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 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 30 November 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 3519 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

Richard Leonard

Do you think that that is what you found?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

Richard Leonard

That is not the view of Audit Scotland. Even after the discovery of 11 May and the publication that you were able to make, Audit Scotland said:

“The email confirms that ministers approved the award of the FMEL contract. But 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.”

Notwithstanding what you have said, Audit Scotland’s view is quite different, is it not?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

Richard Leonard

I just wanted to follow up Sharon Dowey’s question, which, I think, Mo Rooney answered, on the changing role of CMAL and its having the role of overseeing the work in the yard. When the question was asked, legitimately, whether you thought that that represented a conflict of interest, you said that you had given consideration to the matter, presumably concluding that there was no such conflict. Can you provide us with any documentary evidence of those considerations?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

Richard Leonard

When did you find the thing that Mr Brannen referred to as “the bit of paper”?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

Richard Leonard

I think that that was the same day that the Conservative party called a debate on ferries in the Parliament. Is that correct?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

Richard Leonard

And the minister was able to wave that bit of paper in Parliament in the afternoon of 11 May.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

Richard Leonard

Okay. In his evidence, Roy Brannen made clear that he felt that the gap had been filled, but Audit Scotland’s position is that it was not filled—and that is not just a matter of record keeping or a bit of paper; it is about the whole approach and it is about transparency.

Let me pick up on another issue. Fran Pacitti, the documents that you found on 11 May tell us a little about who was involved in the decision-making process. Mr Brannen told us on 26 May that it was

“entirely a decision for the transport minister.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 26 May 2022; c 6.]

However, we can see from the correspondence of 8 and 9 October that you unearthed that the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities, Keith Brown, was copied into emails. The last word in that series of emails belongs to the Deputy First Minister, who was clearly an active player in the decision; a report of his comments was in an email that was sent at a quarter past 5 on 9 October. How do you reconcile that with the comment that the decision was entirely for the transport minister? Perhaps Hugh Gillies will answer that.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

Richard Leonard

Okay, but other people in ministerial positions were copied into the emails. They were part of the email conversation. What do you say to that?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

Richard Leonard

But what do you say, Mr Gillies?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

Richard Leonard

That is 11 May. You found that document on the morning of 11 May.