Chamber and committees

I am happy to forgo summing up.

Motion agreed to.

Perhaps I can answer that, because I asked quite a similar question. There are many important provisions within the 2019 act, so we must ensure that they can come into force.

The act became legislation around the end of 2019. Not long after that, we headed into the pandemic and people working right across Government were diverted from legislative and other policy work into managing the pandemic. Understandably, the provisions, including any corrections, were delayed. A number of provisions are now in process and instruments have already been laid that will help us to implement the powers that are within the 2019 act.

That would best be answered by officials, if they have the information, because, as you will know, I was not the minister at the time at which those errors happened. I am happy to take responsibility for tidying up the legislation in a technical way. I ask Kevin Gibson to come in.

I cannot comment on what has been reported in the press. However, I can tell you that, quite rightly and appropriately, the CMAL board appointed Mr Smith to carry out that investigation. It has a responsibility to do that, and my understanding is that CMAL was looking at all the allegations that were made in that programme by the BBC. The review must be presented to CMAL, which will need to review and publish it. It has committed to doing that, and it is the appropriate thing to do.

No, that is not what I am saying. It has to be judged at the point in time when the work that has been carried out has been assessed and the procurement process has gone through.

Again, this is about looking back to something that took place a significant time ago. The changes that have taken place since then to improve procurement processes—prior even to the recommendations of the REC Committee and to your own recommendations—also mean that the process of decision making on investment is different. It is difficult to view something retrospectively through the lens as to what is appropriate that we as a Government currently have .

What I am saying is that, looking back, the types of processes that we have now should have been in place at that point—but, obviously, they were not. We have learned from that and have improved those processes. We have been open about that.

Evidence about that was responded to by the Government and by the witnesses that you had at the time. In our response in May, we also said that it is important to keep minutes and records of all meetings. That is what happens—as is appropriate.

My understanding is that, as given to the committee in the extensive documentation, there was an email exchange that reported the meeting. You have it in the evidence that you have but, if you want to refresh the committee’s memory of it, we can provide you with it again.

Clearly, the Government—through Neil Gray—will reply to that request in the timescale within which the committee has asked for, and I do not want to second guess that reply. I understand that the Auditor General is going to give evidence to the committee on his responsibilities. I am not sure whether he has asked the Government directly for that power or whether he has asked the committee. The request is for the power to look at the accounts of a private company—in this case, Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd—and that is a request for the cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, to respond to.

In general, there are issues around private companies working with the Government in any shape or form being subject to the Auditor General and their being able to investigate them at any time by request of a special order. That has risks in relation to what that might mean for investment and partnership and whether companies would want to enter into any arrangement. That is a risk element that is nothing to do with this specific case, but the unintended consequences of doing that in principle, as opposed to the merits or demerits of this particular case, are worth exploring. I also reflect on my point that the committee had feedback and evidence from David Tydeman as to where he thought the spend went and where the problems were, as well as from CMAL, which the committee evidenced in its report.

I know that you want me to say either yes or no, but that is not my decision, and I will not take it on behalf of somebody else. You will know this from your experience in dealing with public bodies, but the issue is whether you can have the Auditor General investigating a private company. Technically, you probably could, but what would be the consequences for other situations with private companies in the future if there was a risk that the Auditor General could seek and secure powers of investigation? That is stating the fairly obvious to you as a committee.

Again, I note that there are clear recommendations and asks of Government in the report, and that is what Kevin Stewart’s response of 23 May identified. Throughout the report, the committee—quite rightly—makes statements with regard to your views and conclusions on certain situations, and the committee has taken a view on Transport Scotland.

Clarity and understanding are sought with regard to Transport Scotland’s role then and now. On that work, Transport Scotland advises Government and provides information. I think that information was being provided previously, but we have now formalised that process far more. For example, in relation to CMAL’s advice and information to us about what is happening in Turkey with the four vessels, I hear that directly. I have regular direct conversations with CMAL, and I work with Transport Scotland on that.

However, with regard to the management of the contract and the parties to that contract, that was private to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd and CMAL, as I have said previously.

Therefore, information does flow and that process is far more formalised, and probably far more direct, than it was previously.

On the project steering group, the issue is what its role was then and is now. Again, to unpick that in detail, you can have criticisms of what has happened before, which the committee does and has set out in its report. The Government was not asked to comment on that, so I have given you a view just now.

Alison Irvine or Chris Wilcock—whoever is more appropriate—please can you set out the role of the project steering group then and now in relation to that type of work.

I think that that could be answered in different ways, depending on what you think that its role should have been.