Seòmar agus comataidhean

We arrived at it through discussions, the market awareness that we have from work elsewhere with vessels that we have procured from Turkey and the awareness that we have of the estimated time that it would take to go through the procurement process and for the ship to be built and delivered. I stress that May 2027 would be the earliest possible date that we could see a reprocured 802 delivered from elsewhere.

No. I will need to check, but I do not think that that was part of the consideration. The consideration was about completing 802 or reprocuring it elsewhere. Whether FMPG could have been part of that procurement process is for deliberation, but it was purely about estimating the cost and the delivery timescale of reprocurement compared with those of completing 802 at the yard, which we are currently progressing.

That was not scientific. I concur with Mr Hoy’s assertion on that.

The overriding consideration for me was the impact on island communities of not completing vessel 802 at the yard as quickly as possible. Colleagues who are here at the meeting and other colleagues in the Parliament have acknowledged that it was the right decision to ensure that 802 was completed as quickly as possible because of the impact on island communities. It does not take a deep dive or a wide assessment to understand that impact, because we have been living it in the disruption that there has been for island communities for so long.

The reference that I made to conversations that I have had with Stuart McMillan and Ronnie Cowan was anecdotal and not scientific, as Mr Hoy suggests.

Convener, to be fair, that is not the only suggestion that I have made about the reasons for the substantive elements of the delays. I spoke earlier about the design problems with the vessels, which are the substantive element. However, with regard to the more recent issues and Mr Hoy’s questions about the future and progress on completing the two vessels, the overriding issues over the past number of months—and the reason why additional funds have been requested—have certainly been driven by the design difficulties but also by the economic factors. There is no doubt about that. Mr Irwin’s seeking my authority made that plain. He was not able to forecast the final cost with sufficient certainty because of the economic turbulence in the market. I do not think that it would be fair to put that to one side and suggest that the project is somehow immune from the economic conditions that we are working in when other projects are suffering from those difficulties.

Yards around the world would be able to look at what is being said in the report and benchmark their own work based on what has been produced as part of it. Competitiveness is not the only element that I must consider; there is also the intellectual property that is attached to the report from Teneo’s point of view. Unfortunately, I am not able to release that information.

Again, we were considering what could be released, but it has been concluded that we cannot release the report. We were not looking to—

No, but we were looking to be as co-operative as possible. As Mr Irwin set out, we were looking at everything possible so that we could be as co-operative with the committee as we possibly could be, to ensure that it had as much information as it could have. The conclusion is that we cannot publish that report.

I thank Mr Coffey for that question. The committee provides a critical function in holding the Government to account. Again, as I did during the debate, I thank you all for the work that you do to scrutinise not just this project but other projects and work that the Government delivers.

As Mr Cook said, we have the directorate in place and are doing the work, on which Ms Hall leads, to provide that rigour and put as much information as we can into the public domain, as well as providing it to this committee to ensure that you are able to discharge your duties. Again, I give the commitment that we will provide as much information as we can. I understand the committee’s frustration that I am not able to go further with regard to the due diligence reports, but when we can provide information, we absolutely will do so, so that you are able to do your work and the public is able to have confidence in the decisions that we take.

As I said in response to the convener, inflation and the wider economic conditions are obviously a factor. The design difficulties are a major factor relating to the cost overruns and delays. As I said, I hope that Ferguson’s, in delivering the vessels, will be able to mitigate those difficulties as they relate to 802 as much as possible by learning from the problems that there have been with 801. I cannot guarantee that, and I do not think that the yard would be able to guarantee that until work on the vessels has progressed, but I hope that there will be a timeous and cost-effective delivery of the two vessels for our island communities.

Thank you very much, convener. I appreciate the opportunity to provide the committee with an update in relation to the written authority that I provided in May to secure the continued build of vessel 802 at Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow.

During the meeting of the committee on 1 June, when the director-general economy was in attendance—as well as in the recent Public Audit Committee debate on 8 June, which I responded to—it was clear from the outset that the committee was interested in the process of written authority, as the steps that a minister takes in that regard have not been taken in quite some time. The process is rare in Scotland, so I am of course more than happy to discuss the detail of it during this session.

As part of the process for providing written authority, I was satisfied that the accountable officer—in this case, the director-general—scrutinised and interrogated the projected costs that FMPG provided and assessed those costs against alternative options. That work followed an independent assessment of the assurance work to test the underlying assumptions and robustness of the data on the estimated cost to complete vessels 801 and 802.

To be clear, if the written authority to complete vessel 802 at Ferguson’s were not provided, we could be looking at a delay in deploying a new vessel to May 2027 at the earliest—four years from now and two and a half years after 802 is due to be delivered. As I advised at the time, I do not consider it acceptable to ask our island communities to wait that further period, and I continue to stand by that.

Although the impacts on our island communities and on our economy are not covered by the value-for-money assessment, they have guided the decisions that I have taken, which recognise the broader social and economic benefits of completing both ferries and ensuring that the yard continues to have a strong platform on which to progress and prosper. I remain committed to supporting a sustainable future for Ferguson Marine; providing written authority confirms the Scottish Government’s intention to deliver vessel 802 at the yard and provides a platform on which future success can be built.

As you have said, convener, I am joined by Colin Cook and Kate Hall, and we look to answer any questions that you have in your scrutiny of the process behind the latest written authority that I provided.