Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sorry, what is the value of the Islay ferries?

That is fine.

The other tidying-up point that I have is about the emails that Fran Pacitti found on 11 May. At 15:45 on 9 October, Gordon Wales, the director of financial management, sent an email to your predecessor Transport Scotland official John Nicholls and copied in Ainslie McLaughlin. In that email, he referred to “banana skins”. What were the banana skins?

We understand that. We might return to the point when we hear from other witnesses.

I draw this morning’s session to a close. I thank Mo Rooney, Colin Cook, Dermot Rhatigan, Hugh Gillies, Fran Pacitti and Chris Wilcock for joining us. We appreciate the time that you have given us. We have mentioned a couple of times the committee’s disappointment that the interim director general for net zero was not able to be with us. We might have a further session to explore the issue a bit more, or we might turn to written evidence, but that is for the committee to consider. For the time being, however, I thank you for your input this morning.

The principal item on our agenda is continued consideration of the Auditor General for Scotland’s report, “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”, which is a continuation of the evidence session that we held on 26 May.

I welcome back our witnesses. Colin Cook is the director of economic development in the Scottish Government, and Dermot Rhatigan is the deputy director for manufacturing and industries. Mo Rooney joins us in the committee room today. She is the deputy director of the Scottish Government’s strategic commercial interventions division. From Transport Scotland, we have Hugh Gillies, interim chief executive; Fran Pacitti, director of aviation, maritime freight and canals; and Chris Wilcock, head of the ferries unit.

Before moving to questions, I want to place on the record the committee’s disappointment that we are not joined today by the portfolio accountable officer for transport—the director general for net zero. Section 9 of the Scottish public finance manual is pretty clear about the expectations that are placed on designated accountable officers to give evidence to the committee. We retain the option of calling back the interim DG for net zero at some point in the future.

I remind members and witnesses that, as always, we are up against the clock, so I ask that we try to keep questions and answers as short and concise as possible.

I invite Colin Cook to make an opening statement.

Nobody knows who Alexander Anderson was, even though he is on those email trails that you unearthed on 11 May.

My understanding is that Alexander Anderson was a senior special adviser to the First Minister of Scotland, and he was copied in on those emails. Again, I ask the question: if you are saying that the decision was entirely for the transport minister, why was the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities copied in, why was the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and the Economy copied in, and why was a senior special adviser to the First Minister of Scotland copied in?

The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report shows that the first of the summary of conclusions and recommendations is:

“Transport Scotland and CMAL applied inadequate due diligence in scrutinising and signing off the procurement process”.

Do you accept that?

Again, that seems to be rather at odds with the conclusion that was drawn by Audit Scotland that Transport Scotland had some oversight responsibility for the procurement process. Last time, we heard the mantra from Mr Brannen that it was all about buyer and builder, but this is public money. As an accountable officer, do you not have some accountability for how that money is spent?

I will put to you a final point, which relates to whether the First Minister was involved, whether through a special adviser or directly or indirectly. In his evidence last time, Mr Brannen was quite clear—it is a pity that he is not here today—that there was no involvement whatsoever of the First Minister, and we accept him at his word. If that is the case, will you give us your understanding of why, when the First Minister was questioned on 29 March by Glenn Campbell of the BBC about whether it was on her say so, and he asked her,

“Did you say ‘go ahead’?”,

her reply was,

“I didn’t say don’t go ahead”?

Why would she not just give an unequivocal Roy Brannen answer and say, “No, I was not involved”?

I thank Willie Coffey for his questions. I turn to Craig Hoy, who will pick up on the same theme, so Mo Rooney might be able to come in in response to his questions.

I have a couple of final questions before the evidence session ends, which go back to our previous evidence session with Transport Scotland. I think that Fran Pacitti addressed the issue at the time, and I am interested in hearing Hugh Gillies’s view. We were told that all port, harbour and ferry infrastructure projects now go through the investment decision-making board at Transport Scotland. Back in 2015, what was the value threshold that meant that the two vessels did not go through that process?