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: 30 June 2022

Colin Beattie

You took legal advice on that, I believe.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Colin Beattie

Your taking legal advice implies that you had some doubts about it.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Colin Beattie

To do that, do you visit the works?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Colin Beattie

Therefore, you were satisfied that the milestones had been achieved and that the payments were justified, up to 85 per cent of the value of the vessel.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Colin Beattie

Did you ever challenge FMEL on how the money was being spent, given what was uncovered about it not paying its suppliers and so on? Was it £9 million or something?

10:00  

Public Audit Committee

Major Capital Projects

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Colin Beattie

I will follow on from my colleague, Craig Hoy, and be absolutely parochial about this, because I am the constituency MSP for the area in which Sheriffhall falls, so I get a huge amount of correspondence on it. I put on record my support for the Sheriffhall development, but also there is massive support among residents, particularly in the Midlothian area and in the Shawfair development. There is a great deal of anxiety that the development is being delayed. There is always a fear that the longer something is delayed, the more at risk it becomes. How secure is the funding for Sheriffhall? Is it set in stone?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Colin Beattie

Here is another easy one for you. Coming back to the BRG, which is a great bone of contention in this, when and how did CMAL first became aware that FMEL was unable to provide a full BRG?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Colin Beattie

Were you aware that in March 2015 Scottish ministers advised FMEL that a full BRG was not required?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Colin Beattie

Before I get into the main line of my questioning, I would like clarification on one or two points that we have already been talking about.

The first is about decision making on the contract. Audit Scotland has had access to the same exchanges, documentation and so on as everybody else. On 21 April, Audit Scotland said that it was

“clear in our judgment that there was no formal written authority.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 21 April 2022; c 36.]

Its contention relates mainly to that approval.

The CMAL paper said:

“CMAL was effectively instructed to proceed with the purchase from FMEL despite the concerns raised ... As explained in the risk paper, CMAL were not content with the final draft contracts. In these circumstances, the Ministerial approval process was not normal. CMAL made no recommendation to Transport Scotland or to the Minister.”

There is a clear trail of key decisions and the basis on which they were taken.

We have seen all the documents that have been published. I mention in particular the email from Transport Scotland dated 9 April 2015. It says:

“The Scottish Ministers have also seen and understood that [the Director of Vessels’] paper and have noted and accepted the various technical and commercial risks identified and assessed by CMAL and have indicated that they are content for CMAL to proceed with the award of the Contracts.”

It is clear from the published documents that ministers were advised of the risks that had been identified by CMAL and of the mitigations that were put in place, and came to a decision on that basis. Is that a fair assessment?

09:45  

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Colin Beattie

Good, thank you. That was an easy one.