Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

To be clear, I do not think that that characterises the director-general’s statement appropriately. We considered whether anything could be released, and it was decided that the report and its contents were commercially sensitive and that releasing the report would put the competitiveness of the yard at risk, so it would not be appropriate for us to release it.

Yes, I requested access to it to ensure that I was fully informed about the work that had been undertaken and to ensure that I was confident that it was a robust assessment of the costs and that the value-for-money assessment was robust and accurate. However, I stress again that that is a relatively narrow value-for-money assessment that does not take into account the wider considerations that I must take into account, as a minister, including the delay for island communities and the future of the yard, the workforce and the local economy in Inverclyde.

Yes.

A decision was taken in the Government, jointly by officials and ministers, that the commercial sensitivity of that information meant that it would not be appropriate to release the report. There is nothing in it to hide. There is no issue with the numbers—that is not the problem. The problem is the commercial sensitivity of the report and the fact that that report is the intellectual property of Teneo. That makes it difficult for us to release it. We do not want to put the competitiveness of the yard at risk. I think that you alluded to that, yourself, convener, in your letter. However, to put that in the public domain absolutely would put the competitiveness of the yard at risk and jeopardise its future.

I am happy to provide the full timeline of events in writing to ensure that I get the exact dates. The process that was undertaken led to the decision being taken on 14 May, when I gave the written authority. I was before Parliament on 16 May to ensure that I was informing it at the earliest possible opportunity, holding myself accountable to colleagues for the fact that I had taken that decision. I have a full list of the dates that run up to the decision, which I am happy to provide in writing so that the committee can see them.