Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is explained in the other papers. Why, then, were the ships not 85 per cent built?

Can I check that that was CMAL’s decision?

Surely there must be some linkage between these significant milestones that trigger the payments and the quality of what has been done. It cannot just be to do with checking the invoices and so forth. Was there quality control in there? If there was, why was that not evident at the point of nationalisation?

At what point did you identify that catastrophic failure of management?

Can you give an example—

It appears to me that the design ticks the boxes for most people, which makes it even less understandable that organisations have been getting whipped up about it.

Talking about net zero and environmental sustainability, I do not think that this project has any attachment covering that. Is it intended to develop that later?

It is a fairly obvious one, and it probably applies to all contracts. There has been an estimate of £90 million to £120 million for this project. Inflation is galloping and we are talking about the project not being finished until perhaps 2028—which, to me, is a long time away from 2008, which is when it was first identified as being desirable. High inflation is probably going to be with us for some time. How are you going to manage that?

I am talking about any milestone payment.

For clarification, which year was that?

Before I get into the main line of my questioning, I would like clarification on one or two points that we have already been talking about.

The first is about decision making on the contract. Audit Scotland has had access to the same exchanges, documentation and so on as everybody else. On 21 April, Audit Scotland said that it was

“clear in our judgment that there was no formal written authority.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 21 April 2022; c 36.]

Its contention relates mainly to that approval.

The CMAL paper said:

“CMAL was effectively instructed to proceed with the purchase from FMEL despite the concerns raised ... As explained in the risk paper, CMAL were not content with the final draft contracts. In these circumstances, the Ministerial approval process was not normal. CMAL made no recommendation to Transport Scotland or to the Minister.”

There is a clear trail of key decisions and the basis on which they were taken.

We have seen all the documents that have been published. I mention in particular the email from Transport Scotland dated 9 April 2015. It says:

“The Scottish Ministers have also seen and understood that [the Director of Vessels’] paper and have noted and accepted the various technical and commercial risks identified and assessed by CMAL and have indicated that they are content for CMAL to proceed with the award of the Contracts.”

It is clear from the published documents that ministers were advised of the risks that had been identified by CMAL and of the mitigations that were put in place, and came to a decision on that basis. Is that a fair assessment?