That is exactly the flipside of what I was saying. It would be the devolved Administration with the majority of the stock in question that would take the lead and encourage all the other devolved Administrations to follow the same line. The objective would be achieved both ways.

Thank you.

Yes. My question is on spatial planning, so in some ways it is a pity that Elspeth Macdonald has left the meeting.

One of the conflicts is that everyone—wind farms, aquaculture, dredgers, scallop fishermen and diving—wants to use a bit of the resource. How do we regulate to ensure that everyone gets to use the resource and that they are good neighbours to the other people who want to use it?

Sorry—you have wrong-footed me there, convener. I was not sure that I was due to come in at this stage.

You are right, in fact, convener. I apologise—I should have been paying greater attention.

It is very nice to see you, cabinet secretary. My question is about the Scottish Government’s role in international fisheries. I was interested to hear you saying to Jim Fairlie that the Scottish Government would lead on some areas of fisheries management where the stocks were in its waters. Would the Scottish Government also lead when international negotiations are taking place, as it has the expertise, or would that be a question for the secretary of state? What would you like to see, and what do you think will happen?

All my interests are declared in the register of interests. In summary, I am part of a family farming partnership. I farm 500 acres, and I am the tenant of another 500 acres. I grow barley and beef cattle, and there are some ancillary let properties. I have a 50 per cent share in a salmon fishery on the River Spey, and I am a chartered surveyor; I am not currently practising, but that is one of my qualifications.

Any other details that the committee needs to see are laid out in my entry in the register of interests.

Thank you. We will be watching closely.

The whole of the previous panel, except for Elspeth Macdonald who had already left, lamented the loss of the inshore fisheries bill that the Government announced that it was going to introduce in 2016. It would be helpful to use such a bill as a vehicle to come up with inshore fisheries management plans. Do you agree and will you introduce such a bill?

I will follow up on that last question first, if I may.

In 2016, the Scottish Government announced that it wanted to produce an inshore fisheries bill. The rationale was that the Government did not feel that it understood or had control of the inshore fisheries as it should. Part of the plan was to include management plans on a zonal basis, as I understand it. The bill never came about. Was that a missed opportunity? Because of the shortness of time, I am happy to take a yes or no answer from Charles Millar and Elaine Whyte, if they are prepared to do that.

That is interesting. Perhaps it is just me, but I have numerous examples of FOI requests not being responded to within the time limit, even those that I have had to appeal. Even a simple question such as, “When will vessels 801 and 802 be delivered?” has been left unanswered for more than four weeks. Surely a Government minister with their finger on the pulse should know the answer to that. Will the minister undertake to look at the 14 per cent of FOI requests that did not make the cut and find out why they did not?

Yet again, we are discussing the inability of this incompetent Scottish Government to keep our islands connected. Four years ago, we needed to build one ferry every year to keep our fleet fit for purpose. Now, according to CalMac, because of the Government’s failings, we need to build two and a half ferries every year for the next 10 years to get back on track. That is a sad indictment.

Seven years ago, a contract was awarded to build two ferries; today, it appears that neither of them is close to completion. It took seven years to build an aircraft carrier and yet this Government has nothing to show for the hundreds of millions of pounds that we have spent—what a farce.

What went wrong? Things started to go wrong even before the contract was awarded. If we cast our minds back to 2014, the year of the divisive but definitive referendum, in August of that year, the Ferguson’s yard went into receivership, which was not good news for Scotland or the case for independence. Resolving the issue became a priority for the Government and for Alex Salmond. How fortuitous it was that, within a month—and before the referendum—a key SNP financial supporter and its economic adviser stepped up and purchased the yard. That was a coincidence, surely, and was not, as some have suggested, on the back of a promise that the yard would be awarded Government ferry contracts—perish that thought.

However, barely a year later, Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd—the new name of the yard—had indeed been awarded the contract. Let me list some of the attributes of the yard that were identified at the time of its tender. It had a highly skilled workforce, no doubt, but they had no management experience of shipbuilding, and none of the managers had been near a boat. It was the most expensive tender and had the most unrealistic delivery time. The company could not provide any evidence of financial security, and did not even have the support of the purchaser, CMAL. Bearing that in mind, why would it not be given the contract?

Next, we need to look at how the Scottish Government managed the contract. As Willie Rennie said, numerous SNP ministers played pass the parcel with this hot potato and they all had their fingers burned. There was Nicola Sturgeon, who had a hotline to Monaco and the owner and launched hull 801 in 2017 with wooden windows and funnels connected to engines that were not actually there. There was Humza Yousaf, the transport minister who could not even explain why there was a delay to the ferries when we passed the construction date. There was Derek Mackay, who signed off the payment of £127 million for a £97 million contract to Ferguson Marine, only to end up with two rusting hulls.

There was Michael Matheson, as cabinet secretary for transport, who assured everyone almost up until he left the appointment that everything was going right and that nothing was wrong. There was Kate Forbes—I am glad that she is back in the chamber—who oversaw the yard palming off control to a turnaround director, who achieved no turnaround of the yard’s fortunes. There was Fiona Hyslop, who claimed that the shipyard had a bright future ahead of it but had no knowledge of the depth of the problem, and there was Graeme Dey, who knew of the problems and who was content for a shipyard in Turkey to build the next hull.

Now it falls to Jenny Gilruth, who, after five weeks of being asked when the ferries would be delivered, was unable to confirm the date, leaving it to Kate Forbes to do so today. That is a pretty disappointing roll of honour; frankly, it is a roll of shame and each and every one of them should hang their heads in shame and embarrassment.

Who was that turnaround director who was appointed by the finance secretary? He was appointed after a single telephone interview and he of course came with the relevant shipbuilding experience, having been a cruise ship engineer 30 years ago. The previous company that he turned around went into liquidation shortly after he left it.

Business experience tells me that, for the first six months of a turnaround director’s appointment, they are part of the problem; after that, they become the problem. For nearly two years, the yard struggled on, rearranging the stores and rearranging the yard layout. Some people have said to me that it was about as useful as reorganising the chairs on the Titanic after it had hit the iceberg.

Finally, I want to mention costs. Apparently, this was a fixed-price contract, with 15 staged payments for each ferry. Someone therefore needs to explain to me and to the islanders how the Government allowed the payment of 82 per cent of the contract value before the ferries were even completed. That was how much the Government had paid when the yard went into receivership, but it does not stop there. Without CMAL’s knowledge, the Government lent FMEL £45 million—the Government did not tell CMAL that it had lent that money, when CMAL was still signing off payments before they went to the Government.

Today and at every opportunity, the Government has swept under the carpet the costs of the additional harbour infrastructure that is necessary to allow the new ferries to run. We have not even considered how much has been spent in each harbour to allow the ferries to come in, or the cost of the liquefied natural gas tanks. That is interesting, because we commissioned the ferries even though we do not have any LNG, so it will have to be delivered to the ferries in lorries that travel from Kent to allow them to run. I am sure that those are really good green policies.

When it comes down to it, we have heard today—unless I have got it wrong—that there is about another £140 million to be spent on the ferries, and we have already spent £140 million. My belief is that we will probably have spent £100 million on infrastructure by the time that we have completed it all. I think that we will have little change from £0.5 billion. If we open the books, we will find out the true costs at all stages.

I know that the Auditor General has been quoted, but I will quote him again. He said:

“The failure to deliver these two ferries, on time and on budget, exposes a multitude of failings. A lack of transparent decision-making, a lack of project oversight and no clear understanding of what significant sums of public money have achieved. And, crucially, communities still don’t have the lifeline ferries they were promised years ago.”

The situation is a complete mess and a complete demonstration of catastrophic mismanagement, as the REC Committee pointed out in 2021. What we really need is a public inquiry.