Chamber and committees

Thank you very much, convener. I will be brief in my opening statement because I am keen, as I am sure you are, to leave most of the time for questions. I thank the committee for the opportunity to be here and speak with you this morning.

Obviously, many of the matters that we will discuss have been covered in previous evidence sessions that the committee has undertaken. Information about some of them is already in the public domain. For example, there is the information that the Scottish Government has proactively published. I am happy to go over any of that, to confirm the evidence that you already have or to provide whatever further clarity on those matters the committee seeks.

It is important to say at the outset that I am acutely aware that the delay in relation to vessels 801 and 802 is having a very significant impact on island communities. That is a matter of considerable regret, and I absolutely recognise that the decisions on the procurement of those vessels, the progress—or lack of progress—since and the Scottish Government’s broader support for Ferguson’s shipyard are areas of significant interest and concern. The issues are obviously complex—I do not need to tell the committee that—and span a period of several years.

I record my thanks to Audit Scotland for the work that it did in preparing the report that has led to the committee’s inquiry. That has been an important part of the scrutiny process. To be clear, the Scottish Government accepts all the recommendations in the Audit Scotland report and, of course, we also accept unreservedly that the outcome in relation to the vessels is not what anyone, including the Scottish Government, would have expected at the point of contract award.

It is inevitable and understandable that decisions that were taken at different points—when the contract was awarded and thereafter—are now seen through the prism of what has developed since. I understand that. However, in seeking to make judgments or to set out the basis of decisions that were taken, it is important to consider what was before ministers at particular points. I will seek to provide as much insight into that as I can.

I am happy to address concerns around the announcement of Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd as the preferred bidder, the subsequent award of the contracts, the builders refund guarantee, milestone payments and the dispute resolution process. I am also happy to address issues relating to the loan payments that were made by the Scottish Government and the progress of the vessels since the yard came into public ownership.

Obviously, the project is still live—regrettably so—and the Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to delivering both ferries and supporting our island communities that rely heavily on such vessels daily.

I will stop there, convener. As I say, I am happy to get into any of those issues or, indeed, any other issues that the committee wants to explore with me.

Yes. Sorry—are you talking about the letter?

I understand that there is a typo in that letter relating to a particular date, on which the committee will be getting written clarification, but—subject to that—yes, I think that it meets those standards.

First, I believe, and am of the view, that Keith Brown answered the questions that were put to him by the committee. Secondly—perhaps more substantively, for today’s purposes—I am the First Minister: I am here to answer any questions, and the committee has me for as long as it wants this morning. I am not sure that anybody is going to do a word count on either the questions or the answers, but I am here to answer, to the best of my ability, any questions that the committee has.

I do not know whether the committee has invited Mr Brown to give evidence in the way that I am doing today. The committee is perfectly free to do so, but I am here today, as the head of the Scottish Government, to answer any questions that you put to me.

As I said, I noticed that last night, and you have noticed it. I have asked Transport Scotland the question, “How did that happen?” and I believe that it was an error. The fact of the matter is that we all have the full letter. I think that, in many respects, the tone, tenor and content of that letter has—to be perfectly frank—been misrepresented, so I am very happy indeed to go into as much detail as you want about every single paragraph of it.

I will not quote directly from the Audit Scotland report. I have it here, but I do not have it open in front of me. However, I have certainly read comments made by Audit Scotland—if not in the report then around the report when appearing before your committee—that it felt that it had full co-operation from the Scottish Government and had not been obstructed or had any relevant information withheld. Obviously, I am paraphrasing and not quoting directly.

There is the particular issue of the response of the minister at the time, Derek Mackay, to the submission of 8 October 2015, which led to the final award of the contract. Audit Scotland understandably raised concerns about the fact that it had not seen it. In fact, for a period, we thought that it did not exist, but it was then uncovered, and it has now been published. If it is not on the committee’s website, it is certainly on the Scottish Government’s website. If that is what the convener is referring to, much has been said about that, and understandably so.

As the committee would expect, I have reviewed all the information that the Scottish Government has published. Indeed, I have now done so on more than one occasion. The Scottish Government has provided a wealth of material and documents in relation to its decision making and the wider issues around that.

If anybody, particularly members of the committee, believes that there is information that has not been published and should be published, and if that is put to me today or subsequent to this meeting, I will certainly give best endeavours to ensuring that anything further that we can helpfully provide is provided. I absolutely give that assurance. I am here today to answer any and all questions that are put to me. If there are any that I cannot answer today, I assure the committee that I will come back to you on them.

There is an absolute determination and commitment on the part of me and my Government to be open and transparent to ensure that the issues are fully open to scrutiny and that we demonstrate the lessons that are being learned from all the experiences over the past few years.

Let me come back to you on the exact Cabinet decisions. The issues would have been reported to Cabinet by ministers saying, “We’re doing these things,” rather than through full Cabinet papers, on which Cabinet would take the decision.

No. I believe that the information that is published will show you that, because it shows, in a lot of detail, the different options that the Scottish Government looked at very rigorously. Project Kildonan looked at the different contingency options that were there. There was a lengthy period of time, so it is completely wrong to jump from May 2017 to nationalisation, and not to take proper account of all that happened in between, not least the loan provisions that the Scottish Government made, which I am sure that you may want to come on to later—

First, I and the Scottish Government are ultimately accountable. This is a public sector contract. First Ministers do not regularly sit before individual committees of the Parliament. I am not saying that I had any choice in the matter, but I welcome being here, because I recognise unreservedly that ultimate accountability.

We all—the Scottish Government; CMAL; to a lesser extent, to be fair, but nevertheless, I include CalMac; and Transport Scotland, which is an agency of the Scottish Government—have to reflect on all aspects, recognise whether decisions that we have taken could and should have been taken differently, and learn lessons from that. I do not shy away from that.

However, neither do I think that the fact can be escaped that this was a contract that a private company signed up to. It contracted to do a job that has not been done. Therefore, in my view, a significant degree of responsibility has to rest with FMEL and FMEL’s management at the time—not sole responsibility, and I am not saying that none of its concerns is legitimate, but it has to be part of this, too. Although I am sitting here readily accepting that there are lessons for the Scottish Government and for our agencies, I am not sure that I have heard that from FMEL. I have heard lots about why it is all somebody else’s fault. Absolutely, a degree of responsibility lies elsewhere. However, it is also important that it recognises that it contracted to do a job that was then not done. That has to be a significant part of it, too.

Me?