Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I have some supplementary questions based on those that the convener has asked.

Under the Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011, records must be kept, and someone is responsible for that. Why was that not complied with? The biggest issue seems to be the fact that we do not have enough records to show the decisions that were made.

Was there a communication issue, then? Referring to the minister who you are saying is responsible for signing off the project, you are saying that it would only have been Derek Mackay, who was the minister at the time. There would not have been any other involvement; he had the authority to sign it off. Would there not have been communication between him, Transport Scotland, CMAL and others to get the contract signed? Derek Mackay just goes on holiday, and the project is then passed to Keith Brown to sign off. You are saying that he would not have had any knowledge of that in advance, as it would only have been Derek Mackay who was signing it off.

I will ask about the governance and management structures for overseeing the infrastructure investment plan. How does the infrastructure investment board carry out its role and interact with other boards and groups?

Paragraph 19 of the submission states:

“All Accountable Officers, whether Director Generals or Chief Executives of Executive Agencies or NDPBs are personally answerable to the Parliament for the exercise of their functions and have a duty to:

a. Ensure propriety and regularity of public finances;

b. Ensure Value for Money – of all related resources judged for the public sector as a whole;

c. Have clear lines of delegation and accountability; and support for undertaking these functions;

d. Ensure risks are managed effectively;

e. Make sure procurement guidelines are met;

f. Secure Best Value; and

g. Seek written authority from Ministers if any action is inconsistent with proper performance of the accountable officer’s functions.”

Looking specifically at the ferries, why would that go so badly wrong? Every single one of those guidelines seems to have fallen by the wayside.

What about any other kind of procurement? The ferries issue started off with procurement, and loads of issues have been raised in relation to that. I am trying to see what could be put in place to make sure that those issues are not on-going. What happened with the ferries was disastrous. Why did it happen in the first place when we have those rules in place?

What is the IIB’s role in developing the overall strategic direction for infrastructure investment and in balancing competing priorities between and within different portfolios and programmes?

Thank you. If you ever have any spare cash, I will give a wee shout out for the A77.

At what point do flags get raised in relation to overspend or overruns in projects? What is deemed acceptable and when would something be reported to Parliament?

So it is an annual update in the annual budget.

You said, “If there are lessons to be learned,” Mr Watson. Your submission says:

“Finally, the IIB has a role to ensure that there is reflection and learning taken from new, complex or innovative investments, and that this is effectively shared across portfolios.”

There are many lessons to be learned from the issues that have been raised with the ferries. What have you taken from that, implemented and shared among the portfolios so that it does not happen again? I refer to the likes of recording meetings and ensuring that paperwork does not go missing. What actions have you taken based on what you have heard about the issues in the handling of the ferries contract?