Seòmar agus comataidhean

Paragraph 102 of the report says:

“The Turnaround report indicated that it would cost between £110.3 million and £114.3 million to complete the vessels, on top of the £83.25 million CMAL had already paid to FMEL.”

That was more than the original cost. Was any scrutiny done to see how those figures were reached?

Good morning. I start by going over a point that was raised at last week’s meeting, when I asked about the decision to continue with the contract with FMEL, rather than going back to the tendering process as was CMAL’s preference at that point. Gill Miller said:

“Transport Scotland submitted a paper to ministers to say that FMEL was the preferred bidder and that the First Minister would be announcing that at a visit to the yard on 31 August 2015.”

She went on to say,

“we know that the pre-qualification exercise made it clear that the provision of a 100 per cent refund guarantee was mandatory”

and

“We asked Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government for all documentation relating to the minister’s decision, but we did not receive any.”

At that meeting, Antony Clark said:

“one would expect the accountable officer in Transport Scotland to share their thoughts, ideas, risks and concerns, and to make proposals to the Scottish ministers, on which ministers can reflect and make a formal decision. As the Auditor General has indicated, one would expect that to be recorded and documented.”

Later in the meeting, Mr Boyle, you said:

“We do not entirely know whether this is a case of there being no document to support that important decision, or of our having asked for one and of its not being provided.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 21 April 2022; c 26, 28, 27 and 29.]

The whole scenario gives great cause for concern regarding transparency and secrecy issues in the Scottish Government, and the reasons behind why that critical information has not been recorded. It could appear that, after having announced FMEL as the preferred bidder on 31 August, the First Minister would not have wanted to announce the very next month that the bid was not valid as a result of a builder’s refund guarantee not being given and that the Government was going back to the tendering process. It is not good practice for the concerns of CMAL not to be taken into consideration, and for CMAL to be overruled by Transport Scotland and Scottish ministers, but it is totally unacceptable for the meetings and decisions not to have been recorded.

I have two questions. Do you think that there were political motives and pressures from the Scottish Government that led to the failings in the process and the continuation of the contract with FMEL? Would such a decision have been taken by a minister or cabinet secretary, by the First Minister or by the Cabinet as a whole, and who would have been responsible and accountable for recording all the minutes of the meetings and the decisions that came from them?

To touch on something that Mr Coffey mentioned, CMAL issued a design and build contract in November. One month after the minister said that the contract was to proceed, £24.2 million—24.9 per cent or just under a quarter of the total contract value—was given for procurement deposits. The following month, in December, £2.8 million was given for cutting of steel. On page 25 of the Audit Scotland report, key message 2 states:

“FMEL began vessel construction before it had agreed the detailed design with CMAL.”

Is it normal procedure to start building a vessel before a finalised drawing has been signed off? Who would have authorised the payments to start being given to FMEL before that had been completed?

Thank you.

Who would have been responsible and accountable for recording the minutes of meetings, if they did take place?

I have a question on ministerial directions. The process is that the accountable officer writes to the appropriate cabinet secretary expressing their concerns and seeking a direction. In response, the ministerial direction instructs the accountable officer to implement the decision. As a result of that direction, the minister, not the accountable officer, is now accountable for the decision. No direction has been made in relation to the new vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides—or none has been recorded. I think that it would be fair to assume that, with a decision of this importance, there would have been ministerial direction for the contract to have proceeded. If that paperwork cannot be found or does not exist, does the accountability lie with the accountable officer or the minister?

I will ask about workforce challenges. Previous section 22 reports highlighted that NHS Highland needed to address its reliance on locum and agency staff to achieve long-term financial sustainability. Covid-19 pressures have increased the board’s requirements for locum and supplementary staffing and have delayed plans for the development of the attraction, recruitment and retention strategy. Nonetheless, the board has made progress in recruiting permanent medical and nursing staff. It has filled 21 hard-to-fill consultant positions, including in the rural general hospitals that you just mentioned, as well as 62 newly qualified nurses and midwives. The board also took the management of locums back in-house in October 2020 to better control spending and rates.

Can you tell us a bit more about what actions the board is taking to reduce reliance on locum staff?

You have covered my next question, which was about what the board has been doing to attract, recruit and train the workforce needed in NHS Highland. Have the processes that you have put in place been enough to encourage people to stay in their positions? You have said that you have recruited 21 hard-to-fill consultant posts and taken on 62 newly qualified nurses, but have you managed to retain all of them? In our previous evidence session on this report, I asked whether the pandemic was having an effect on keeping staff, given that people were restricted from moving around. Now that restrictions have loosened, have you seen any change in that respect?

So it is a systemic failure of the Government to record crucial information. Are you aware of any directive or action taken by the Scottish Government since the publication of your report to ensure that all ministers and civil servants ensure that minutes and evidence of meetings are recorded?

My final question is also a long one. The former management of FMEL are critical of the report that was produced by the turnaround director following nationalisation of the Ferguson Marine shipyard. How would you characterise that report and the process by which it was completed?