Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. That does not provide me with a huge amount of assurance, to be honest. Regardless of what Mr McColl was ultimately asking for, either he did not get it or it did not work, because the yard fell into administration—with some rancour, I think.

Good morning, First Minister. Thank you for coming.

Before we get into the detail, I seek some reassurance about the nature of the evidence that you will give today. Can we be sure that you intend to answer transparently and truthfully, that your memory will not fail you and that you will not need to come back under cover of darkness to correct the Official Report?

It was a guide as to how to meet the submission criteria. It was referred to in the BBC documentary.

Obviously, there was then the decision that was taken to proceed against the advice of CMAL, and then there was then the very risky and uncosted nationalisation. Now we have two ferries that are half a decade overdue and £150 million over budget. All the while, as you identified in your opening, our island communities are paying the price. This is a monumental scandal, First Minister, and it happened on your watch. What do you say to islanders today? It surely has to be more than “Sorry”.

Let us go back to the very beginning. When were you first made aware that Jim McColl was interested in buying the Ferguson’s yard?

When you became First Minister, how were your relations with Mr McColl?

Good morning, Mr Boyle. I want to look at achieving the child poverty targets. To give a snapshot of where we are, there are, obviously, some pretty severe and acute cost of living issues coming towards us. At this point in time, should we be more concerned about the inability to meet the absolute target or the relative target, or are both equally important in public policy terms and objectives?

Good morning. Mr Johnston. I have some technical questions on governance and accountability. Bearing in mind that the review is quite technical in nature, they probably follow that theme.

The review notes that portfolio accountable officers are not responsible for the performance of a public body, but it makes it clear that the Scottish Government will work closely with the body and that interventions that cross the normal lines of accountability are possible and are made as a formal decision of the portfolio accountable officer. Are there guidelines and criteria on what would trigger such an intervention? Can you bring to our attention any recent such interventions?

The framework documents sound pretty integral to the whole process, but paragraph 4.9 of the review described examples of where the roles and responsibilities of both parties are not always understood, and it says that the way in which the Scottish Government works with public bodies in practice does not always follow the expected lines of accountability. What steps can portfolio accountable officers take to ensure that what should be happening is actually happening, and that the document is a living, breathing entity?

Is there a risk that you are focusing on the bigger organisations, whereas the examples where the wheels have flown off have involved smaller organisations? Are there particular types of intervention that you should deploy in relation to smaller organisations that may be more reliant on boards rather than on civil service staff?

Ms MacLean, can you give us an example of that good practice? What things do you typically look for?