 Y cwmgoifitid y byddwyd yn cyfricios? A i ni'n rhoi Gwriam Simpson. Thank you to ask the Scottish government for what reason the chief executive of Ferguson Marine had his contract of employment terminated yesterday. Cabinet secretary, Mairi McCallum.未F laughter, the termination of the former chief executive officers contract is a matter for the board who are appointed by ministers to provide strategic direction at Ferguson Marine port Glasgow. The chair of Ferguson Marine has stated that this action was necessary to ensure strong leadership amid what a spokesperson for the board has quoted as calling concerns around performance. My focus and the Scottish Government's focus is, as ever, on the completion of the Glen Sannocks and Hull 802 and to help to improve the commercial viability of Ferguson Marine supporting the skilled workforce. David Tidemon was brutally sacked yesterday. This was the man with the impossible job of turning things around where the previous turnaround director had failed. In fact, to show what he was up against last October, he told the net zero committee that the design of the Glen Sannocks was more complex than a type 26. Yesterday was disgraceful. David Tidemon had only been in post for two years. His sacking has sent shock waves through the yard and the industry. Mary McCallan has said that this was a board decision, but Ferguson Marine is owned by the Scottish Government. There's no way this would have happened without her approval. The buck stops with her. I think he was sacked for being too honest about the problems. I think he was sacked for demanding answers from the Government about future investment in the yard, but we were told that Mr Tidemon was sacked for performance issues. What were those performance issues? When did the cabinet secretary first become concerned about his performance? Did her predecessor share her concerns? Will David Tidemon be getting a payoff or does he leave with nothing? David Tidemon leaves with the contractual matters that he was due. Graham Simpson can theorise on this matter as much as he likes, but the facts are that this has been a decision for the board of Ferguson Marine, who is in place to provide strategic direction and to hold the executive team to account on performance. The board is aware of the importance that I place and the Government places on delivery, accountability and on the prudent spending of public money. Nonetheless, on its four corners, this is a decision for the board. In respect of Graham Simpson's characterisation of matters being shockwaves in Ferguson Marine yard, I would only point to comments from the GMB representative John MacMungal on GMS this morning, where he talked of the newly appointed CEO, John Pettigrew. He said that John is obviously a shipyard man. He served his time in the local shipyard in Greenock before moving. We met him yesterday. We have had meetings with him over the past five or six weeks. We are now going to throw our weight behind John. Graham Simpson, of course the union will work with whoever the boss is. At least they had the guts to turn up on GMS this morning, unlike the cabinet secretary. The new interim CEO is apparently based in Canada. Canada? I hope he is in British Columbia, where they have an excellent ferry service that we could learn from. How is that arrangement actually going to work? The cabinet secretary has said that there will be further delays to the delivery of the Glen Sannocks. How long will they be? What is the cause of those delays? What is the extra cost? Now that she has wielded the axe, blaming the board, is she personally prepared to commit to a date for the Glen Sannocks and the Glen Rosa to be completed? Just in terms of the incoming CEO, John Pettigrew has 40 years plus experience in shipbuilding. He is a resident of Canada. He will be temporarily relocating to the UK. He knows the business well. He has been a non-executive board member of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow since 2022. I will certainly take the opportunity to meet him as soon as I can to make clear ministers' expectations around delivery of the vessels and in respect of support for the workforce going forward. In respect of further delays, I recently updated Parliament in a statement with the delays that were put on the record by the management team. I was made aware on Monday of the board's expectation that there could be further risks. I have no more detail that I am able to put on the record about that so far, except to say that it is very much my expectation that the newly appointed members will interrogate this and will seek to minimise risk and cost at all opportunities. Before we move on to supplementaries, I will say that there is a very high level of interest in supplementaries. In order to get through as many as possible and to include as many members as possible, I will be grateful for concise questions and responses. First of all, I want to thank David Teimann for his time at the Yard, but I also believe that it is time for a fresh set of eyes. I generally am sorry about some of the rhetoric that we have heard from Mr Simpson already this afternoon. It does the Yard no service or the workforce any service whatsoever, but can the cabinet secretary provide an update with regard to any future work for the Yard, particularly with regard to the small vessel replacement programme and the direct award, because certainly the new interim chief executive will require all the assistance that he possibly can from the Scottish Government, because he certainly will have that from the shop stewards and the workforce. I agree with Stuart McMillan's comments on tone and respectful tone, and I do not need to repeat them, but I agree with him. I want to thank Stuart McMillan for his on-going support of the Yard on a small vessel replacement programme. Ministers are considering the outline business case for the programme. This is a very important issue, and an update will be provided once a decision has been taken. However, as I said, very recently in the chamber, a direct award of public contracts is only possible in very strictly limited circumstances under public procurement rules. However, as I say, Ministers are currently considering future vessel contracts from public agencies, including SVRP. We are rightly critical about this scandal that is costing the taxpayer £400 million, but the people who are paying the biggest price for the latest delay are the islanders who will endure yet another summer of chaos and disruption. That, alongside ferry breakdowns, is not simply an inconvenience. It will be the difference between a business, surviving or folding, between employers hiring or releasing employees this summer. Therefore, can I ask the cabinet secretary what support and compensation will the Government make available to save businesses and jobs in Scotland's islands? I agree with Rhoda Grant, and the islanders are uppermost in my mind. That is why I have been very clear that delays are entirely unacceptable. I understand the call for support for island communities. I know that this is something that the transport secretary has been involved with. For my perspective, I would point to the relief that was granted in the most recent budget for non-domestic rates relief for island businesses. In short, I understand entirely how frustrating the delays are. I will continue to impress on the board that they are unacceptable. Ministers will continue to consider how we support our island communities short of delivery of the boats. Just to be clear, we are getting a new turnaround chief at the Yard to replace the existing turnaround chief who was brought in to turn around the work of the previous turnaround chief at a cost of £2 million or £3 million of taxpayers' money. The real questions—I have not heard any answers—is exactly why Mr Tideman was fired. If he was fired, why was he getting a payoff? How much was he paid off upon his departure? More importantly, has he signed any non-disclosure agreements? The decision to terminate the former CEO's contract was a matter for the board. As I said in my opening response to Graham Simpson, the chair of the board has said that the action was necessary to ensure strong leadership amid what a spokesperson for the board is quoted as calling concerns around performance. Equally, I have already answered the point about payment. Mr Tideman is entitled to contractual payments that he has or will received and nothing more. The cabinet secretary, in one of her previous responses, chose to selectively quote John McMonagall, the co-convener of the GMB union at the Yard. He also said that David Tideman has inherited an almost impossible job and that arguably out of six or seven CEOs they have had, David has been the best of them. So can the cabinet secretary say when is she going to meet with GMB representatives, to hear what they have to say and workers at the yard who they represent and to listen clearly to their concerns and respond particularly their ask for direct awards to be made to ensure that we keep this yard viable and supporting the economy of Inverclyde and Port Glasgow? I very recently met with representatives of the GMB in my office in Parliament and I will do so soon. I will also very shortly meet with the new CEO and will impress upon him ministers objectives, namely the completion of the boats, the driving down of costs and the securing of a sustainable future for the yard. Willie Rennie. The cabinet secretary dares to lecture us about respect, but where is the respect for the taxpayers who have had to bail out this ferry disaster to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds or to the islanders who have had to put up with endless delays or indeed the workers who have been embarrassed by the shocking leadership from this government? Did the cabinet secretary know in advance about this sacking? Did she know about the appointment of the successor? Does she know why that had to be done in a hurry that an interim director had to be appointed? When will somebody in this government carry the can for this ferry disaster? Once again, this was a decision for the board and not for ministers. I was made aware on 28 February that the board were considering taking action to address performance-related issues in relation to Mr Tidon's tenure. I was informed on 18 March that they intended the contract termination to take place in the week commencing 25 March. Tomorrow, I assume, the net zero energy and transport committee will get an update from the yard on what is happening. I am going to ask the cabinet secretary in advance of that. What is the actual delay to 801 and what are the actual extra costs? On what other delays to 802 and the extra costs there? You must know because you said that they are unacceptable. Can you tell us? I gave a statement to Parliament in respect of the most recently formally confirmed costs and expected completion dates. I do not have sufficient information in order to update Parliament with the specificity that I would like to bring to the chamber. I was formally notified on Monday of potential delays crystallising, but the new executive team and the board will now interrogate those. They will update me and they will update Parliament in the normal way. There should have been a full ministerial statement on that matter. The Scottish Government is ultimately responsible for this fiasco, yet not one of the countless ministers on the ministerial merry-go-round has taken responsibility. The GMB has mentioned so far and they have been clear that the key change that the yard needs is investment in facilities and a pipeline of future work. There is cross-party support for that and it needs to happen now. Does the minister accept that if the yard does not get the investment and the small vessel contract that it needs, then it is setting up the new management and the new leadership and, crucially, the workforce to fail? I have been clear that ministers will leave no stone unturned when it comes to securing sustainable, successful future for Ferguson Marine. Of course, the best way to secure that future, as I think everybody involved with this knows, is via improved competitiveness. As I updated Parliament during a statement in recent weeks, we are working with Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow on an updated business case. I am expecting that, at the end of this month, I will consider it and I will update Parliament thereafter. It was asked earlier, but could maybe just ask again, has David Tideman been forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of this payoff from Ferguson Marine? Yes or no? I am not as far as I am aware. Mr Tideman was clear that investment was needed for structural changes at the yard to put it on a firm footing for future orders. He actually said that that was required by last Christmas. Is the cabinet secretary still considering those representations? The question, which Katie Clark is quite right to put, pertains directly to the issue of the business case, which in a previous answer I mentioned. We are working with Ferguson Marine on it. I am expecting it at the end of the month and it will be closely considered. A revised business plan has been prepared, which I believe is to be due, to be signed off by the board of FMPG tomorrow. The fundamental issue remains that the yard needs an order book, which then justifies investment. The fundamental contradiction is not being addressed by the Scottish ministers. Therefore, the new managing director is doomed to fail unless the Government can commit to investment and a forward programme of orders. That is the fundamental problem, and no litany of managing directors is going to solve it. Will the cabinet secretary please respond to that? This pertains directly to matters that I have already answered. Ultimately, it is worth saying that decisions on what contracts to pursue are ultimately a decision for Ferguson Marine. I have updated members today on the small vessel replacement programme. I understand the centrality of that and many people's minds to the future of the yard. However, as I have said, its direct award is only possible in strictly limited circumstances. I have also updated the chamber in respect of the business case. That concludes the urgent question. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 12669, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak on the motion. The question is that motion 12669 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 12670, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a stage 2 timetable. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 12670 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 12671, on committee meeting times. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, to move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time and there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is the motion 12640, in the name of Mary Gouzon, on agriculture and rural communities Scotland Bill at stage 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 12111, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for the agriculture and rural communities Scotland Bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We will be moving to vote, but we will have a short suspension until our members to access the digital voting system.