Seòmar agus comataidhean

We took that decision as the Government, yes.

Yes. When I provide in writing the timeline of the process before issuing written authority on 14 May, it will become clear that sufficient rigour was given to interrogate that. I ensured that we had looked at all possible permutations of the cost analysis to ensure that I was confident that the process was rigorous and that it had been carried out fully and appropriately, not just within the Government but with our external advisers. We considered all possible permutations, and I was confident that that was the right thing to do.

There is an on-going process of interaction with the management at the yard to ensure that everything possible is being done to keep costs to a minimum. Obviously, decisions have been made on the design of the ships that have contributed a significant amount to the additional costs, and they have been part of your deliberations over a long period of time. We continue to have discussions with management at the yard to make sure that everything possible is being done to minimise costs and that cost control measures are in place.

My predecessors in my portfolio, transport portfolios and others have made themselves more than available in the inquiry that has been conducted in this case. They can, obviously, speak for themselves on the decisions that they have taken. However, my overriding concern is to ensure that we complete the vessels as quickly, timeously and cost effectively as possible. That is what island communities deserve and it is one of the most important elements in my portfolio. I will keep pushing as hard as possible to ensure the timeous and cost-effective delivery of the vessels.

Hmm.

I have set out why I cannot publish it. There will be a debate about that—and you, convener, will perhaps hold a different view on it than I do—but I am not willing to put the yard at a competitive disadvantage or jeopardise its ability to compete for future orders.

The work that Teneo did went into a substantial amount of detail. It worked with the yard to ensure that all potential permutations on risks to the contract were considered, particularly on 802. It was able to give advice off the back of that. The work involved more than just looking at numbers on a spreadsheet or comparing costs; it examined the processes that are in place at the yard. It is well recognised that Teneo is an international expert in the field, and the advice that it has provided has given me assurance that I was able to take the correct decision in issuing written authority to see the completion of 801 and 802.

No; I did not. That was a collective decision taken in the Government. Gregor Irwin suggested that it was the right—

The narrow value-for-money case that I describe is in the direct comparison between completing vessel 802 and procuring elsewhere, with elements of economic consideration being part of that. In his letter to the convener and to me, Gregor Irwin sets out some of the uncertainty that there is within the market. The cost comparison meant that, in the value-for-money assessment that he has to carry out as an accountable officer, he was not able to conclude with confidence that there was a value-for-money case for completing vessel 802 at the yard.

The consideration that I feel that I am duty bound to take is much wider. It includes the cost to the islanders of a further delay in the vessels. We already know that our island communities have suffered significant disruption. As somebody who was born and brought up on an island, I know how difficult a time people in the islands will have been having, so I am acutely aware of the need to deliver the vessels as quickly as possible. That was at the forefront of my consideration.

Alongside that, there is also the consideration of the future of the yard. The narrow value-for-money assessment is neutral on whether the future of the yard rests on vessel 802 being completed at Ferguson’s or procured elsewhere. I felt duty bound not to consider that neutrally because I felt that, if vessel 802 was not completed at the yard, it would have been put at risk. That was part of my consideration, along with the workforce and the contribution that the yard makes to the local economy. I have heard directly from like likes of Stuart McMillan and Ronnie Cowan about their experience in the local community and about the discussions that they have with those from local businesses, who told them that, without the economic contribution that the yard makes, their businesses would not be viable.

I have to make a wider consideration that goes beyond what has been described as the narrow assessment, which is about the cost to complete at the yard versus reprocuring elsewhere and also elements of economic consideration beyond that. What I have to consider goes much wider, and that is why I made the decision that I did.

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.