Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will be quite brief, convener. I welcome the opportunity to engage with the cabinet secretary, and I hope that the invitation will be extended to Sandra Geddes, Alan’s sister. I know that she would welcome that—she has always said that her brother was failed, but she accepts that the attacker, Stuart Quinn, was also failed. He was let out one night with nowhere to go—he got chatting to somebody randomly at a bar, who tried to get him some accommodation but could not get anything and then offered him a place to stay for that night, with the tragic consequences that came from that. I welcome the engagement. I still intend to press my amendment, however.

Thank you—it is all down to Sandra. As I said in my initial comments, she is a brave and determined woman, which is why I am here, speaking to this amendment today. As I said, she always points out that Stuart Quinn was also failed by the state.

I want to press on with the matter, and I welcome the engagement. If we can change the amendment to bring it back at a later stage, I would be happy with that, but I will press the amendment today.

I want to move on to lines of communication between ministers and civil servants. Ms Fraser, are there clear instructions on how a minister and civil servants should be communicating?

No, I just wanted to make sure that the Government is focused on prevention, because I do not see it, to be honest.

Okay. When the First Minister said that he was happy to check that he could legally reveal findings of a previous investigation, was he referring to only one of those investigations or all three? Whom did he ask?

That is good to hear.

I will move on to record keeping. We faced issues to do with vessels 801 and 802—it was difficult to find out who had approved the spend on them. Permanent secretary, will you explain what has changed in that regard? Can we as a committee feel comfortable that proper processes are in place so that that does not happen again?

I do not know whether it is a fear of funding being removed or a fear that that disagreement will be taken into consideration if they apply for extra funding.

First, I have a quick question on the underspend. Obviously, it is down as being £2 billion but, as Ross Greer pointed out, that is not the figure, because it includes student loans that you cannot really take out. How much money—if any—was handed back to the UK Government at the end of the year?

No. I will change the subject.

We have heard that three harassment reviews took place in session 5. The First Minister asked whether one of those could be looked at again. What about the other two? Was it just that one in particular? Whom did he ask?

Is the process already in place for that scrutiny to happen, or will it be put in place?