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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes.

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.