Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not think that that is new information. I think that it was in your report as well.

That is really for the shipyards to know, as I said.

Good morning. I thank the committee for its invitation to address further its report on arrangements to deliver new vessels 801 and 802 and the Scottish Government’s response to it, which was sent to the committee in May 2023.

As the committee will be aware, I was appointed as Minister for Transport in June 2023. I am aware that the committee felt that the Scottish Government did not respond as fully to the report as had been expected, and I want to address that issue in my opening remarks.

First, as confirmed in the then minister’s response, the Scottish Government fully welcomed the committee’s report, which built on work already undertaken by Audit Scotland and the earlier report by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. The report contained a number of observations and recommendations throughout. Although the Government’s response was not a point-by-point one to all of the committee’s stated views, observations and conclusions, it nevertheless extracted for the Government the key recommendations that could be identified in the report and responded to those. The approach taken was to group those recommendations where we felt that there was a common theme.

On recommendations for other parties, such as the Auditor General, the Government did not comment in detail, but it noted that we could engage fully with any further audit work that was identified. As the response came from the previous transport minister, I am keen to identify—either today or in writing, if that would be helpful—which specific areas the committee considers warrant a further response to that already given.

I recently reread the report in great detail and, in scrutinising what had been requested of the Government, I identified two areas that were not fully responded to, both of which relate to wider cross-Government areas and process improvements. I will ensure that the committee receives a response to those. Having spent two years up to June as deputy convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and as member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, I take the work of all parliamentary committees very seriously, and I am committed to making sure that the committee has what it needs to conclude its work on this important matter.

I would also highlight that my colleague Neil Gray has given evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on the current issues, as did I earlier this week. The committee might also be aware that a further update on delivery progress from the chief executive officer of the shipyard is due to be given to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee at the end of the month. Ministers will continue to work with the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee in its scrutiny of that element.

I might refer to officials on what sort of official engagement there has been. You mention Mr Stewart’s letter of 23 May and say that we should have engaged with the UK Government in the past few weeks on the shipbuilding guarantee. I have not, but I expect that my officials either will do that very promptly or will have already done that. It is quite a helpful intervention, depending on how it is used. I think that those issues will tie in.

Colin Beattie and you will be aware from your time on the economy committee that subsidy control issues have developed in relation to what can and cannot happen, particularly post-Brexit, and how we can have support for procurement and support for domestic entities. It is therefore a welcome intervention, but it will have taken some time to develop. We need to work out what we should do on the operation and the underpinning, because it is an underwriting issue, so a lot of that will depend on where we have capacity as a Government to do underwriting and what the source of the funding is.

We have had improvement in borrowing for revenue purposes. Some of those issues might relate to capital spending, which has different challenges for us than for the UK Government. That is the sort of thing that we need to explore.

I will ask the officials to say whether they have had those discussions or intend to have those discussions with the UK Government.

It is up to the board to publish the content of the report. We need to review that content, and then there will be a judgment as to what is merited. I cannot prejudge the content, so I cannot tell you what happens after it is produced.

It was appropriate for the Government to make an announcement because that would have happened in previous contexts and, for example, in relation to the allocation of contracts elsewhere. CalMac received its allocation of that tender, so it would have been appropriate for the Government to make that announcement once the process had gone through.

Your report sets out the idea that either everything had concluded or the announcement was premature. The announcement was appropriate at the time. However, the evidence that you have had includes different views and different opinions on that, which were formed in hindsight.

I will ask my officials to comment, but I will provide an answer based on my understanding. As a minister, I expect my officials—in whatever portfolio, and certainly in this one—to respect Parliament and committees’ requests for information. I think that what happened related to the approval of a press line for the minister. The request was identified through an FOI request that came from another route and, as soon as it was identified, the correspondence was given to your committee. There was no intent not to provide it. The issue was that it came in at the same time as you were concluding your report. Because officials would have no idea when you were concluding your report, they would not know that it was late.

I hope that that makes sense. I know that you have taken a long time over the matter. That is my understanding of the explanation. I do not think that it was acceptable. We need to try to identify improvements in record keeping. That has happened as part of the Government’s response and it has tried to locate things. However, Transport Scotland provided a huge amount of information not just for your committee but for the REC Committee.

Is my recollection of that process correct?

As the minister, I will get advice from officials saying, “This MSP has written in, but we’re in a live situation.” For example, there are a number of public service obligations—not in the area that we are discussing, but for air services—about which MSPs have wanted to speak or write to me. We are not party to some of those issues. They are other parties’ responsibilities, and we do not want to interfere in procurements that are for other parties. It is not just about the Government.

Normally, ministers will accept the advice that is given to them in terms of the drafting of the letter.

It was a special adviser.

In terms of how we would normally operate and, to be fair, as was set out in the evidence sessions, the Scottish Government has been as accessible and approachable to interests as it can be, but in an appropriate way as long as things are documented. Clearly, the meeting was documented but not in the form that it would currently be done, which would be an official minute.