Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for clearing that up; it is helpful to get that on the record.

The committee identified a particular concern. During the course of the ferries inquiry, we uncovered the fact that Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd had been directed by the minister or ministers to award the contract to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd—as it was at the time—but that there is no public record of that. Therefore, one of the recommendations that this committee made was that, in instances in which there is a shareholder authorisation—that is, where the Government is the sole shareholder and overrides the board of a non-departmental public body—that should be a matter of record, just as a written authority is a matter of record. Mr Irwin has recently issued a second written authority on the construction of vessel 802—the Glen Rosa.

We think that there is an equivalence there. If the fact that a minister has overridden the judgment of a civil servant ought to be a matter of public record, the fact that a minister has overridden a judgement by the board of a non-departmental public body should also be recorded, in line with the rules that are set out in the Scottish public finance manual.

That is a very helpful answer.

The deputy convener has some other questions to put to you.

You sat here exactly 12 months ago and said the same thing. Mr Irwin said:

“the appointment of auditors in the UK is a priority for it.” —[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 18 January 2024; c 39.]

If that is a “priority”, I would hate to see something that was not. There is a real issue here, is there not? In this year’s Scottish consolidated accounts section 22 report, £130 million is the estimate of the exposure of public money. There is public interest in the matter. Why is there not more transparency? Why is more pressure not being brought to bear by the Scottish Government?

The select committee of the House of Commons concluded a couple of years ago that Mr Gupta, who is the sole director,

“fails to fulfil the criteria that we believe should be applied to define a fit and proper person for the purposes of receiving any form of Government support.”

Why do you take a different opinion?

Permanent secretary, you began this session by welcoming the fact that you had once again got an unqualified audit opinion from the Auditor General on the Scottish Government’s consolidated accounts, which took my mind to the GFG Alliance. Its auditors walked out because they wished to put a qualification on the accounts of the GFG Alliance but the owner of that company was not prepared to accept that. Since then, the company’s accounts have not been audited. Not only that, but there has been some enforcement action by Companies House and the company is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office for money laundering, suspected fraud and fraudulent trading. What is the Scottish Government doing about it?

Thank you very much indeed, permanent secretary. I will begin by asking you about the transparency review. Could you tell us a bit more about your timescales for reporting on the review and the scope of it? I am a little unclear about the extent to which it is an all-embracing top-to-bottom review of how the Government is working, and the extent to which it is about the strategic commercial assets division, which Mr Irwin referred to in the letter that we received from him on Friday.

Our main agenda item this morning is consideration of the section 22 report, “The 2023-24 audit of the Scottish Government Consolidated Accounts”. I am pleased to welcome four witnesses, who are here to represent the Government. John-Paul Marks is the permanent secretary, and is joined by Gregor Irwin, who is the director general for economy, Jackie McAllister, who is the chief financial officer, and Alyson Stafford, who is the director general of the Scottish exchequer.

We have a wide range of questions to put. Before we get to those, I invite the permanent secretary to make a short opening statement.

Stuart McMillan has a quick question on this point before we move on to Colin Beattie.

On that note, I draw this morning’s evidence session to a close.

Permanent secretary, I thank you and the team that you have brought with you, including Jackie McAllister, who has set us some homework—we usually set homework for the witnesses who come before us.

I also thank Gregor Irwin and Alyson Stafford for their time and their contributions this morning—you have given us plenty to think about, so I thank you for that.

Permanent secretary, I think that you are due to come in once more before you move on, so we look forward to seeing you again in a few weeks.

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the third meeting in 2025 of the Public Audit Committee, which is our first meeting in our new regular Wednesday morning slot.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on whether to take agenda items 3 and 4 in private. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

That is not really what I am asking about. I am asking about transparency and what I am suggesting to you is that one of this committee’s recommendations was that, where there is a shareholder authorisation or a shareholder override of a board decision, as there was in that case, that should be recorded.

The committee has written to the Deputy First Minister and to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to seek an assurance that that would be the direction of travel. When we look at the framework agreement for Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Ltd, that is in there. We are simply saying to you that, if it is in there, it should be transferred across to other similar arrangements, so that there is some visibility and transparency and that those interventions by ministers become a matter of routine public record.