Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

He moved on to another Government position.

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.

How long was Mr Middleton in that role?

He was experienced in his role, then.

Was there a reason that he left? Was it for another job? What was the reason for his leaving so soon after the contract was signed?

The accountabilities include ensuring that risks are managed effectively and that procurement guidelines are met, and the requirement to seek written authority from ministers if any action is inconsistent with proper performance of the accountable officer’s functions.

You commented earlier that the job is to deliver on ministers’ wishes. Why would somebody with seven years’ experience not put all that into practice? Numerous concerns have been raised around the contracts. Why would somebody with that amount of experience not get written confirmation from a minister of the decisions that were made?

I find it hard to believe that he did not get that confirmation.

In a letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities dated 20 August 2015, various issues are raised. Ministerial approval was “sought by ... 27 August”, which is just seven days after the letter was received, because the minister was on holiday. The letter states that the date had

“already been extended for 2 months”

—that was for signing the contracts.

Paragraph 8 states:

“CalMac will not be in a position to fully endorse the shipbuilding documentation by the required deadline”

and that

“further efforts will be undertaken during the detailed design of the vessel by FMEL to address any outstanding points.”

It goes on to highlight issues concerning

“the access of the vessels to the various ports they may serve”

and the

“requirement for modifications at some ports.”

It notes that the vessels are dual fuel, and that

“LNG brings some logistics challenges ... and may require some additional fuelling infrastructure.”

A lot of issues, including infrastructure issues, were being raised, other than just the ferries. Why was there such a last-minute rush to get that signed off? It had already been extended by two months—the minister went on holiday, and it was then given to the cabinet secretary to sign off. Why was there such a last-minute rush? Was it because of the number of issues in the contract?

Was a meeting held involving CMAL, Transport Scotland and the ministers? Did they all come together in a meeting to discuss all the issues that they had?

Are you aware of whether the suggested meeting with CMAL was requested or took place?