Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, minister. I welcome what you have just said, but I have a couple of questions. I am happy for responses to be relatively brief and perhaps followed up in correspondence.

First, I am pleased that a committee will scrutinise these matters on an on-going basis. That has been slightly lacking in the Parliament, so if the successor committee can follow through on how Scotland is delivering for veterans, that would be a positive thing more generally. The minister has embraced the additional duties placed on the Government, and there is nothing to fear.

My substantive question is about education and training, which, to me, are a shared space. If an armed forces veteran has given 15 or 20 years of their life to the military, the Ministry of Defence and the UK Government have a duty and responsibility to manage their transition back into civilian life in a dignified, respectful and meaningful way. I have not looked in detail at how well they do or do not do that, but what about the UK Government and UK military saying that education and training are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and that it is for the Scottish Parliament to have due regard to that, because they have done their bit? I am sure that that is not the nature of the discussions, but what reassurance can you give that there will be dialogue to ensure that that shared space for veterans is suitably resourced, not just by the Scottish Government but, on an on-going basis, by the UK Government?

I find that encouraging. I just want to put on record—with brevity, I promise, convener—the fact that I have spoken in recent months to two veterans who have corresponded with the minister on this issue. It has been a long time since they served in the armed forces, but one of them made the point that, when they joined, Glasgow City Council still had council housing, and promises were made about housing and accommodation. Housing stock transfer then occurred, and those promises could not be fulfilled. Therefore, I think that this duty on public bodies in Scotland could have a real impact on proper quality service design and delivery for veterans.

Another veteran said to me the other day—and I am not making any case for or against this—that they felt as if there were something symbolic about how Scotland was supporting veterans. They said that, for example, some bus companies were rolling out free bus travel for veterans. Could that sort of thing not be extended across the country in some structured way by the Government?

I will just leave that sitting there, minister. You do not need to respond, but my constituents are saying these things to me and I had the opportunity this morning to put their comments on the record.

Convener, before we move on, given that this may be the last time that the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans will be in front of us—and considering the Herculean challenges that he has had during the past few weeks in trying to make Parliament deliver on all the legislation that is still to be disposed of—I put on record my thanks to the minister for all his efforts in the Parliament, not only in the short term but during the longer term.

That was really helpful. I should say that the veterans who spoke to me about the bus pass made the point that they could use it to meet up with colleagues who were now dispersed across Scotland and beyond and keep up those connections from their armed forces days. However, I agree with everything that you have said.

Good morning, everyone. I want to ask about something that, I hope, is a bit of a good news story but which requires scrutiny, too—that is, the £14.2 million that the yard has notionally been guaranteed by the Scottish Government over a two-year period. David, I think that you commented on this to the committee as long ago as November 2024.

I have one final question. I am looking through your previous evidence to the committee, which was very helpful. You suggested that the investment of £14.2 million would be almost a “catch-up” for the yard, because successful commercial yards would, as a matter of course, be investing over £1 million, and possibly as much as £2 million, annually or regularly, to ensure that they are always fit for the future and at the cutting edge, so that they can win profitable contracts.

That raises a question about what happens once we have invested the £14.2 million. The day that you install new equipment, a new piece of replacement kit may appear on the horizon. What is the sink fund for replacements as a matter of course, once the catch-up has taken place? Where does that money come from?

I really hope that we get to a stable state with Ferguson Marine in the next few years, and it becomes a good-news story.

I think that all of us—including the convener, despite the terrier-like scrutiny—will want to see the yard being run successfully, profitably and for the public benefit, so I thank you for those responses.

Crikey. At that time, you said that the money would be used to get shot of “equipment that is obsolete”; to repair equipment that “is not working”; and to upgrade equipment that needed “to be upgraded”. Then you started to set out how the money could be portioned out. I think that you said that £4 million would be used to upgrade obsolete equipment, and about £8 million—or over half of the overall amount—would be used to pivot towards ensuring that the yard was fit for future work. I just wanted to put on the record some of the details of the evidence that you gave in 2024.

The Government has said:

“To date, the Government has received 11 separate capital expenditure (Capex) requests from Ferguson Marine. Following rigorous due diligence, all 11 have been approved, with a combined total value of over £570,000.”

Everything is relative but, compared with that £570,000, the £14.2 million that was announced in 2024 represents a huge, substantial potential investment. It is very clear what that money was to be used for, but to date only £570,000 has been spent. Can you explain why the process seems to have been so slow?