˿

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 12 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1169 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

Sharon Dowey

Okay. Thank you.

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

Sharon Dowey

In your opening statement, you said that you accepted all the recommendations in the Audit Scotland report. Can I double check that that is the case? Are there any recommendations in that report that you have any reservations about?

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

Sharon Dowey

Good morning. Paragraphs 104 to 109 of the report, starting on page 45, outline how the Scottish Government has fundamentally changed the arrangements to complete the vessels since the shipyard was brought into public ownership in December 2019. That includes the appointment of Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd as its technical consultant.

During the Public Audit Committee’s evidence session with the Auditor General for Scotland on 28 April 2022, he commented on the new arrangements, stating:

“There is no denying that the arrangements are unusual. That paragraph also notes that Transport Scotland no longer has a role in the delivery of the ships. That is quite distinct from where we were.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 28 April 2022; c 37.]

Under the new arrangements to complete the vessels, CMAL has been appointed as the Scottish Government’s technical consultant and Transport Scotland no longer has a role in the delivery of the ships. Why were those decisions taken? What work was undertaken to assess the risks associated with the change in roles?

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

Sharon Dowey

Okay. You do not think that there is any conflict of interest in CMAL’s revised role.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Sharon Dowey

I have a wee question about the Erik Østergaard email that was sent on 26 September. He made it quite clear that the contract should not have gone ahead. In the evidence that you have given today, you have referred to CMAL as the expert in shipbuilding. Why would its recommendations have been ignored?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Sharon Dowey

So, even though all the issues were handed to the ministers, they did not have an in-person meeting to discuss it with the shipbuilding experts.

On 8 October 2015, an email was sent to Derek Mackay and Keith Brown. The sender’s name is redacted, as is a list of other people who were copied into the correspondence. It states that the

“DFM approved the financial implications of the contract award prior to the announcement by FM on 31 August that FMEL were ‘preferred bidder’.”

It goes on to say:

“it is clear that the Board of CMAL are still concerned”.

At the end, it asks for the minister’s confirmation that he is aware of the issues and is

“content to give approval ... to proceed.”

It also asks whether:

“the Minister wanted to speak to a representative of the CMAL Board”.

Is it fair to say that it was the Deputy First Minister who was made fully aware of the financial implications prior to the announcement by the First Minister and that it was him who authorised the contract to go ahead?

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Sharon Dowey

It looks as though the ministers were not happy with the financial implications, so they handed it over to the Deputy First Minister to give authorisation.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Sharon Dowey

He moved on to another Government position.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Sharon Dowey

Right.

In an evidence session that we had with the Auditor General for Scotland, he confirmed that

“In the absence of formal written authority under the terms of the Scottish public finance manual in Scotland ... If an accountable officer does not request such written authority, the accountability for the decision rests with the accountable officer.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 28 April 2022; c 28-29.]

Why would the accountable officer not have obtained that, and why would it not have been stored safely? My question is due to the number of issues that have been raised throughout.

Public Audit Committee

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

Meeting date: 26 May 2022

Sharon Dowey

How long was Mr Middleton in that role?