łÉČËżěĘÖ

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 14 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2597 contributions

|

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

Colin Beattie

PwC must have given a written opinion. Is it possible to see that?

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

Colin Beattie

Is that in line with other bids? Would there be the same approach?

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

Colin Beattie

It was not something different.

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

Colin Beattie

When was that, approximately?

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

Colin Beattie

Therefore, at that point, there was every reason to believe that FMEL was going to—

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

Colin Beattie

When I get the chance, I will ask questions of CMAL, but Transport Scotland had a responsibility in this, as well.

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

Colin Beattie

Before I do so, I would like to get a small clarification from the witnesses. In connection with the builders refund guarantee, paragraph 21 of the Auditor General’s report says:

“During the negotiations, and contrary to what was included in its bid”.

As I understand it, it was mandatory that a builder’s refund guarantee be provided as part of the bid but, subsequently, FMEL came back and said that it could not provide that. The implication in the Auditor General’s report is that, in the original bid, FMEL had accepted that the BRG was mandatory, but that, subsequently, FMEL said that it could not fulfil that part of the bid. Elsewhere in the report, there is reference to the fact that, when FMEL completed its bid, it was silent on the subject of the BRG, so there was an assumption that FMEL had accepted that. Can you clarify that? Did FMEL actually accept the BRG or was it assumed, because FMEL did not challenge it, that it was accepted?

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

Colin Beattie

Were you not the sponsor?

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

Colin Beattie

Just to clarify in my mind, I recognise that CMAL granted the contract, signed it off, managed it and so on, but what reporting to Transport Scotland did it undertake on the progress of the contract and the issues that arose in it?

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

Colin Beattie

However, we ended up with a failed supplier.

I will take a slightly different angle on the money. A good chunk of the money was paid out. FMEL got most of the value of the vessels paid to it, actually. However, it also got loan support. As I understand it, that was not visible to CMAL because of commercial issues around it.

What was the rationale for that decision? Who made the decision to give those loans and, basically, provide working capital? What were the loan conditions and were they adhered to?