³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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 24 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 893 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Craig Hoy

I know that you are lawyer but we are getting into lawyerspeak here.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Craig Hoy

There is something a bit fishy about this, is there not? In effect, you have the minister and, in effect, the person who won the contract having one account of this fundamental issue of the builders refund guarantee, and you as the agency responsible were blissfully unaware of that. There is something fishy in this, is there not?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Craig Hoy

It is unconventional.

Public Audit Committee

Major Capital Projects

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Craig Hoy

Is there a risk that campaign groups could hijack the planning process in order to slow down what you are saying is an essential infrastructure development?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Craig Hoy

Mr Brannen’s account says that you went to the minister and sought his approval and that you were recommending to proceed with the vessels. That is what you would read into Mr Brannen’s statement, would you not?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Craig Hoy

It is the 24 hours where it appears that you changed your mind. From memory, it was 8 to 9 October. What discussions were you having within the organisation?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Craig Hoy

FMEL told us that it told relevant parties that it could not provide a builders refund guarantee.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 30 June 2022

Craig Hoy

I have one final question. There are lots of contradictory accounts of what went wrong and why it went wrong, but Jim McColl says that one of the fundamental issues as to why the two vessels have gone so far over budget and so far off track in terms of schedule is your alleged meddling in the construction process. Did you tell FMEL in what order to build things?

Public Audit Committee

“Scotland’s economy: supporting businesses through the Covid-19 pandemicâ€

Meeting date: 23 June 2022

Craig Hoy

Last time we touched on the matter, you said that you thought the assessment of 1 to 2 per cent for fraud and error was reasonable. How do you come to that conclusion?

Public Audit Committee

“Scotland’s economy: supporting businesses through the Covid-19 pandemicâ€

Meeting date: 23 June 2022

Craig Hoy

On fraud and error, in certain defined circumstances it might be quite difficult to assess whether a fraudulent claim was made or somebody was simply misinterpreting the rules. For example, the principle is that the ratepayer applies for small business support funding. I heard an example where somebody who was subletting within a broader unit made a claim and then the ratepayer, who was also operating from that unit, made a claim, only to find that the person to whom he sublet some space had got there before him. In those circumstances, it would be difficult to say whether that was fraud or error. Where there are clear-cut cases of fraud, you said that by logic there should be recovery action. Do you have any assessment of how much of that £16 to £32 million will, in effect, be error? In those circumstances, should there be recovery action or will some kind of complex repayment process have to be undertaken?