Chamber and committees

Paragraph 11, which is also on page 4 of the report, states:

“The SFC shared a redacted copy of the report with the principal and chair once it was finalised in August.”

As we heard, it was highly redacted. The paragraph then states:

“Other board members and the senior management team received a redacted copy of the report in October and December 2021 respectively.”

Paragraph 12 states:

“The redacted SFC report was formally considered by the board in December 2021.”

Do we know why it took them until December to formally consider the report?

In paragraph 12, the report states:

“the independent auditor notes in their annual audit report that they ‘have no assurance that the action plan covers all the recommendations made, due to the level of redactions in the [SFC] report.’”

Has the Scottish Funding Council reviewed the action plan? Is it happy that all the action points have been covered? Is it involved in making sure that the action points are actioned?

Good morning, everybody. In evidence to the committee, the Comptroller and Auditor General concluded that HMRC’s outturn figures and administration of the system were reasonable, and that the administration of Scottish income tax had

“now reached what is essentially the implementation of business as usual.”

He also said:

“HMRC’s focus must now be on refining its processes to maintain an accurate and complete record of the Scottish taxpayer population and on continuing to monitor the risk of non-compliance that might or might not arise as a result of divergence between UK and Scottish tax rates.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 3 February 2022; c 3.]

What areas of refinement are still required

“to maintain an accurate and complete record of the Scottish taxpayer population”?

Do the errors appear to be intentional or unintentional?

Thank you.

Paragraph 102 of the report says:

“The Turnaround report indicated that it would cost between £110.3 million and £114.3 million to complete the vessels, on top of the £83.25 million CMAL had already paid to FMEL.”

That was more than the original cost. Was any scrutiny done to see how those figures were reached?

Good morning. I start by going over a point that was raised at last week’s meeting, when I asked about the decision to continue with the contract with FMEL, rather than going back to the tendering process as was CMAL’s preference at that point. Gill Miller said:

“Transport Scotland submitted a paper to ministers to say that FMEL was the preferred bidder and that the First Minister would be announcing that at a visit to the yard on 31 August 2015.”

She went on to say,

“we know that the pre-qualification exercise made it clear that the provision of a 100 per cent refund guarantee was mandatory”

and

“We asked Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government for all documentation relating to the minister’s decision, but we did not receive any.”

At that meeting, Antony Clark said:

“one would expect the accountable officer in Transport Scotland to share their thoughts, ideas, risks and concerns, and to make proposals to the Scottish ministers, on which ministers can reflect and make a formal decision. As the Auditor General has indicated, one would expect that to be recorded and documented.”

Later in the meeting, Mr Boyle, you said:

“We do not entirely know whether this is a case of there being no document to support that important decision, or of our having asked for one and of its not being provided.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 21 April 2022; c 26, 28, 27 and 29.]

The whole scenario gives great cause for concern regarding transparency and secrecy issues in the Scottish Government, and the reasons behind why that critical information has not been recorded. It could appear that, after having announced FMEL as the preferred bidder on 31 August, the First Minister would not have wanted to announce the very next month that the bid was not valid as a result of a builder’s refund guarantee not being given and that the Government was going back to the tendering process. It is not good practice for the concerns of CMAL not to be taken into consideration, and for CMAL to be overruled by Transport Scotland and Scottish ministers, but it is totally unacceptable for the meetings and decisions not to have been recorded.

I have two questions. Do you think that there were political motives and pressures from the Scottish Government that led to the failings in the process and the continuation of the contract with FMEL? Would such a decision have been taken by a minister or cabinet secretary, by the First Minister or by the Cabinet as a whole, and who would have been responsible and accountable for recording all the minutes of the meetings and the decisions that came from them?

To touch on something that Mr Coffey mentioned, CMAL issued a design and build contract in November. One month after the minister said that the contract was to proceed, £24.2 million—24.9 per cent or just under a quarter of the total contract value—was given for procurement deposits. The following month, in December, £2.8 million was given for cutting of steel. On page 25 of the Audit Scotland report, key message 2 states:

“FMEL began vessel construction before it had agreed the detailed design with CMAL.”

Is it normal procedure to start building a vessel before a finalised drawing has been signed off? Who would have authorised the payments to start being given to FMEL before that had been completed?

Thank you.

Who would have been responsible and accountable for recording the minutes of meetings, if they did take place?