Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a really important point. Believe me, I have agonised over it. Perhaps I might need to put it more clearly, but I think that I did answer you on that point.

If, at the time—on 8 October 2015—we had known probably a fraction of what we know now, clearly, we would wish that we had taken a different decision. However, we did not know that at the time, so all that I can do is assess the information that we did have then and come to a view on whether the minister took a reasonable decision based on what was before them. Every decision involves a balancing of risk. The risk was clearly set out but so, too, were the mitigations. Also, taking another approach would not necessarily have avoided all the problems. Based on what was known at the time, I think that it was a reasonable decision. However, based on what we know now, of course I wish that I could turn the clock back and take a different decision.

I would have taken a decision—I do not know what it would have been, but it would have been one that did not lead to delays on the vessels. However, your asking me that question demonstrates the inherent weakness in trying to take decisions with the benefit of hindsight. We can only take decisions on the basis of what is before us at the time, and that is what I have looked at very closely. I am trying to be as frank with you as I possibly can be. Every day, we take decisions on all sorts of matters based on what we know at the time. There will be times when things happen in a way that makes us wish that we could take a different decision, but that is not how life works.

Thank you very much, convener. I will be brief in my opening statement because I am keen, as I am sure you are, to leave most of the time for questions. I thank the committee for the opportunity to be here and speak with you this morning.

Obviously, many of the matters that we will discuss have been covered in previous evidence sessions that the committee has undertaken. Information about some of them is already in the public domain. For example, there is the information that the Scottish Government has proactively published. I am happy to go over any of that, to confirm the evidence that you already have or to provide whatever further clarity on those matters the committee seeks.

It is important to say at the outset that I am acutely aware that the delay in relation to vessels 801 and 802 is having a very significant impact on island communities. That is a matter of considerable regret, and I absolutely recognise that the decisions on the procurement of those vessels, the progress—or lack of progress—since and the Scottish Government’s broader support for Ferguson’s shipyard are areas of significant interest and concern. The issues are obviously complex—I do not need to tell the committee that—and span a period of several years.

I record my thanks to Audit Scotland for the work that it did in preparing the report that has led to the committee’s inquiry. That has been an important part of the scrutiny process. To be clear, the Scottish Government accepts all the recommendations in the Audit Scotland report and, of course, we also accept unreservedly that the outcome in relation to the vessels is not what anyone, including the Scottish Government, would have expected at the point of contract award.

It is inevitable and understandable that decisions that were taken at different points—when the contract was awarded and thereafter—are now seen through the prism of what has developed since. I understand that. However, in seeking to make judgments or to set out the basis of decisions that were taken, it is important to consider what was before ministers at particular points. I will seek to provide as much insight into that as I can.

I am happy to address concerns around the announcement of Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd as the preferred bidder, the subsequent award of the contracts, the builders refund guarantee, milestone payments and the dispute resolution process. I am also happy to address issues relating to the loan payments that were made by the Scottish Government and the progress of the vessels since the yard came into public ownership.

Obviously, the project is still live—regrettably so—and the Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to delivering both ferries and supporting our island communities that rely heavily on such vessels daily.

I will stop there, convener. As I say, I am happy to get into any of those issues or, indeed, any other issues that the committee wants to explore with me.

Yes. Sorry—are you talking about the letter?

I understand that there is a typo in that letter relating to a particular date, on which the committee will be getting written clarification, but—subject to that—yes, I think that it meets those standards.

First, I believe, and am of the view, that Keith Brown answered the questions that were put to him by the committee. Secondly—perhaps more substantively, for today’s purposes—I am the First Minister: I am here to answer any questions, and the committee has me for as long as it wants this morning. I am not sure that anybody is going to do a word count on either the questions or the answers, but I am here to answer, to the best of my ability, any questions that the committee has.

I do not know whether the committee has invited Mr Brown to give evidence in the way that I am doing today. The committee is perfectly free to do so, but I am here today, as the head of the Scottish Government, to answer any questions that you put to me.

Committees—and particularly this committee, the Public Audit Committee—know full well the issues that any Government, not just this one, has with the release of legally privileged or commercially confidential information. That process has been applied to the information that has been released. If you feel that there is any piece of information or document that exists and which you do not have, and you want to put that to me, I will endeavour to consider whether it is able to be made available. However, those processes apply, and any Government applies them, which I think is well known.

With the greatest of respect, that is a pejorative term. We have a contract that has not been delivered the way that it should have been.

That is a very different thing to the term that you used.

Just as I have a duty to be open and transparent, I think that the committee probably has a duty not to indulge in shorthand such as that, which has not been evidenced.