Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 6 June 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 3197 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee

Decision on Taking Business in Private

Meeting date: 4 November 2022

Richard Leonard

Good morning, and welcome, everyone, to the 26th meeting in 2022 of the Public Audit Committee. The first item on the agenda is a decision on whether to take agenda item 3 in private. Do members agree to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 4 November 2022

Richard Leonard

The principal item on our agenda is consideration of the section 23 report prepared in March this year by the Auditor General for Scotland entitled “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”.

I welcome our witness, the Rt Hon Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister. We have a number of questions to put to her, but I ask her to start off by making a short opening statement.

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 4 November 2022

Richard Leonard

Okay. The three questions were responded to with answers that constituted 150 words. The last time that I wrote to Keith Brown, it was on two subjects. When I wrote to him about the fatal accident inquiry relating to Allan Marshall, he responded in 1,000 words, and when I wrote to him about the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Bill, he responded in 866 words.

Do you think that a reply that constitutes just 150 words is a satisfactory response to the serious inquiry that is being carried out by the Parliament?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 4 November 2022

Richard Leonard

You mentioned your Government’s decisions, and one matter that is of interest to the committee is what was brought to Cabinet. Was the preferred bidder announcement taken to Cabinet, or were the unconditional financial guarantee of £106 million to CMAL, the £45 million bail out of FMEL, the financial collapse of FMEL or the nationalisation decision taken to Cabinet?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 4 November 2022

Richard Leonard

Before I bring committee members in, I seek clarification on a couple of points. First, in your foreword to the Scottish ministerial code, you say:

“it is essential to set and maintain the highest standards of propriety and openness for Government Ministers.”

Do you think that Keith Brown’s response to the committee on 18 October meets those standards?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 4 November 2022

Richard Leonard

Do you think that he answers the questions that the committee put to him?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 4 November 2022

Richard Leonard

Okay. Well—

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 4 November 2022

Richard Leonard

Okay. However, we got that letter only because it was provided to us by Stuart McMillan.

I will ask another question on the issue of transparency. When we took evidence from Audit Scotland back in April, Gill Miller said:

“We asked Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government for all documentation relating to the minister’s decision, but we did not receive any.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 21 April 2022; c 28.]

Is that in keeping with the standard that you set out in the foreword to the ministerial code?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 4 November 2022

Richard Leonard

I appreciate your undertaking to listen to any requests that we have for further information to be put in the public domain.

You mentioned the missing documents and so on. However, the position of Audit Scotland remains clear. It says that the email that was unearthed that covers the exchanges on 8 and 9 October 2015 confirms that ministers approved the award of the FMEL contract. Audit Scotland’s position is that

“there remains insufficient documentary evidence to explain why the decision was made to proceed with the contract, given the significant risks and concerns raised by CMAL.

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 4 November 2022

Richard Leonard

Okay. The committee will consider its next steps after today.

I will move on to something else. Another response that we received recently—in fact, just last week, so it therefore arrived a week late—was from Transport Scotland. In the covering letter, Michelle Quinn, the chief executive officer of Transport Scotland, said that the organisation has a “commitment to absolute transparency”.

However, the correspondence that Transport Scotland shared with us was an incomplete, censored version of Derek Mackay’s letter of 2 February 2015 to Stuart McMillan. It was not even redacted; it was cut. Was that done to mislead? I do not know. Do you think that that is an acceptable way for a Government organisation to act?