Official Report: search what was said in Parliament
The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Criathragan Hide all filters
Displaying 2151 contributions
|
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 8 September 2022
Colin Beattie
Some of the terminology has been a bit confusing. To continue on that, one fairly important document was Transport Scotland’s submission to ministers of 8 October 2015. Do you consider that that made a clear case for awarding the contract to FMEL?
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 8 September 2022
Colin Beattie
So, as far as you were concerned, it was not strange that the minister signed off, based on the information that he was given.
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 8 September 2022
Colin Beattie
Good morning. A lot has been made of the possible relationship between Mr McColl and the Government because of his alleged political views. To what extent are contractors’ political views taken into account when allocating contracts?
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 8 September 2022
Colin Beattie
Are there robust processes to ensure that that does not take place?
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 8 September 2022
Colin Beattie
Exactly.
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 8 September 2022
Colin Beattie
Okay.
There were differing views, in the evidence that we heard on 26 May and 30 June, on whether the contract award decision was down to CMAL. Do you consider that CMAL was given a direct instruction to proceed?
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 8 September 2022
Colin Beattie
So, as far as you are concerned, there was nothing unusual about the process that was followed. It was high profile, yes, but it was not unusual in how it was handled.
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 8 September 2022
Colin Beattie
The committee has heard that drawdowns were made against milestones. Subsequent to your departure, in December 2020, there was a report from the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which clearly highlighted that those milestones were—I am not sure whether I am picking the right words here—artificially achieved. A milestone would be picked, such as cutting metal or whatever. Given that that milestone had been achieved—even if all the bits were not in place up to that point—CMAL could claim the money. There was no way that payment could be refused; CMAL took legal advice on that. That is all part and parcel of the dispute. I do not know the extent to which you were aware of or involved in that during that period.
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 8 September 2022
Colin Beattie
Let me press you on the particular statement that Mr McColl made, which was that you said that the CMAL board would resign. That is fairly dramatic.
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 8 September 2022
Colin Beattie
On the loan support for FMEL, why did you approve the drawdown of £30 million, which was conditional on the vessels’ progress? Progress had not been made—there is clear evidence that the vessels had been delayed already. Given that the funding was linked to progress, what was the justification?
