The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 3032 contributions
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
At the ITT stage, FMEL had not stated, one way or the other, whether a BRG was available, therefore the assumption was that there was.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
You took legal advice on that, I believe.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Your taking legal advice implies that you had some doubts about it.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
To do that, do you visit the works?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Therefore, you were satisfied that the milestones had been achieved and that the payments were justified, up to 85 per cent of the value of the vessel.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Did you ever challenge FMEL on how the money was being spent, given what was uncovered about it not paying its suppliers and so on? Was it £9 million or something?
10:00Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
I will follow on from my colleague, Craig Hoy, and be absolutely parochial about this, because I am the constituency MSP for the area in which Sheriffhall falls, so I get a huge amount of correspondence on it. I put on record my support for the Sheriffhall development, but also there is massive support among residents, particularly in the Midlothian area and in the Shawfair development. There is a great deal of anxiety that the development is being delayed. There is always a fear that the longer something is delayed, the more at risk it becomes. How secure is the funding for Sheriffhall? Is it set in stone?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Here is another easy one for you. Coming back to the BRG, which is a great bone of contention in this, when and how did CMAL first became aware that FMEL was unable to provide a full BRG?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Were you aware that in March 2015 Scottish ministers advised FMEL that a full BRG was not required?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Before I get into the main line of my questioning, I would like clarification on one or two points that we have already been talking about.
The first is about decision making on the contract. Audit Scotland has had access to the same exchanges, documentation and so on as everybody else. On 21 April, Audit Scotland said that it was
“clear in our judgment that there was no formal written authority.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 21 April 2022; c 36.]
Its contention relates mainly to that approval.
The CMAL paper said:
“CMAL was effectively instructed to proceed with the purchase from FMEL despite the concerns raised ... As explained in the risk paper, CMAL were not content with the final draft contracts. In these circumstances, the Ministerial approval process was not normal. CMAL made no recommendation to Transport Scotland or to the Minister.”
There is a clear trail of key decisions and the basis on which they were taken.
We have seen all the documents that have been published. I mention in particular the email from Transport Scotland dated 9 April 2015. It says:
“The Scottish Ministers have also seen and understood that [the Director of Vessels’] paper and have noted and accepted the various technical and commercial risks identified and assessed by CMAL and have indicated that they are content for CMAL to proceed with the award of the Contracts.”
It is clear from the published documents that ministers were advised of the risks that had been identified by CMAL and of the mitigations that were put in place, and came to a decision on that basis. Is that a fair assessment?
09:45