Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 19 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2831 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 8 September 2022

Colin Beattie

Yes. One of the key points here is that the decision was taken to nationalise the company but full due diligence does not seem to have been carried out, as would normally be the case. Will you comment on the reason for that?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 8 September 2022

Colin Beattie

My memory is that the accountable officer—I cannot remember his name—said that only partial due diligence could be carried out. I think that it was said that that was partly due to time and the availability of information.

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 8 September 2022

Colin Beattie

Given that the decision was taken without a full understanding of the costs and challenges in the company, and in the light of subsequent issues and given its history, do you still think that it was the right thing to do?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 8 September 2022

Colin Beattie

Did they do so?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 8 September 2022

Colin Beattie

There was no real advice given in this particular case as to whether any sort of direction was required. Please correct me if I am wrong but, from what you are saying, it was just a routine process with a sign-off from the minister. Is that correct?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 8 September 2022

Colin Beattie

Not within your—

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 8 September 2022

Colin Beattie

You received the information on that from several different sources. It must have been pulled together in some place. Is there a document that covers that?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 8 September 2022

Colin Beattie

Okay.

There were differing views, in the evidence that we heard on 26 May and 30 June, on whether the contract award decision was down to CMAL. Do you consider that CMAL was given a direct instruction to proceed?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 8 September 2022

Colin Beattie

So, as far as you are concerned, there was nothing unusual about the process that was followed. It was high profile, yes, but it was not unusual in how it was handled.

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 8 September 2022

Colin Beattie

The committee has heard that drawdowns were made against milestones. Subsequent to your departure, in December 2020, there was a report from the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which clearly highlighted that those milestones were—I am not sure whether I am picking the right words here—artificially achieved. A milestone would be picked, such as cutting metal or whatever. Given that that milestone had been achieved—even if all the bits were not in place up to that point—CMAL could claim the money. There was no way that payment could be refused; CMAL took legal advice on that. That is all part and parcel of the dispute. I do not know the extent to which you were aware of or involved in that during that period.