Seòmar agus comataidhean

Auditor General, you mentioned the word “completion”. That was part of whatever shape the KPI framework took. People decided to award themselves a bonus on completion of the hull, which was years late. How on earth can that have been? Why was that not for “successful completion” or “timescaled completion”? Why was that kind of language not part of a bonus award scheme? How could that still be validly paid, even if the completion was years late?

Do you think that that money is ultimately recoverable? I need to ask that question, and I am sure that the public are asking it. It beggars belief that a bonus could be applied, given that the boats are five years late. What constitutes bonus criteria in any of that to justify the senior managers taking that award?

Can you pinpoint any timing issue? When exactly were the bonuses taken compared with when more public funds were being given to the yard? Can you draw any comparison there? Were they closely associated in time? I am trying to get at whether the bonuses were paid while the public purse was paying the yard more money to complete the ships.

You have answered the question about whether FMPG sought approval, and you have made it clear that it did not.

Finally, Auditor General, do you think that the decision to award the bonus payments shows a complete lack of awareness of the seriousness of the situation in the yard? Do you think that the management team awarding itself those bonuses was completely and utterly inappropriate?

I think that we needed that assurance. Clearly, the secondments provide an income stream. We are waiting for the value and the figures that are associated with that. That income will go to the yard, but it is the Scottish Government that is ultimately paying for the contractors who come in. Provided that those are different skills, however, that is the assurance that we are looking for.

I have a few questions on the bonus payment issue. Auditor General, you said in your opening remarks that FMPG is required to comply with the Scottish public finance manual requirements. Do you think that the process of awarding those bonuses to the senior management team without any reference to performance indicators complies with the requirements in the manual?

Who would have ultimately approved that? Was that a senior management or a board decision? Surely the six people who got the bonus were not part of that decision-making process.

Auditor General, the yard is able to offer 18 secondments to BAE Systems, and yet it is bringing in contractors to complete the work that we are discussing. How do we square that? Are the skills that are going out different from the ones that are needed to come in? Can you explain that? It does not make sense to me that the yard would let 18 staff be seconded when it needs to bring in contractors to complete the work.

I want to touch on leadership, accountability and whether there is a role for audit in the CPP process. The committee has heard some great examples of CPPs that are working particularly well in a number of areas of Scotland, but that is not uniform; some CPPs might need some assistance and help to improve, and one of the ingredients that we think might contribute to that is effective local leadership. I want to find out whether you agree with that.

Someone who gave evidence to the committee made the really useful comment that effective leaders

“should leave silos, logos and egos at the door”,—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 7 March 2023; c 69.]

which struck a chord with members.

Broadly speaking, minister, do you agree? Is there a job of work to be done in sharing good practice in local leadership to make CPPs more effective?

Councillor Heddle, can you offer a few comments on the leadership issue? Across COSLA, you must see really good and effective community planning partnerships working and, perhaps, some that need to improve. Is the successful ingredient local leadership that provides dynamic engagement with local people on the ground? In your view, is that something that we can share across most authorities in Scotland?

Thank you for that. While we wait in hope that Councillor Heddle comes back in, I will move on and ask the minister about broader accountability and the role for audit. We know that CPPs are not formal accountable bodies, but they are very much part of the reporting process that sits with the agencies that the planning partnerships work with. Where should the accountability line for CPPs go? Should there be a formal accountability channel?

I remember that Audit Scotland did a report on CPPs and their effectiveness about 10 years ago, on the 10th anniversary of the setting up of CPPs. One of Audit Scotland’s comments at the time was that it was unable to show that CPPs had had a significant impact on delivering local outcomes. I think that that has changed significantly in the past 10 years—you have given us a number of examples. Where do you see the accountability and audit role sitting? Should it sit with Audit Scotland or the Accounts Commission, should there be some other mechanism, or should it not happen at all?