Chamber and committees

There are specific requirements for notification in the Scottish public finance manual. It is an area that I want to seek clarification on, in terms of what is shared and when. It is obviously published and it goes to the Auditor General, and my understanding is that the accountable officer wrote to the Auditor General when the latest written authority was provided.

Written authorities very rarely happen in ministerial directions—they are few and far between. I never gave a ministerial direction during the period that I was previously a Government minister. I emphasise that they can be appropriate and there is a process for issuing them. However, the issue is whether they are routinely sent to the clerk of the Public Audit Committee, which I think was one of your recommendations—I think it was in paragraph 408, on page 77 of your report. My understanding is that the last one was sent to the clerk. However, that would not necessarily happen often. Colin Cook, can you confirm that I have got that right about the process?

That is a matter for the CMAL board. I think that it will be fairly soon, but I am not responsible for the timescale for that.

Yes.

You are reflecting not on the transparency of the Government—although I am sure that you will do that at some point—but on the transparency of a private company: Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd. You are also asking about whether the exchange of those letters was material to the company’s decision. You quite rightly say in your conclusions that that would not, in and of itself, have been the green light, and nor should it have been, because neither of the two individuals concerned were party to the contract. The private company, FMEL, would have wanted to abide by the procurement requirements of the contracting party, CMAL, which set out what was required for procurement.

You will be aware that the former First Minister, in her evidence, referred to Transport Scotland’s provision of the exchange of letters. The understanding is that she knew of that correspondence and its contents, but that the formatting meant that a paragraph was missing. Also, that correspondence was sent to the committee during a week when you were about to finalise your report. Officials would not have known that, which was remiss and has been recognised, but that would not necessarily have had an impact on your report, because the correspondence was made available. Regarding whether it should have been taken as approval, no one who deals with contracts and legal authority would have taken that as an indication of Government approval.

What the correspondence did say, which was reasonable, was that there had been instances, including involving previous work at Ferguson’s on hybrid vessels, when there was a different operating method.

The committee’s criticism of how a private company gave evidence was a fair one, but you are asking me to comment on something that I was not party to.

I can usefully comment on that, having come back into Government after two years. On verbal briefings, there will be a note that says, “I’ve met such and such and we’ve briefed on such and such.” It is evident that there is more record keeping and an improved record-keeping process. Again, we say that in the response to the committee. The new permanent secretary has made it clear that, not just in this area but across Government, there needs to be improved record keeping on everything. I spend a lot of time clearing minutes of meetings—I assure you of that.

Normally, the advice is not to do anything that would cause an issue with the procurement. That is what you would normally get when the letter comes in.

Colin Cook might want to comment, as he has dealt with this on the economy side of things.

The issue is about what is in the public interest. Is it in the public interest to ensure that vessels are completed for the islanders? As transport minister, I have spoken to island communities and I want all six vessels to be completed, because we need that resilience—that is the risk element that we have just now. The issue is also about the yard and the capacity for shipbuilding jobs in the future. There is the question, too, of how we ensure that the yard can be successful, which is obviously Neil Gray’s responsibility. In this instance, there are many different aspects to decision making around spend.

The safety approvals for the two vessels are progressing well, and that will be reported to the NZET Committee by the end of the month, in the next update. I understand that, once we have got through that process, the vessels will then go to sea trials. Then we will start on the launch of 801, which will be a great relief to the islanders. My job, as minister for transport, is to support island communities to receive their vessels.

You can make a judgment—and all MSPs will make a judgment—about our saying yes or no, but the cabinet secretary for the economy, Neil Gray, clearly set out how important it was that 802 in particular—which is obviously a challenge—should progress and be delivered.

At any point in time, there is a question about whether the Government should stop funding something. Decisions will be taken across the piece, and sometimes the decision will be taken not to continue with something. All that I am saying is that the cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, made the position quite clear—he came straight to Parliament to report that forthrightly and openly, which is what Governments should do around such major decisions. There might be instances in which the answer is to do the reverse, which could happen in any ministry or portfolio at any time, so it depends on the circumstances at the time.

Well, as you know, an official was there.

I do not think that I have said that. I have been at pains to say that part of the response has been improvements in record keeping. I am clear about that. There have been recommendations from the new permanent secretary about how decisions should be made and how things are recorded. I have observed that improvement in minute taking in the recent weeks after coming back into government.