Seòmar agus comataidhean

That makes sense. Thank you very much.

I want to re-emphasise what you stated in your report. You said:

“There was a lack of transparency and good governance around the assessment and approval of these payments.”

You also stated:

“FMPG’s Remuneration Committee membership consists of: the Chair of the Board, two Non-Exec Board members and the Turnaround Director.”

It does not do any harm to emphasise who actually gave the right for those payments to be made, because it suggests that proper oversight of what was happening in the situation was not being taken from outside.

I do not want to reiterate something that has been stated a few thousand times, but your report says that the Ferguson Marine remuneration committee’s approval of a performance framework for senior managers and the chief executive has

“not yet been discussed with, or approved by, the Scottish Government”,

and I am not sure whether there have been developments in relation to seeking approval. You mentioned that there have been moves to talk about those things, but have any real developments taken place that show that relationships between the company and the Scottish Government are going in the right direction?

Your report states that

“The Scottish Government commissioned an independent review”

of Ferguson Marine’s estimates of costs, which concluded that Ferguson Marine’s cost estimates

“are reasonable but more contingency needs to be built in as risks still remain.”

Are you working on the basis that it is an on-going process and that, once the two ferries are completed, there is still a lot of work left to do in order to bring Ferguson Marine on to a more sustainable route towards success and continuing work?

At that point, we will be able to feel more confident that sponsorship arrangements are working in the effective manner in which they should be.

Thank you, convener. I am really pleased to be on the committee and I have no relevant declarations to make.

We have heard a lot of really interesting information. It has been said that 320 additional panel members are to be sought by about this time—or up to July—next year. That is a lot of people. With regard to the sourcing of that number of candidates for such an important role, do you go out and look for them or wait for them to come to you because they have heard about the role and think that it would be a great way for them to contribute as a volunteer? What level of capability do people have to display to be taken on board?

That is very helpful.

The instrument makes provision in connection with the preparation of local development plans under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. In correspondence with the Scottish Government, which has been published alongside the agenda for the meeting, the committee highlighted an apparent failure to narrate in the preamble that the consultation requirement in section 16B(15) of the 1997 act had been fulfilled. The committee also identified a cross-referencing error in regulation 25 of the instrument.

The Scottish Government has acknowledged a failure to follow proper drafting practice on account of the failure to narrate the consultation requirement in the preamble to the instrument. However, it does not consider that any corrective action is required.

The Scottish Government has also confirmed that there was a cross-referencing error, as regulation 25 should refer to section 4ZA(3)(b)(ii) of the 1997 act instead of section 4ZA(3)(b)(iii). It says that it will correct the error at the next available opportunity.

Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground for failure to follow proper drafting practice with the failure to narrate in the preamble the consultation requirement in section 16B(15) of the 1997 act?

Members indicated agreement.

Is the committee content with the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.