Seòmar agus comataidhean

Therefore, at that point, there was every reason to believe that FMEL was going to—

When I get the chance, I will ask questions of CMAL, but Transport Scotland had a responsibility in this, as well.

Before I do so, I would like to get a small clarification from the witnesses. In connection with the builders refund guarantee, paragraph 21 of the Auditor General’s report says:

“During the negotiations, and contrary to what was included in its bid”.

As I understand it, it was mandatory that a builder’s refund guarantee be provided as part of the bid but, subsequently, FMEL came back and said that it could not provide that. The implication in the Auditor General’s report is that, in the original bid, FMEL had accepted that the BRG was mandatory, but that, subsequently, FMEL said that it could not fulfil that part of the bid. Elsewhere in the report, there is reference to the fact that, when FMEL completed its bid, it was silent on the subject of the BRG, so there was an assumption that FMEL had accepted that. Can you clarify that? Did FMEL actually accept the BRG or was it assumed, because FMEL did not challenge it, that it was accepted?

Were you not the sponsor?

Just to clarify in my mind, I recognise that CMAL granted the contract, signed it off, managed it and so on, but what reporting to Transport Scotland did it undertake on the progress of the contract and the issues that arose in it?

However, we ended up with a failed supplier.

I will take a slightly different angle on the money. A good chunk of the money was paid out. FMEL got most of the value of the vessels paid to it, actually. However, it also got loan support. As I understand it, that was not visible to CMAL because of commercial issues around it.

What was the rationale for that decision? Who made the decision to give those loans and, basically, provide working capital? What were the loan conditions and were they adhered to?

Did CBC put any money into that?

My impression is that CMAL fairly consistently raised concerns for an extended period. What was done about that? What intervention was made to try to get the project back on schedule? The awareness that CMAL’s relationship with FMEL had broken down should have created additional concern. On top of that, my understanding from the documents that we have is that CMAL wanted to stop the payments and took legal advice, which said that it had to continue them. Did all that not raise concerns about what was happening?

Is monthly reporting normal?

At what point did Transport Scotland become concerned at the tenor of the reports that were going in, and what did Transport Scotland do?