Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 10 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1122 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01

Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Daniel Johnson

What should happen? If there is a failure to invest, does the member think that the yard should close?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01

Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Daniel Johnson

Does the Deputy First Minister recognise that there is a chicken-and-egg question there—

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01

Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Daniel Johnson

Will the member take an intervention?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01

Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Daniel Johnson

The report by Audit Scotland and the subsequent report by the Public Audit Committee are stark and emphatic, and Richard Leonard’s words emphasised that. We already know about the Government’s incompetence, which has led to years of suffering for island communities and to a £400 million bill being picked up by the taxpayer. That is why we have taken the unusual step of seeking to amend the motion. That is not something that would normally happen, but it is important, because the issues raised by the committee’s report are substantial.

I urge members to read page 11 of the report, which lists the committee’s first four conclusions. The first conclusion is that the committee has “significant concerns” about the long-term financial sustainability of the yard. The second conclusion is that part of the problem is the “significant reputational damage” that has been caused by the process of overseeing the two vessels. Although the third conclusion is that the committee “notes” the Scottish Government’s financial support, the fourth conclusion is that “urgent investment” is required to secure the yard’s future.

I point members back to the second conclusion, on the reputational damage to the yard. Why did that reputational damage come about? It came about because the Scottish National Party Government used the yard as a political football for a political stunt. That politicisation is the exact reason for the reputational damage.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01

Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Daniel Johnson

I will do in a moment.

There is not just a financial story to be told—the Government and, indeed, all of us have a moral responsibility to ensure that the investment goes in, so that the yard can have the future that we all know that it deserves.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01

Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Daniel Johnson

If it is brief.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01

Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Daniel Johnson

It is not extra.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01

Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Daniel Johnson

Perhaps she can respond to that point.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01

Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Daniel Johnson

What has happened since then? A £400 million bill is being picked up by the taxpayer—that is on the Scottish Government.

We all know that, beyond the Glen Rosa, the key to the long-term sustainability of Ferguson’s yard is simple—it needs orders. It is welcome that Ferguson’s has secured work through BAE Systems to build the next generation of Royal Navy warships. That is proof that the United Kingdom Labour Government’s investment in defence is supporting skilled jobs in Scotland.

However, the subcontracted fabrication work on HMS Birmingham is not, on its own, enough to sustain the yard and its workforce; Ferguson’s needs a steady supply of whole-ship orders. As we have heard, the Government promised to invest £14.2 million in modernisation, but, 18 months later, only £500,000 of that has been forthcoming. That is not good enough.

During that time, the Scottish Government has issued a contract for seven small electric Caledonian MacBrayne ferries—but to a Polish firm. A Scottish yard that employs Scottish workers and that is owned by the Scottish Government is losing vital contracts to foreign yards, while the Government prevaricates on its investment promise to make the yard competitive. This is a party whose mantra is, apparently, “Stronger for Scotland”. That is almost as big a joke as using two ferries as a punchline. It is laughable, but that is the catch-22 situation that the Scottish Government has created: it will not provide the money until orders are forthcoming, but the yard cannot secure those orders without the investment that it needs.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01

Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Daniel Johnson

The Subsidy Control Act 2022 is clear—this has not changed since 2014—that there are several criteria that can be used, including local context and social value, and a direct award is certainly possible. If the Scottish Government wants to prevent the issue from being a political football, it should provide the yard with the investment that it needs in order to operate.

That brings me to my second point. We know that CMAL did not take account of the immense social value that the small ferries contract would have brought to Scotland and to Inverclyde. Despite scoring strongly on the technical aspect of the bid, Ferguson Marine lost out on price to a yard that has no obligation to meet the same high standard of labour laws that we have in this country. The Government needs to develop, at pace, a model of public procurement that takes account of social value. Procurement law has not changed since 2014—