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 15 September 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 3314 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Richard Leonard

We may well return to that.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Richard Leonard

That is fine.

I will now bring in Craig Hoy; I can come back to Sharon Dowey shortly.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Richard Leonard

Fran Pacitti made an extremely important point about the role of challenge in making decisions. The cost was going to be £97 million of public money. In the end, it has ended up being considerably more than that. The role of challenge in such decisions is primary. As the Public Audit Committee of the Parliament, we would expect challenge.

Will you explain a bit more about the relationship that ought to exist between the portfolio accountable officer and the decision maker? Will you also explain whether there is a role in the process for the director general of finance? Is part of their role not to challenge investment decisions that are taken at portfolio level to see whether they pass the tests that are set out in the public finance manual?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Richard Leonard

As part of that new arrangement, was a commitment given to CMAL that it would be compensated and that its budget would be increased to accommodate the change in the profiling of payments?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Richard Leonard

I am conscious of the time, Colin. I am keen to bring in two members of the committee before we finish up.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Richard Leonard

I will take you back to some evidence that we heard from the Auditor General about correspondence on 8 and 9 October 2015 that took place between your predecessor as chief executive of Transport Scotland and Government ministers. An email from Transport Scotland reflected Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd’s concerns about the award of the contract to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd. The board of CMAL went so far as to say:

“The Board feel it is their absolute duty to point out the risk to their shareholder and in that respect would expect approval, should SG wish this project to proceed, and to receive direction to that effect”.

The next day, a reply was submitted to Erik Østergaard from the director of aviation, maritime, freight and canals—your predecessor, Fran Pacitti. Transport Scotland used the word “authorised” in relation to CMAL being able

“to enter into the Contracts and any associated documentation.”

At the bottom of that letter, it says:

“I confirm that the Scottish Ministers have considered and approved the contents of this letter.”

One of the issues that are at stake is whether written authority from ministers was sought and secured but not recorded or whether the correspondence does not constitute that at all. Mr Brannen, will you address that point?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Richard Leonard

Okay, but in light of the view of CMAL, which also reports directly to the ministerial team, why do you not think that it was asking for written authority?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Richard Leonard

My final question, Roy Brannen, is to ask whether it was in your gift to advise ministers to terminate the contract. If it was, did it cross your mind to do that?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Richard Leonard

You kind of recused Transport Scotland from that, but, as the accountable officer, you gave advice at the end of April 2017—it is among the 200-odd documents that are now in the public domain—in which you said that, if flexibility on the surety bond were to be introduced, you would require written authority for that.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Richard Leonard

I begin by putting a question to Roy Brannen and Hugh Gillies, but I will take you first, Mr Brannen. You mentioned current and previous roles. You have both held the post of designated accountable officer for Transport Scotland, so can you outline what is required in that role in providing formal advice to ministers and recording decisions, particularly where significant concerns or risks are involved?