Chamber and committees

In response to the first of the two questions that Mr Simpson put to me, I advise him that the details that I have set out today are the assessment by the chief executive of the build programme of hull 801. That is the rationale for the details that I have set out to Parliament. There is no reason other than the build programme that the chief executive has set out, and that is what I have reported to Parliament today.

Mr Simpson raises a fair point, which I acknowledged in my statement, that, when there is a delay to the timescale, there might well be a delay to the finance. However, I assure Mr Simpson that what I and my officials have been doing, and what will continue to be done, is essential scrutiny of the merits of the financial case that is being put to us for any additional resources. That scrutiny has been applied, which is why I have got to a position today where I am satisfied that the original proposition of £21 million of further cost in this financial year merits being paid. I was not in that position when I addressed Parliament in December, but I am now.

I assure Mr Simpson that we are acting with all possible endeavour to ensure that the costs are contained and that the estimates that I have put on the record today are the best estimates from the information that we have available to us. However, we are challenging and scrutinising the detail of those estimates.

There is a lot in what Mr Sweeney says and I hope that he will take some comfort from my answers to Katy Clark and Neil Bibby. I am committed to a long-term agenda for Ferguson Marine and to taking the necessary steps to ensure that that can be realised. A number of the elements that Mr Sweeney put to me are detailed and complex propositions that must be very carefully worked through, but I give him an assurance that the Government is committed to such a process.

Obviously, we want the yard to be able to operate in a commercial environment, and a range of opportunities are available. We have talked about the concept of the small vessel programme. Jackie Dunbar puts to me the propositions in relation to ScotWind. I had a meeting on Tuesday with the leader of Shetland Islands Council and the Minister for Transport to discuss the interisland ferries, and I had a meeting earlier this year with the leader of Orkney Islands Council in the Deputy Presiding Officer’s constituency to look at the issue of interisland ferries there and their renewal.

Many of the issues that we are wrestling with about the age of the network are also relevant in both the Orkney and the Shetland contexts. There is actually a substantial abundance of shipbuilding opportunity, which I think makes particularly valid Katy Clarke’s point and Neil Bibby’s point about ensuring that we have yards that are able to undertake that work in Scotland. The Government is committed to that objective.

I appreciate the difficulties that we have with the two vessels. We have four other vessels that are in construction or procurement at the present moment—two will be used on the Islay routes and a further two will be used on the Skye triangle to improve services there. That will give us six new large vessels in the network in the space of about the next three years, and that will give us the opportunity to redeploy vessels and, ideally, to be able to retain additional tonnage, which will provide resilience should any weaknesses in the network present themselves from time to time.

I appreciate the unsatisfactory nature of the situation that we find ourselves in now, but I hope that Ariane Burgess and her constituents take some reassurance from the fact that the Government’s investment programme will result in increased capacity and tonnage and more reliability in the years to come.

I am surprised to hear that from Donald Cameron. I thought that one obligation upon members of Parliament was to listen to what people actually say. Mr Bibby might be my witness here, because I apologised in my answer to him. I am not sure whether Donald Cameron was late getting here—in which case he should apologise to the Presiding Officer—or whether he was not listening.

I apologise again for the inconvenience, distress and difficulty that has been caused. However, I also put on record that, at the same time that all that has been happening, the Government’s investment in ferries has increased very significantly indeed. [Interruption.]

Do not start shouting at me. Do not start: listen to me for a minute. Listen to this. This Government has increased sailings. A few years ago, there was no Mallaig to Lochboisdale service—the Government put the money in place for that. We put a new boat, the MV Loch Seaforth, on to the Stornoway to Ullapool route and put extra capacity on to the Mull route with the MV Loch Frisa. At the same time, investment—[Interruption.] If Mr Lumsden would stop shouting for a minute and listen to my answer, Parliament might be a slightly better place.

There are difficulties and there is inconvenience and distress, but there has also been a heck of a lot of investment.

That material is the subject of regular dialogue. For example, I speak with the chief executive of Ferguson’s on a monthly basis and my officials do so on a very regular basis that is more frequent than weekly. There is also formal reporting on a quarterly basis to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and to the Permanent Secretary and me on a monthly basis. There is a regular flow of information that monitors the specific expenditure that is under way to ensure that the legitimate issues that Mr Beattie puts to me can be properly addressed.

I am very happy to engage on those questions. I think that we have a shared interest in this particular point. What I cannot commit to is what the nature of the advice on the direct award might be, because there might be commercial sensitivity around some of the issues involved in that. I give Katy Clark the commitment that, whatever the Government can share openly with Parliament about this process, it will share. I recognise our shared endeavour. We both have an interest in protecting shipbuilding on the Clyde.

I do not know whether I can be specific on the point that Mr Mountain puts to me. I understand that it is a serious point, but I am not sure that I can give him quite the precision of answer that he seeks about what the stage of crewing will be. However, what is envisaged with the Glen Sannox is that, over the summer, before the handover date, extensive sea trials of the vessel will be under way as part of the preparation for the handover.

I do not know whether I am technically equipped to give Mr Mountain a specific answer on that, but I will question that point and write to him in due course to make sure that I can give the clarity that his question merits.

In all of this, the intention of ministers has been to support the retention and development of shipbuilding on the Clyde. Back when Ferguson’s went into administration, in 2014, I led the Government’s efforts to secure a rescue of Ferguson’s. The purpose of that was to preserve the very employment that Mr Bibby talks about—of some of the finest people I have met in my life: the workforce of Ferguson’s. I know a number of them personally, going way back in my parliamentary career. They are good and decent people who know their skill.

I make no apology for trying to protect employment on the Clyde in relation to shipbuilding, because I know how important it is for everybody and for who we are as a country. However, there are difficulties and challenges in the execution of the contract, and I make no bones about that. I have set out—[Interruption.] I think that Mr Bibby, from a sedentary position, is asking me to apologise for that. I have apologised for it before and I apologise for it again. It is a matter of deep regret to me.

On the question of the bonuses, I think that the bonuses are reprehensible. The Government did not know about them. The Government found out about them as a consequence of the audit work. We were never consulted about them and we should have been consulted about them. I find them reprehensible, and we are assessing what actions we can take in that respect.

On the question of an independent inquiry, there has been a lot of scrutiny of the Ferguson’s issues. Parliamentary committees have looked at that—Mr Leonard chairs the Public Audit Committee, which is looking at many of those questions. I think that it would be premature for me to say anything, and, as Mr Bibby knows, I am not going to be on the front bench for much longer, so I will not commit to any further inquiries.

On the final point, in relation to the voice of the workforce, I have listened carefully over many years to the voice of the workforce. The Government is doing exactly what the workforce wanted, which is investing in that yard. We have been doing that, although we get criticised for it. The investment has been put in. [Interruption.] I do not think there is much support for investment in the yard from the Conservative side of the chamber, from what I can hear being shouted at me in the background, but I assure Mr Bibby of the Government’s commitment to invest in the yard for the future.

The issue of a direct award is one on which the Government has to proceed with great care in terms of all the issues that we are rehearsing here. We will have to make sure that we get the arrangements for that correct, if it is possible to do so.

On the small vessel replacement programme, the Government is committed to on-going investment in the ferry network. We have the two vessels that have been procured, and we have four further vessels that will enhance the network. We are looking for other opportunities to enhance tonnage. However, the small vessel replacement programme, to which Ferguson’s has contributed significantly through the construction of—if my memory serves me correctly—three vessels, already demonstrates the strength of the yard in that respect.