 That concludes topical questions. The next item of business is a statement by Mary McCallan on Ferguson Marine. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Mary McCallan up to 10 minutes, cabinet secretary. Thank you. Today's statement provides me with an early opportunity as cabinet secretary for wellbeing economy, net zero and energy to restate and to re-firm the Scottish Government commitment to ensure that Ferguson Marine delivers to lifeline ferries, the Glen Sannocks and the Glen Rosa, so that we bring next generation technology to the CalMac fleet and provide reliable high quality services to our island communities. It provides an opportunity following meetings that I've held with the chair and chief executive and with the unions that present the skilled and dedicated workforce at Ferguson Marine to report the latest information on costs and delivery dates provided by the business and to provide an update on the work that's taking place to ensure a long-term future for the yard. On Monday 26 February, the chief executive officer, David Tideman, provided his regular progress update to the conveners of the net zero energy and transport and public audit committees. This process reflects that the relationship between the chief executive and Parliament is a statutory one. It's one in which the chief executive is responsible for the delivery of the programme to plan and budget and is personally responsible for spending as part of the statutory accountable officer role set out in the Public Finance and Accountability Scotland Act 2000. The next day, Tuesday 27 February, the chief executive along with the chair Andrew Miller and non-executive director Simon Cunningham appeared at the net zero energy and transport committee, where they were questioned for 90 minutes on the updates that the chief executive had provided. This was helpful and instructive, because the chair and the board of directors are appointed by ministers to provide strategic direction and hold the executive team, including the chief executive, to account for their performance. The yard has been grappling, Presiding Officer, with complex and varied legacy issues. Some of which go back many years. The board is well-placed to understand the pressures and consider actions that they believe to be in the best interests of the yard. I am grateful to members of the committee for the degree of scrutiny that they were able to provide on a range of issues, including the latest cost projections, the approvals received from the maritime and coast guard agency and the board's work to develop a business case for future investment in the shipyard. In his letter, the chief executive stated that the cost to complete Glen Sannocks will not exceed £149.1 million since the point of public ownership. He also reported that the cost to complete vessel 802 or Glen Rosa, as it will be known, will not exceed £150 million since public ownership. He said that he remains hopeful that it can be completed below that maximum figure, because the yard is learning from the way in which it has resolved the many legacy issues that were inherited around the first vessel. At committee, the chair reported that the board had scrutinised those cost forecasts, and Simon Cunningham described how he now had much greater visibility of the critical path to handover and the risks to the programme. He said that the board had much greater confidence in the accuracy of the forecasts, in part because Glen Sannocks was nearing handover, but also in respect of 802, because of the diligence that they had carried out and because the management had negotiated fixed price contracts from subcontractors to replace the more costly and time-materials contracts that they had inherited on the build of Glen Sannocks. I am encouraged by the greater degree of confidence that has been shown by the board, and I recognise and agree with the point of my predecessor Neil Gray in his update to Parliament, namely that inflationary and other significant pressures such as around cost supply chains and design gaps do impact on the cost of completion. Whilst all of that is the case, the level of those increases remains deeply disappointing, and I share the frustration that will be felt right by everyone across the Parliament and indeed in our country. I met with the chair and chief executive last week and impressed upon them the need to understand that frustration and to take whatever action appropriate to avoid further increases in costs. I will assure that my officials continue to meet every week with senior management at Ferguson's and their delivery partners, including CML and CalMac, to ensure that they are living up to that requirement. Separately, we have commenced due diligence on the latest projections using external advisers to ensure that they are accurate and justifiable, and I will update the net zero, energy and transport and public audit committees once that work is complete. This will be a short exercise but one that is necessary to ensure that we continue to spend in the best interests of our island communities and take into account the wider economic benefits that delivery of these vessels will ultimately provide to the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services route. In terms of build progress, the chief executive indicated in his update that Glenn Sannocks has proved to be very reliable during its sea trials. When running at full power, she has been smooth and quiet and performing very well. The chief executive reported that the recent delay in installing the LNG system was due to a delay in securing a contractor in what is a globally expanding market. He also outlined that, whilst handing over where the single fuel was possible, the end-user CalMac had been very clear that they expected a dual fuel vessel on commissioning, and that was therefore what the shipyard had been instructed to deliver. He further set out to the committee that he considered that the redesign of stairwells to certain areas of the ship to meet with maritime and coastguard agency requirements—which I should add, they are absolutely right to require—had increased the cost by over £1 million. Taking those and other factors into account, the chief executive reported that Glenn Sannocks would be handed over to CMAL at the end of May this year and that the handover date for 802 would move to September 2025. The next milestone in Glenn Sannocks delivery will be when she moves under her own power again to the dry dock at Inch Green in early April. There, a number of hull cleaning and maintenance tasks will be carried out, concluding in her return to sea for a second set of sea trials later in the month. Weather and tide permitting plans are under way to launch 802 on 9 April. The delay from the original planned date of 12 March is in part due to the need to have more work carried out on the Glenn Sannocks at the Port Glasgow site. The launch of 802, however, is an important milestone for the delivery of the vessel and we look forward to engaging with the yard on the details around it. The vessel will be named formally at a later date and this is consistent with the plans for vessels being built in Turkey, the first of which is due to be launched in a similar manner this month. This will mean that we are on track to deliver six new vessels by 2026 for our island communities to continue to support their economic resilience. I will continue to impress on Ferguson Marine the impact that delays are having on island communities and the need to do everything possible to bring the two high-quality ferries into service. Our due diligence into the latest cost projections will also test the delivery dates provided by the yards, but it is clear to me that completing the vessels at Ferguson Marine will present the fastest possible route to getting the vital new lifeline services, as well as providing wider economic benefits to the Inverclyde area. I would like to now move to the future of the yard. From the very start, we have sought to ensure that the yard has a sustainable future, whether that be in the public sector or, as we have always said, by returning the yard to the private sector if and when the time is right to do so. Members will recall that last November, the former cabinet secretary confirmed that we were unable to support an initial business plan and associated request for capital investment, submitted by Ferguson Marine, and that we had asked the board to revisit the proposal and to develop a revised plan. I hope that this is successful and that the board will be able to provide a robust case for investment that is deliverable, makes economic sense and, of course, meets our legal requirements on subsidy control. The Welsh Government has provided funding to enable the yard to draw upon external advisers to support this process, and I understand that extra resource is also being provided at Ferguson Marine board level to steer this work. I welcome this commitment from the board and I look forward to considering the new business plan, which we expect to receive by the end of this month. I recognise, of course, that, as the existing contracts near completion, are unsettling times for the workforce. I have been so impressed by the passion and commitment that has been shown by the trade unions in making the case for future investment. I was pleased to have the chance to hear directly from union representatives during a meeting in Parliament last week. Their views are vitally important to me and I took the opportunity to listen and to give them an assurance that ministers will leave no stone unturned when it comes to securing a future for the yard and for shipbuilding on the Clyde. In conclusion, as a former transport secretary, I am acutely aware of how important the delivery of the Glen Sannocks and Glen Rosa are to our CHIFS network and the island communities that it supports. I am encouraged by the results of the initial sea trials of Glen Sannocks and committed to supporting Ferguson Marine, its board and the people who work for it to make sure that both ferries are delivered as soon as possible. I am also determined to do all that I can to support the shipyard to secure a route to a sustainable future. I have already met trade unions. I understand both their frustrations about the mistakes of the past and their determination to find a brighter future for their current members and for future generations of workers in the Clyde. I do not underestimate the challenges that are involved, but the yard is incredibly significant to the local, regional and national economy of Scotland. Therefore, they were committed to doing all that we can to ensure that it remains still. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request to speak buttons. I call Graeme Simpson. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement. It came a bit later than we normally get, so I ask her to look into that. However, it was a disappointing statement. It said very little new. In fact, it said nothing new. Any islanders who are watching this will not, for the first time, have been disappointed because they might have been expecting some news, some announcement that would give them some hope, something that they did not already know. However, that was not in that statement. I am pleased that the sea trials of the Glen Sannocks have gone well. That is encouraging. I think that we are getting close to the end of what has been a scandal, and that is good. The islanders will get their new ferries. That is to be applauded eventually. The cabinet secretary says that the Government will be carrying out due diligence on the costs and the timescale. We suggest that she does not entirely trust what she has been told. Who will carry out that due diligence? How much is it going to cost? When we look to the future of the art, she rightly says that the Government turned down a previous bid for an extra £25 million, which would have given the yard a new plating line. Is she committing to any extra investment? What is the yard going to look like? How can it secure the route to the sustainable future that she says she wants? I thank Graham Simpson for his question, and I note his point about the timing of the statement arriving with him. In terms of the content of the statement, I would respectfully note that Opposition parties across the chamber asked for the statement, and that is why I am here giving this update today. I should say in very early course that I am happy to do so because it is important to the Government. In terms of the updates that I gave, it is about the acknowledgement of the chief executive's updates on costs and timing. It is about registering my disappointment in the scale of the change of position, and it is about assuring Parliament that due diligence will now take place. In respect of that due diligence, I do not think that Graham Simpson would wish to cast any doubt on the importance of the Government doing this. That is what prudent public spending and consideration of what is put in front of you is about. It is under wages now. We are doing it supported by independent advisers. He has asked for a timescale. I do not have a timescale whilst the work is on-going, although it will be shorter than the former period of due diligence that was undertaken owing to some of the improvements with internal board scrutiny that has been undertaken since then. In terms of the future and what I am committed to, I am committed to supporting the board and Ferguson Marine in producing an updated business plan and considering it on receipt. I thank the cabinet secretary for the early sight of the statement. There is no doubt that there is a lot of blame to go around when it comes to the delivery of these new ferries, but what is absolutely clear is that the workforce at Ferguson's is blameless. The statement today fails to give assurances for the yard and its workforce and the insurances that they need. We need to know that there must be capital investment into the yard. Indeed, when I visited the yard almost a year ago, the workforce and the management were very clear that such investment was needed to secure the future. Does the cabinet secretary therefore accept that there is an urgent need to make a decision on the smart yard as soon as possible? What is the strategy that the Government is working to and what is the timescales for decisions to be made? Will the decision on investment be made before the decisions are made on the small vessels programme? Finally, will the Government work with all parties in this chamber to ensure that we secure a future for shipbuilding in Port Glasgow? I agree entirely with the sentiment about the importance of the workers at Ferguson Marine and its centrality to the Government's focus on getting the vessels finished and on our focus on the future of the yard. It is worth stating that the workforce at Ferguson Marine has been at the heart of the Government's actions to date in respect of the yard and will continue to be at the heart of what we take forward in the future. I would say that this was partly the reason why I was so keen to meet with GMB members' representatives last week and to hear directly from them their views. They have been very instructive for me. It is why I have committed to them and I would like to come and visit the yard as soon as I can. It is why I share Alex Rowley's view on the urgency of understanding future plans as 801 and 802 contracts come to a close. That is why the Government is supporting the development of the updated business case that I will give very close consideration to when it is with me and I am expecting it at the end of March. I welcome the delivery of the Glen Sannocks in late spring. However, it is deeply disappointing that the £41 million small vessel programme is being reprofiled, i.e. delayed. Ferguson's has previously delivered high-quality hybrid small vessels on time and on budget, including the MV Katrina, which sails out of Lachranza, and the yard is crying out for orders. Does the Cabinet Secretary therefore agree that it makes sense to prioritise the ordering of the small ferries in order to show the market that Ferguson Marine has successfully turned the corner, while delivering much-needed new vessels for our island communities? I thank Kenny Gibson for the question, and I understand very closely his interest in the matter. I say from the outset that the small vessel replacement programme has not been delayed. It is a matter that my colleague the transport secretary is actively overseeing. For my part, in the economy directorate, a direct award is only possible in very strictly limited circumstances under procurement rules. Breaching those rules is not an option in and of itself, but equally it could lead to legal challenges, costs and further delay. We will consider future contracts for vessels from public agencies on a case-by-case basis and whether any might be open to direct award in those strictly limited circumstances. However, it is worth restating that the very best way for Ferguson Marine to be supported for into future contracts, public or private, is to increase its competitiveness, and that is exactly the work that is on-going with that business case that I have been mentioning. I am extremely concerned about the vagueness over the LNG system and whether that might cause further delays to the launch of the Glen Sannocks, because islanders on armoured rather have a vessel that runs solely on diesel and have no vessel running at all. Is the Government digging in on the original wording of the contract, or is there any flexibility in launching this ship sooner rather than later? Why is the Scottish Government, which actually owns this yard, not today committing to the small vessel build project in Inverclyde? Or is it most likely that Turkey once again will be the main benefactor of Scottish ferry building contracts? Just to take the final point first in respect of the small vessel replacement programme, I have stated in response to Kenny Gibson's question that direct award is only legal in strictly limited circumstances under public procurement rules. On the matter of LNG, it is a operational matter, which is of the concern of the chief executive. However, it was discussed in some depth at committee last week. The completion of the LNG commissioning programme for the fuel engines is estimated to be by the end of May. The chief executive explained when he was in front of the committee that the main cause of delay was the lack of available specialist contractors. I understand that there has been a global expansion in the use of LNG, and therefore there has been competition for specialist contractors to carry out this work. However, David Tiedman was able to confirm to committee that this is now being resolved with the appointment of a UK-based contractor and should not impact further on the build of the Glen Sannocks. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has already met the shop stewards, Alex Logan and John Macmonagle. I cannot stress enough that those shop stewards are absolutely pivotal to the future of Ferguson Marine. I will come back to the point regarding the direct award, because the progress of the direct award, if that were to happen, has been slow. The future of the yard, as things come to stand, relies on a direct award to the Ferguson Marine of the Small Vessel Replacement Programme. That might not be welcomed by some, but for the future of the yard, the future of shipbuilding and the future of Ferguson Marine in Port Glasgow, I ask the cabinet secretary to please make the direct award to the Ferguson Marine. I note Stuart McMillan's very direct plea on behalf of his constituents, and I admire the advocacy that he has done on their behalf. In the generality, Ferguson Marine is absolutely right to be turning its mind to winning its next contracts. Decisions on what contracts to pursue are ultimately operational matters for Ferguson Marine. However, for our part, I am very happy to say that we will do all that we can as a shareholder to ensure that the business has a sustainable order book and a future. In respect of the Small Vessel Replacement Programme, we are considering the outlying business case for the programme. An update on the procurement strategy will be provided in due course once a decision on investment has been made. I understand the potential opportunity that the Small Vessel Replacement Programme offers to Ferguson Marine, but I have to restate once again that direct award is only legal in strictly limited circumstances. I understand that the cabinet secretary has said that she needs to look at the detail of a new business case for investment in the yard that can support jobs in the Enver Clyde area that has lost 1,000 jobs in the last 12 months. Following from Graham Simpson's point, does the cabinet secretary accept the glaringly obvious point put forward by the GMB and that it has cross-party support, that government investment in the yard is now essential to winning future work, improving efficiencies and securing a positive future at the yard? If that is not the Government's plan, is there an alternative plan and what is it? The Government could not be accused of not having invested in Ferguson Marine. The point that Neil Bibby is making is about the link between that investment and their investment case and their ability to win future contracts. I understand that the Ferguson Marine provided the Scottish Government with a request for capital investment of around £25 million in June, presenting that as part of making the shipyard more competitive. Our due diligence concluded that that initial business case would not meet that vital commercial market operator test, which is a key legal requirement if we are to demonstrate compliance with subsidy control. That is why we are actively supporting the board now to recast that business case and investment plan and why we will give very close consideration to it when we receive it at the end of the month. Turning to look at the future of the yard, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs will recognise a hugely competitive commercial environment that operates in globally. To move that forward, can I ask what work the Scottish Government has done to seek out potential industrial partners to bring investment, technology and expertise to help to secure the long-term future of the yard? I am very happy to do so. Of course, what he describes as part of considerations for the future of Ferguson Marine and the board has recently been strengthened with additional commercial and shipbuilding expertise. The yard is supported by a supply chain that brings new technology and expertise into the yard. As I have said a number of times, the case for further Government investment will be covered in the business plan that the board is currently preparing that I hope to receive at the end of this month. In the meantime, it is worth stating again that decisions on what contracts to pursue are for Ferguson Marine, but the Scottish Government stands behind them in supporting them to have the most prosperous future possible. You would think that this tobacco had nothing to do with the Scottish National Party Government, but it is six years over budget. We should remember this. Three times over budget and six years late, hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, workforce has been utterly humiliated, islanders have been left stranded because of ministerial meddling from the very beginning. Can the cabinet secretary tell me why still no minister has lost their job as a result of this tobacco? I am far more interested in the practical matters around the delivery of vessels 801 and 802 and the future of the yard than I am for politicking or whatever that was that Willie Rennie was pursuing. What I would say is for him to describe the saving of 300-plus jobs in the last commercial shipyard on the Clyde as humiliating for the workers involved is completely inaccurate. Our objective has always been the delivery of the lifeline vessels, supporting the highly skilled and dedicated workforce, and securing a sustainable future for the yard. That is what I am focused on, not politics. I call Jackie Dunbar. Members, I regard that as neither courteous nor respectful when I am trying to speak in the chamber, so thank you. I call Jackie Dunbar to be followed by Arian Burgess. It is right that we scrutinise the progress of work at the yard and I was delighted to visit it a few weeks ago to see first hand the progress being made, but what we should unite us all is a determination to secure a future for Scotland's commercial shipbuilding industry. Can the cabinet secretary provide any further information about the steps being taken to ensure that the yard is competitive and in shape to compete for future contracts? Thank you to Jackie Dunbar for her question. I know that she found her visit to Ferguson Marine yard very helpful and instructive and some of the workers that she was able to meet there left an impression on her. I share her determination to secure the future of the yard and the importance of commercial shipbuilding on the Clyde. That work has been described and that we are supporting Ferguson Marine in producing that updated business case and investment plan. I see some of the key ways that we ensure a competitive future and help the yard to be in a position to competitively bid for future contracts. I give my assurance that I will give very close consideration to my team of the content of that business case when I receive it. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her statement. As a Highlands and Islands MSP who represents many of Scotland's island communities, the performance and the future of our ferries and ports is a source of deep frustration to those communities. Equally, I recognise what the cabinet secretary has said about the anxieties felt by the workforce and trade unions at Ferguson's. I would be interested to understand what further reassurance can the cabinet secretary offer to the workforce that their views are heard and that their futures are also a priority. I mentioned in my statement that I was able to meet two Ferguson Marine, GMB, Union Shopsters John McGonagall and Alex Logan. I know that my predecessor Neil Gray also met them several times to hear their views first-hand. I have also undertaken to visit them at the yard as soon as I am able and gave them an assurance when we met them very early on in my tenure in this position last week, that their views and the views of those whom they represent will be very important to me and to the Government as we move into what is a critical period for the future of the yard. As I said in an answer to a previous question, the workforce has been central to all actions that the Government has taken in respect to Ferguson Marine and will very much continue to be so. As colleagues have said, the statement reveals nothing that is not already publicly known. It certainly does not give any clarity to islanders. Those who should be at the heart or central to the Scottish Government's considerations on this matter seem to have been forgotten by most of the SNP contributions today. When Scotland's Aging Ferries fleet, whether operated by CalMac or North Link or by the councils, is going to be replaced at what cost and what role Ferguson's will play in that. Can the cabinet secretary tell me when my island constituents will get the new boats that they so desperately need? I have to point out to Jamie Halcro Johnston that the statement was called for, and I am happy to come to the chamber and update members on the content of progress on the issue as often as they call for it. The fact that there has been so much activity by the net zero committee who I credit with the scrutiny that they have undertaken indicates that there is a great deal of work on going across the Parliament on this matter just now. I point Jamie Halcro Johnston to my update in my statement that we are on track to deliver six new major vessels to serve Scotland's ferry network by 2026. I have to also point out to him how challenged we are in that regard by the actions of his Government cutting our capital budget by up to 10 per cent over the coming years. He should be prepared to explain to his constituents why that has been the case and why he has not been prepared to stand up to the Tories on that. For our part, we will continue to focus on delivering those six vessels. That will be supported by the work that my colleague Fiona Hyslop is taking forward in the island's connectivity plan. The cabinet secretary quoted the chief executive of Ferguson saying that the sea trials of Glensanax had been very successful. Can she go into any more detail about those sea trials? That was a matter that the chief executive gave a very full account of when he was in front of the net zero committee last week. He described how the vessel was tried at different speeds, how it was a very smooth journey and how various vibrations which he could speak to, and I am not as technically able to do so meant that it was a very successful one indeed. I also described in my statement what the next stages are for the trials of the Glensanax before she enters into service in the coming year. The Turkish National Investment Bank, Tourkexham Bank, Shipbuilding Financing Guarantee programme can provide direct loans and or letters of guarantee to Turkish shipbuilding firms so that they may obtain competitive pre-financing of up to 85 per cent of the contract price. Will the cabinet secretary introduce a similarly competitive shipbuilding financing guarantee programme in Scotland? That was an utterly breathless contribution from Paul Sweeney. I did not catch most of the detail of it if he wants to write to me with that. I will be very glad to look into the matter and to come back to him. From recent written questions by myself, we know that each of the two new vessels will require two tankers of LNG fuel each week, and each tanker will have a 962-mile return roundtrip from Kent to Toon. I ask the cabinet secretary if an audit has been carried out to assess if operating these vessels on dual fuel is better or worse for the environment. Dual fuel and its use in ferries is very widely regarded as being positive for the environment, not least as part of the reduction of emissions and various pollutants that are associated with the single-geo vessels. I think that he only needs to look to the expansion of that market throughout the world and the research and respect of the environmental outputs of dual fuel to see for himself that it is the better of the two to pursue. That concludes the ministerial statement. I will allow a moment or two for front benches to organise themselves.