Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

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

Criathragan 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 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 6 May 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1865 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

So one was approved by Mr Tydeman.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

I cannot remember when David Tydeman was fired. To save me looking it up, was that before or after the report was concluded?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

I completely agree with that. Mr McMillan and I have been in meetings in which we, and others, have argued that the yard needs investment to modernise in order to be able to compete for orders, and ultimately to return to the private sector, which was the Government’s ambition for the yard. It needs to modernise—I am in no doubt that that is required.

However, if the yard does not win any of the small vessel replacement programme work, how much extra work does it need to be able to continue?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

I will express it in another way. Let us say that the yard gets to September and it has finished the Glen Rosa, which is off and sailing, and carrying passengers, and there is no further work. How long can the yard continue, in your view, without extra work?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

Yes, but at some point, the Government is going to have to make a decision on what it does about the future of the yard.

I have a couple of other questions. At paragraph 7 of your report, you mention “Under Recoveries funding”. Can you tell us what that is? According to your report, it amounts to £1 million per month.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

Okay. Thank you.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

Thank you, convener—my question follows on from some of your earlier questions.

Auditor General, from reading your report and hearing the evidence today, in which we have heard about big payments being made without permission, it seems to me that the situation at FMPG has a bit of a Water Industry Commission for Scotland feel to it. You know about the work that we have been doing on money that was being spent without approval at WICS.

The convener asked about the case of the secondee who ultimately set up a limited company. That fact was discovered by the accountable officer. Was it discovered before the previous chief executive was sacked?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

Was it Mr Tydeman who approved the arrangement?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

I will follow on from the line of questioning about Ferguson Marine’s business plan. According to you, the plan

“assumed the direct award of the contract for the Small Vessel Replacement Programme”.

It was wrong to make that assumption, as it cannot be assumed that the firm is going to get that work. Indeed, it later transpired that the firm is now one of six firms in line for that contract, so there is no guarantee that it will get it. Does that not fatally hull the business plan?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

Before John Boyd comes in on that, can you say whether there has there been any attempt to change the business plan in light of the new development that means that the firm has to compete for the work? I think that it was entirely predictable that that would be the case. Has Ferguson Marine done any revision to the business plan?