been specifically requested and delivered by the board. In the nationalised Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow, it is all to do with the role of the board and impressing on the board the importance of regularly involving the workforce and, particularly, trade union representatives. My understanding is that that does happen.

Your question is whether the workforce should have been listened to earlier and sooner, and I think that you are going back to the 2015 to 2017 period. I cannot really comment because, first, I was not there and, secondly, it was a private company at that time.

You are asking about the principle of that and whether a lesson has been learned about the active participation of the workforce in key deliverables and operational matters, and that is part of the fair work approach that the Government is committed to. You needed to reflect on that and you did. You have taken evidence from the workforce on where that has happened in the past. Under the new First Minister, there is a focus on that, and you have clearly seen that in the approach of the cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, too. That is my view.

There was a record of the decision. My understanding from the evidence that was set out, which you have in your report and which you heard in the evidence sessions that you held, is that, following that meeting, there was an email exchange that made it clear what the result was. Therefore, there was a record of it but not in the normal form of a minute of the meeting. It was an exchange afterwards.

I cannot comment on what has been reported in the press. However, I can tell you that, quite rightly and appropriately, the CMAL board appointed Mr Smith to carry out that investigation. It has a responsibility to do that, and my understanding is that CMAL was looking at all the allegations that were made in that programme by the BBC. The review must be presented to CMAL, which will need to review and publish it. It has committed to doing that, and it is the appropriate thing to do.

No, that is not what I am saying. It has to be judged at the point in time when the work that has been carried out has been assessed and the procurement process has gone through.

Again, this is about looking back to something that took place a significant time ago. The changes that have taken place since then to improve procurement processes—prior even to the recommendations of the REC Committee and to your own recommendations—also mean that the process of decision making on investment is different. It is difficult to view something retrospectively through the lens as to what is appropriate that we as a Government currently have .

What I am saying is that, looking back, the types of processes that we have now should have been in place at that point—but, obviously, they were not. We have learned from that and have improved those processes. We have been open about that.

Evidence about that was responded to by the Government and by the witnesses that you had at the time. In our response in May, we also said that it is important to keep minutes and records of all meetings. That is what happens—as is appropriate.

My understanding is that, as given to the committee in the extensive documentation, there was an email exchange that reported the meeting. You have it in the evidence that you have but, if you want to refresh the committee’s memory of it, we can provide you with it again.

Clearly, the Government—through Neil Gray—will reply to that request in the timescale within which the committee has asked for, and I do not want to second guess that reply. I understand that the Auditor General is going to give evidence to the committee on his responsibilities. I am not sure whether he has asked the Government directly for that power or whether he has asked the committee. The request is for the power to look at the accounts of a private company—in this case, Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd—and that is a request for the cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, to respond to.

In general, there are issues around private companies working with the Government in any shape or form being subject to the Auditor General and their being able to investigate them at any time by request of a special order. That has risks in relation to what that might mean for investment and partnership and whether companies would want to enter into any arrangement. That is a risk element that is nothing to do with this specific case, but the unintended consequences of doing that in principle, as opposed to the merits or demerits of this particular case, are worth exploring. I also reflect on my point that the committee had feedback and evidence from David Tydeman as to where he thought the spend went and where the problems were, as well as from CMAL, which the committee evidenced in its report.

I know that you want me to say either yes or no, but that is not my decision, and I will not take it on behalf of somebody else. You will know this from your experience in dealing with public bodies, but the issue is whether you can have the Auditor General investigating a private company. Technically, you probably could, but what would be the consequences for other situations with private companies in the future if there was a risk that the Auditor General could seek and secure powers of investigation? That is stating the fairly obvious to you as a committee.

Again, I note that there are clear recommendations and asks of Government in the report, and that is what Kevin Stewart’s response of 23 May identified. Throughout the report, the committee—quite rightly—makes statements with regard to your views and conclusions on certain situations, and the committee has taken a view on Transport Scotland.

Clarity and understanding are sought with regard to Transport Scotland’s role then and now. On that work, Transport Scotland advises Government and provides information. I think that information was being provided previously, but we have now formalised that process far more. For example, in relation to CMAL’s advice and information to us about what is happening in Turkey with the four vessels, I hear that directly. I have regular direct conversations with CMAL, and I work with Transport Scotland on that.

However, with regard to the management of the contract and the parties to that contract, that was private to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd and CMAL, as I have said previously.

Therefore, information does flow and that process is far more formalised, and probably far more direct, than it was previously.

On the project steering group, the issue is what its role was then and is now. Again, to unpick that in detail, you can have criticisms of what has happened before, which the committee does and has set out in its report. The Government was not asked to comment on that, so I have given you a view just now.

Alison Irvine or Chris Wilcock—whoever is more appropriate—please can you set out the role of the project steering group then and now in relation to that type of work.

I think that that could be answered in different ways, depending on what you think that its role should have been.