Scottish Parliament, 9 December 2025

236 contributions from 51 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection, and our time for reflection leader today is Tim Maguire, humanist.

Tim Maguire (Humanist)

Presiding Officer, members of the Scottish Parliament, thank you so much for inviting me to address you today.

I invite you to cast your minds back to one of Scotland’s darkest and most unsettling novels, “The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner”. It was published in 1824 and it was written by a man who was baptised in Ettrick on this very day in 1770—James Hogg—but it speaks to us still.

The novel tells the story of a young man who believes that his salvation is guaranteed; that whatever he does—however cruel, however violent—he is safe in the eyes of God. With that belief, he falls into arrogance, into cruelty, into despair and, ultimately, into ruin. The moral is clear. When people believe themselves to be beyond question, beyond scrutiny and beyond doubt, disaster follows.

This is not a story only of religion; this is a story of politics, a story of power and a story of the human heart, for when certainty hardens into pride, and when conviction turns to fanaticism, the result is always the same: division, intolerance and, sometimes, tragedy.

This Parliament was not founded on such pride. Devolution was not given to Scotland so that its leaders might rule as if they were without fault. It was given so that you, the people’s representatives, might answer daily to those who sent you here.

Hogg’s tale warns us of what happens when humility is lost. When one voice insists that it cannot be wrong. When dialogue is silenced. When doubt is treated as weakness.

However, there is also compassion in Hogg’s story. The “justified sinner” is not born a monster. He is misled, he is persuaded and he is drawn step by step into darkness. Is that not a lesson for us, too? For in our own time, when neighbours are consumed by extremism, or seduced by conspiracy, our duty is not only to condemn; our duty is to understand, to educate and to bring back into community those who might otherwise be lost.

Let us hear Hogg’s voice today not as an echo from the past but as a warning for the present. He reminds us that democracy, like faith, requires humility. It requires us to admit mistakes; to question ourselves; to accept that none of us—not saint nor statesman—is beyond accountability.

That, members, is the moral that the Scottish Parliament must carry forward—not the false security of being “justified” but the living, daily duty of being just. Thank you.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20066, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for Tuesday 9 December 2025—

after

followed by Topical Questions

insert

followed by Ministerial Statement: Education Statistics and the 2026 National Improvement Framework

delete

5.30 pm Decision Time

and insert

6.00 pm Decision Time—[Graeme Dey].

Motion agreed to.

Topical Question Time

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of NHS Ayrshire and Arran suspending routine hospital visits due to a sharp increase in flu cases, whether it will provide an update on the action that it is taking to support NHS boards in relation to increasing winter pressures. (S6T-02794)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am aware of the significant pressures that the national health service and its staff, who I am incredibly grateful to, are under over the winter period. I was clear in my statement to Parliament last month about the steps that we have been taking since last winter to improve our resilience this year. That includes providing additional support to NHS 24 and the Scottish Ambulance Service, as well as up to £20 million of investment to support social care and address front-door pressures to improve flow. Furthermore, the Scottish Ambulance Service is taking forward initiatives, such as a hospital ambulance liaison officer at the front door of our hospitals, that are designed to relieve pressure on acute services.

Experts in Public Health Scotland and in the Scottish Government are closely monitoring the flu situation, and vaccination remains our best protection against the virus. That approach, alongside enhanced infection prevention and control measures, aims to support boards to manage the increase in respiratory infections over this winter.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary outlined in his answer, vaccinations are the best way of protecting oneself from flu. Last year, the uptake of vaccinations was poorer, so why has uptake been so low this year? There are more than 300,000 fewer adults vaccinated now in comparison with the figure two years ago. Children’s vaccination rates are down, and some areas have had delays in administering vaccinations. Public Health Scotland has reported that all age groups are now affected at levels not previously seen at this time of year, and it has confirmed that cases of flu in Scotland have

“more than doubled in the past week”.

As the cabinet secretary said, prevention is key, so why were there delays in administering vaccinations, and why are vaccination rates significantly lower than they were two years ago?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I reiterate Carol Mochan’s point about the importance of vaccination. Anybody who is eligible, whether they are staff or a patient, should be picking up their vaccination; it is the best way of protecting themselves, their family, their colleagues and services this winter.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommended that the groups for flu vaccinations should change this year, so when we compare like for like, in particular among adults, we are actually ahead of where we were last year on vaccine uptake. There is much more to be done, however, and I encourage people to continue to take up the vaccine.

We have delivered more than 1.5 million vaccinations so far this year. The vaccine programme started on delivery of the vaccine supply in September, and we continue to push the important message—I hope that it will leave the chamber resoundingly today—of, “Please, take up the vaccine.”

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Health boards across the country are facing a sharp increase in cases, with hospital admissions as a result of flu increasing by 70 per cent. NHS Ayrshire and Arran has been forced to suspend routine visits across all hospitals; some hospital wards in NHS Dumfries and Galloway have closed to new admissions; and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has told patients with flu symptoms to stay at home and treat themselves. The situation is worsening. What support has the cabinet secretary put in place to support staff who are dealing with that early, and very sharp, rise in cases?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I offer my absolute gratitude—as, I am sure, do all members in the chamber—for the work that is being delivered under significant pressure by our health and social care staff. They deliver remarkable care and service to the people we seek to serve all year round, but I am certainly grateful for the sacrifice that they make at this time of year in particular, and I know that colleagues will be, too.

The uptick in flu rates this winter is following a similar trajectory, albeit slightly earlier in the year, to what we saw last year, when there was significant disruption. I have already set out some of the measures that we are taking to improve performance and flow through the system, but the Government has also made wider investments to support the wellbeing of our staff at particular times of pressure such as this, so that they can continue to deliver remarkable care and treatment for the people of Scotland.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary is aware, NHS Ayrshire and Arran is under extreme financial pressure, which is in no small part due to high levels of expensive agency staff. Given that the higher prevalence of flu cases will inevitably put greater pressure on staff numbers through sickness absence, has the cabinet secretary considered the possibility of emergency financial support to the board to prevent high levels of staff absence from making a bad situation worse?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We continue to support the resilience of all boards, all year round. I note—as Brian Whittle will—the substantial reduction in the utilisation of agency staff across the national health service over the past couple of years. That is better for our staffing establishment, and it provides better continuity of care.

However, there are times of peak demand when the use of agency and locum staff is clearly important. We continue to have conversations with all boards around their pressures this winter. This week, I am standing up the winter resilience meetings—they were held last year through Christmas and new year—and I expect conversations on that subject and on boards’ ability and resilience to respond to come through in those discussions.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Scotland is experiencing what is said to be the worst flu death season in more than four decades, and changes to vaccination eligibility, to which the cabinet secretary referred, have meant that an additional half a million people were not offered the flu vaccine. Is the Scottish Government reconsidering eligibility and whether it should be extended to those aged 50 to 64?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

It is difficult to say for certain what this flu season will end up looking like, but the trajectories at the moment are following the very same path as last year, when there was an unprecedented level of flu in the system, which caused clear disruption to patients and the system.

We take our vaccination advice on a United Kingdom-wide basis from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Its members are the experts and, as we have done this year, we follow their advice on the most effective use of the vaccine.

I reiterate that anyone who is eligible should make sure that they take up the vaccine, because there are still more in the eligible groups who could take up the vaccine to help themselves, their families, loved ones and colleagues, and our health systems. I know that health boards are doing all that they can to make that as available as possible, including for staff of health and social care services, with drop-in clinics and peer-to-peer vaccination happening, too.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

Three quarters of NHS staff in Ayrshire and Arran report that they are working in conditions where they are so short staffed that they believe that patient safety has been put at risk. That is a major concern, because, if staff now go off sick due to flu or other viruses, the pressure on accident and emergency, for example, will be immense. If staff do not believe that they can deliver adequate levels of care to their patients—and that was before the current flu pandemic—what will the situation look like in January and February next year? What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that all our NHS boards are appropriately staffed during the winter season? This situation has been a long time coming.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The staffing establishment and safe staffing levels are covered by legislation, and we support boards to ensure that they have the requisite staffing establishment, although I absolutely take Mr Greene’s point about the pressures on staff, particularly at this time of year.

In my response to the initial question from Carol Mochan, I set out some of the areas in which we are investing in order to reduce and suppress demand, particularly in relation to accident and emergency and our acute system, which is particularly pressured at this time. That includes the investment that we have made in general practice; the increased investment that is going through social care; and the upskilling and upstaffing of NHS 24 and the Scottish Ambulance Service, to ensure that we provide the best possible resilience to the whole system, so that the pressures that Jamie Greene is narrating and which are felt in our hospital settings are suppressed as much as possible.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

It is alarming that our hospitals are so stretched that, because they are petrified of a routine winter flu taking them beyond breaking point, they are having to deprive people of family visits at their time of need. What assessments have been made of whether flu vaccination uptake by NHS staff is sufficient? What additional steps will be taken to strengthen resilience across all NHS boards this winter?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The decisions to restrict visiting that Sharon Dowey mentioned are not taken lightly and are not unprecedented, either. Local teams need to carry out a difficult balancing act around risk and the potential impact that restrictions can have on families and loved ones, which everybody will be well aware of.

On the vaccination programme, as I have already set out, there is more work to do, particularly among our staff groups. Our boards are doing what they can to provide drop-in clinics and peer-to-peer vaccinations. Vaccination is the best way for people to protect themselves, their colleagues and their loved ones at this time of year. I encourage anyone—regardless of whether they are staff in health and social care or members of the public—who is eligible for a vaccine to take the opportunity to have it as soon as possible.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, in which I declare that I am a proprietor of salmon fishings on the River Spey, and that I am a member of the Spey Fishery Board and of Fisheries Management Scotland.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to the newly published October mortality figures for the salmon farming industry. (S6T-02793)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Edward Mountain refers to data that was published by Salmon Scotland, not by the Scottish Government. Salmon Scotland stated that

“These figures represent isolated events, with overall survival rates remaining high at around 98.5 per cent per month.”

Fish farming is highly regulated, and reasons for fish mortalities are complex and vary significantly between sites and incidents. Nonetheless, we expect producers to manage mortalities to the lowest possible levels. We support the sector in that regard through our support for the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre, which enables research into the challenges that are faced by the sector and the development of innovative solutions to those challenges.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It does not help that, this year, the industry has changed the way that it reports fish mortality. We know that more farmed salmon will die in Scotland this year than last year. Does the cabinet secretary share my deep concern about that, especially when one fish farm had a monthly mortality rate of 45.2 per cent, with more than 600,000 fish dying since the end of September?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Edward Mountain raises an important point. I hope that I made clear in my initial response that we expect producers to drive mortalities down to the lowest possible levels. This was an area of interest when the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee undertook an inquiry into salmon farming. Several recommendations stemmed from its report, and the Scottish Government made several commitments in response.

It is important to highlight that, although Edward Mountain chose in his question to reflect one set of data that is published on mortality figures, there are several different sources of data, and we collect many different pieces of information on many different reporting matters. When we compare figures, it is important that we look at the overall analysis, such as the rate of survival to harvest, which is part of the Scottish fish farm production survey that the Scottish Government publishes each year.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I think that even the cabinet secretary will agree with me when I say that the optics do not look good. The industry is under the spotlight for increasing mortality. While I am threatened with legal action by the chief executive of the body that represents the farmed salmon sector for highlighting the industry’s failures, the cabinet secretary has twice been entertained by that body at international rugby matches. Will she confirm that she shares my concern that more than 10 million salmon have died in the first 10 months of this year? Will she therefore implement all the recommendations from the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s 2018 report—specifically, recommendation 9?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

There were many points in Edward Mountain’s question. First, he will be aware that the committee undertook a follow-up inquiry on the back of the work that was done in 2018. We published our response to that in full, in terms of the recommendations, all the work that we are taking forward as a result and the commitments that I have made. To follow up on that work, I published a response to the committee in September outlining the steps that have been undertaken, and I am due to provide another follow-up for the committee in March to update it on our progress.

However, it is important to highlight that we expect mortalities to be driven to the lowest possible levels. It is in no one’s interest for there to be high mortalities or for such mortality events to take place. We also have to recognise that, sometimes, these incidents and events are completely outwith the hands of the fish farmers—they could be due to changing climatic conditions, micro jellyfish or algal blooms, which cannot always be predicted. Our investment in innovation is critical in ensuring that we get ahead of those challenges and drive down mortalities to the lowest possible levels.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There is much interest in this question. Concise questions and responses will be appreciated.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

As we rightly consider these figures, does the cabinet secretary agree that we also have a responsibility to ensure that we recognise the economic importance of salmon farming to the Highlands and Islands, not least in my own constituency?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Alasdair Allan raises a hugely important point. Salmon farming businesses are in the most rural parts of Scotland and in many of our island communities, where they support employment and provide well-paid jobs. I can give an indicator of that and of some of the value that they provide. In Alasdair Allan’s constituency, more than 40,000 tonnes of salmon were produced for export in a year, which was worth around £276 million, while nearly 200 people are employed in the industry. In the wider supply chain, there are about 11,000 jobs, with exports worth about £1.3 billion. Salmon farming is a hugely important industry to Scotland and our wider economy.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

What is the Scottish Government doing to support the industry and ensure that research and development is carried out? With climate change, more threats are emerging. We need to anticipate events and, where possible, support the industry before they occur.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I could not agree more. As I tried to outline earlier, it is important to recognise that, with the changing climate, we face new threats and challenges all the time, so investment in innovation is hugely important.

Some work is being funded through the marine fund Scotland, and we also provide funding for the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre. We are trying to get ahead of the challenges, and predicting what is coming further down the line and addressing that will be so important in the future.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Does the cabinet secretary recognise the investment by the salmon farming industry and the improving trend in survival rates, as well as the hard work that the men and women on the farms do every day to produce the United Kingdom’s top food, with exports expected to reach £1 billion this year?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I absolutely recognise that. One thing that stuck out to me, when the committee was taking evidence and undertaking its inquiry, was hearing from the fish farmers who are working really hard to produce that high-quality source of protein, which, as I have outlined, is so important for our wider economy.

As much as I have outlined in previous responses the investment that we are putting into that innovation and ensuring that we are ahead of some of the emerging challenges, it is also important to recognise the huge sums of investment that the industry is putting in to tackle and address some of the challenges that it knows that it faces.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

In mass mortality events at Gob Na Hoe and Portree, which are both in Skye, the Government did not know the real numbers of fish deaths as they happened because Scotland’s mortality figures exclude early deaths and losses from culls and transport; they also exclude cleaner fish. That has allowed Bakkafrost, for example, to report zero early deaths at Portree to regulators, while telling investors that 19 per cent of its fish died in the first weeks at sea.

With nearly four in every 10 farmed salmon placed in cages dying, will the cabinet secretary accept that regulation is not credible, and will she commit to closing those reporting loopholes so that every farmed fish death is counted in real time?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

First, I emphasise that we have a really robust regulatory regime when it comes to finfish aquaculture.

On the data that is produced, I outlined in a previous response the number of different reporting mechanisms that we have. We collect that information for a variety of purposes. One of the key recommendations from the committee was on how we transmit that data and how we can make it more accessible and transparent for people. A number of pieces of work have been undertaken in that regard.

I can only reiterate what I have said about mortalities in previous responses: we want to ensure that they are driven down to the lowest possible levels. We undertook—we have made a commitment—to do pieces of work on that in response to the committee’s recommendations, and I am determined to continue that work.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Surely the Scottish Government must be concerned about the increasing levels of disease in the salmon industry, especially given the finding in the committee’s report from earlier this year that slow progress was being made on regulation. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the damage that that continues to do to the national and international reputation of Scottish salmon?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I can only reiterate what I have said in previous responses in that regard. We want to ensure that mortalities are driven down to the lowest possible levels. It is in all our interests—those of the Government and those of the industry—that that happens, which is why the investment in innovation is critical.

On mortality levels and the events that we are talking about, a lot of that can be completely outwith the control of the fish farm, because of the changing climatic conditions.

It is important that we bear all that in mind when we look at some of the figures. We can pick out figures from month to month, but it is important to note that mortality can be variable and, as I outlined in my initial response to Edward Mountain, there have been increasing survival rates, too. We need to look across the whole cycle.

A lot of work is going on in relation to the issue. We have responded to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommendations with a number of commitments, and I have followed up with the committee to outline our progress against what we said that we would do. That work very much continues.

Education Statistics

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a statement by Jenny Gilruth on education statistics and the 2026 national improvement framework. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

I call the cabinet secretary to speak for up to 10 minutes, please.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

This summer, when Scotland’s exam results were published, we were able to declare 2025 a landmark year for Scotland’s young people’s success and achievements. This year’s results delivered increased attainment across national 5, higher and advanced higher levels; a narrowing of the poverty-related attainment gap at national 5, higher and advanced higher levels; and more than 100,000 technical and vocational qualifications being achieved for the first time ever. The publication of statistics today on a wide range of metrics in early learning and in school education reinforce that improvement trajectory. Today’s statistics show real evidence of post-pandemic recovery and progress across our education system. I hope that all members will be able to welcome that.

The data on achievement of curriculum for excellence levels is the most comprehensive national data set on attainment in literacy and numeracy. Importantly, it is predicated on teacher judgment. Today’s publication confirms that, in our primary schools, levels of literacy attainment have increased to the highest level on record: at 74.5 per cent, it is 0.5 percentage points above the previous high. For numeracy, attainment remains at the record level of 80.3 per cent. In our secondary schools, the proportion of secondary 3 pupils achieving fourth level in literacy and numeracy is at a record high of 63.1 per cent and 68 per cent, respectively.

There has also been significant progress towards closing the poverty-related attainment gap. The gap has reduced to its lowest-ever level for primary pupils in literacy, its lowest-ever level for primary pupils in numeracy and its lowest-ever level for S3 pupils in both literacy and numeracy. That shows that our long-term investment in Scottish education, such as in the Scottish attainment challenge, is delivering tangible improvements and outcomes for our young people.

The challenge has had a transformative impact on Scottish education. Over the past 10 years, it has changed the culture, the narrative and the awareness of equity and the impact of poverty on education. SAC has been able to support our schools and local authorities in driving improved outcomes for children and young people who are impacted by poverty.

We know that recovery from the pandemic has been challenging. Across the globe, education systems have struggled to return to pre-pandemic normality following prolonged lockdown periods. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization reports that the pandemic affected more than 1.6 billion students and youth globally, and that the most vulnerable learners were hit the hardest.

In Scotland, young people and their families have struggled. Today’s data suggests, however, that we are turning a corner on education recovery, with improvements across the board. Attendance of children and young people in school has increased. There has been further consolidated improvement in school attendance, which is now at a rate of 91 per cent, and a decrease in the levels of persistent absence of approximately three percentage points.

Our recent national marketing campaign on school attendance has been supporting improvements. More directly, however, individual schools have been focused on supporting families and young people in returning to formal education after the pandemic. Across the country, Scotland’s headteachers are using a variety of interventions to support their young people with improved attendance—for example, in the employment of family liaison officers, as I witnessed recently at Pathhead primary school in Kirkcaldy.

Those improved outcomes are a testament to the diligence and commitment of our children, our young people, their teachers and all our school staff. We should all be rightly proud of them.

Those significant achievements also provide a clear indication that the choices and investments that the Scottish National Party Government has made are supporting better outcomes for our pupils.

In 2014, we chose to create an entitlement to fully funded early learning and childcare for every three and four-year-old. This September, nearly every eligible child aged three and four was registered for funded provision, which ensures that they get the best start in life. If families paid for the full 1,140 hours entitlement themselves, it would cost them more than £6,000 per year for each eligible child.

However, there is more to do to make sure that every child gets the best possible start in life. It is disappointing that the proportion of eligible two-year-olds who are registered for early learning and childcare has fallen nationally. It is also concerning that there was a decrease in attainment in primary 1 level. Those children are, in effect, Scotland’s Covid babies. We must not allow the longer-term impact of the pandemic to hold them back—the pandemic must not become a defining feature of their young lives.

The Government remains absolutely determined to leave no child behind. I have therefore requested urgent advice from our primary headteacher national panel to intensify and enhance support for that intake and the ones yet to come. I have also asked Education Scotland to consider how to enhance support for those children as part of our work on the Scottish attainment challenge and to provide a report, which I can share with the Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee. I will ask the new chief inspector, once appointed, to look specifically at the issue.

To increase uptake of early learning and childcare among eligible two-year-olds, we are funding a post in the Improvement Service to deliver intensive support to five local authorities—in Falkirk, Glasgow, North Ayrshire, Lanarkshire and Aberdeenshire—under a national improvement project on maximising uptake.

I know that colleagues will be mindful of the rise in the percentage of children and young people with an identified additional support need. Today’s data confirms a 2.5 percentage point increase nationally, although I recognise that, in schools across the country, the figure is often higher and that it is dependent on the cohort. I have welcomed the constructive dialogue with members from across the chamber on additional support needs and, with thanks to Willie Rennie for the initial suggestion, I can advise Parliament that work has begun on a national event for teachers to showcase successful approaches to promote best practice. The event will mirror the approach of the early years collaborative in promoting the expertise of those at the chalk face to help to share good practice of what is working well.

Following a successful ASN data summit in November, I am today launching a programme of data improvement work on additional support for learning. The programme will focus on three key areas: first, a review of existing categories for recording additional support needs; secondly, clear and concise national guidance to support the recording of ASN data; and, thirdly, developed options for gathering data on local staged intervention models and reporting those at national level. That will, in turn, inform the feasibility of a national staged intervention model for identifying, assessing, planning and better supporting children, young people and their families. That work will fully involve education authorities, given that they are our delivery partners for additional support for learning responsibilities and duties.

A final updated additional support for learning action plan and progress report will be published at the end of this parliamentary session. I intend that final progress report to be accompanied by a short, sharp review, which will be professionally led and will reflect on the changed context in our schools since the Morgan review and the establishment of the additional support for learning action plan. That will focus on the lessons learned from that process and the next steps, with a view to closing the implementation gap.

It is worth reminding ourselves that Scotland’s schools continue to deliver high-quality learning and teaching. Of the 120 inspections that the independent inspectorate carried out in publicly funded schools between August 2024 and June 2025, 93 per cent were satisfactory or better, and 76 per cent were rated as good, very good or excellent for wellbeing, equality and inclusion.

Thanks to the efforts of Scotland’s local authorities, today’s census data shows an overall increase in the number of teachers for the first time since 2022. The pupil teacher ratio has improved as a result of that investment, which was made possible through support from the Scottish Government’s budget last year. Extra funding in last year’s budget uplifted the ring-fenced funding for teacher numbers to £186.5 million and provided our councils with an extra £28 million specifically to support additional support needs. I am therefore pleased to see an increase in the overall proportion of probationer teachers in permanent or temporary teaching posts, which increased this year to 69 per cent from 65 per cent last year. However, we now need to see sustained improvement on permanent posts.

The wide range of data that has been published today demonstrates that our education system is delivering sustained improvements across the board. Attainment has improved, the attainment gap has narrowed, attendance has improved and we have more teachers in our schools to support Scotland’s young people. In 2025, the national improvement framework set out that, in the short term, our focus would be on improvements in the ABCs—attendance, attainment, behaviour and curriculum—in our schools. That focus has supported clear improvements in relatively short order, and it is also delivering on our longer-term vision of excellence and equity.

The national improvement framework for 2026, which was published alongside today’s statistics, builds on the same approach. Our international council of education advisers has consistently advised that we should focus on those incremental improvements in our education system, because they are indicative of the longer-term shift towards a culture of improvement. The exam results from the summer and the data that has been published today show that that longer-term shift is happening, which is to be celebrated.

The foundations of our education system are robust, and our plans for improvement build consistently on evidence of progress. Nearly every eligible three and four-year-old in the country benefits from fully-funded early learning and childcare. In our primary schools, more children than ever are achieving the expected levels of literacy and numeracy. This year, attainment rates at all levels of school qualifications increased for our young people.

Importantly, we are delivering equity for those who need it most. Closing the poverty-related attainment gap has a key role to play in achieving this Government’s commitment to eradicate child poverty. Our children’s attendance in school has increased again. The gap in literacy and numeracy levels between primary-age children from the most deprived and least deprived communities is at its lowest level ever. A record number of 18-year-olds from deprived areas secured a university place in 2025.

There is more to do to realise our ambitions for Scotland’s children and young people, but today demonstrates what the SNP delivers in Government: promises being kept, progress being made, success being nurtured, opportunity being fostered and a better future for all our children.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were 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 all members who wish to put a question could press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I welcome Paul O’Kane to his position as Labour Party spokesperson on education.

The third-last sentence of the cabinet secretary’s statement claims that promises are being kept. Amazingly, the cabinet secretary managed to state that to the Parliament today while keeping a straight face. The facts speak for the reality, which is that teacher numbers remain at a historic low in our country. When the SNP first took power in 2007, there were just over 55,000 teachers in Scotland. That total has been lower in every subsequent year. In the run-up to the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections, SNP ministers pledged to employ an additional 3,500 teachers and classroom assistants, which is another pledge that has not been kept. Voters will know when they go to the polls in May that SNP promises on teacher numbers have been broken and that they cannot trust the SNP on education.

I welcome the work that the cabinet secretary outlined about ASN. That work is important, and it has come about because the Scottish Conservatives brought forward a vote to Parliament to deliver it. However, we need action, not only words.

The biggest failure in the statement is the broken promise on eradicating the attainment gap. More than a decade on from Nicola Sturgeon’s flagship pledge, there remains a chasm between the most and least deprived kids in our country when it comes to basic literacy and numeracy. Too many pupils are being failed, and we are falling short of the expectation that we should be delivering a basic education for them.

If SNP ministers can take credit for anything today, it is their ability to spin a record of failure. Will the cabinet secretary be honest with the teaching profession across our country and admit that the SNP pledge on teacher numbers will now not be met?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I find it remarkable that Miles Briggs was unable to welcome in his comments a single measure that was announced today. The statistics are the result of the hard work of Scotland’s teachers and pupils, and the success that we have seen across the board in relation to attainment, attendance and, more broadly, the narrowing of the attainment gap is to be welcomed.

To come to some of Mr Briggs’ points, it is worth reminding Parliament that, since 2014, teacher numbers have increased by more than 2,500 thanks to investment from this Government. In the previous year’s budget, the Government made a direct intervention to protect teacher numbers. We uplifted ring-fenced funding to £186.5 million and provided local authorities with an extra £28 million to support those with additional support needs. The Conservatives chose to vote against that investment, which speaks to some of the challenges in that regard.

On teacher employment, it is worth welcoming the fact that there has been an increase in the proportion of probationers in the teacher induction scheme who have secured a teaching post in the year following their probation. As a result of our investment, the figure has gone up to 69 per cent compared with 65 per cent last year.

I am pleased that Mr Briggs welcomed the action relating to additional support needs, which has been informed by cross-party working.

This year’s statistics show that we have made further progress in narrowing the attainment gap across a range of measures. However, Mr Briggs made no comment on the impact on our education system across the board of the austerity policies that his party followed when it was in power. If members speak to any headteacher, they will hear about how, as a direct result of those policies and that approach, poverty is corroding the progress that is being made in our schools. I make no apologies for the Scottish Government’s approach, which is delivering progress and improvement across the board. I wish that the Conservatives could bring themselves to welcome that good news for Scotland’s children and young people.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. As I take on my new role, I am looking forward to my interactions with her, her ministerial team and, indeed, colleagues across the chamber.

It is clear that, when progress has been made through the hard work and dedication of our teachers, young people and parents, that will receive welcome and constructive comments from Labour members. However, we will continue to point out, without fear or favour, the areas in which the Government continues to fail.

The cabinet secretary spoke about promises being kept. If the defining promise of the parliamentary session that began in 2016 was to close the poverty-related attainment gap, the promise of the current parliamentary session was about Covid recovery in our schools. However, with less than three months of the current parliamentary session to go, we are told by the cabinet secretary that we are just turning a corner and are on a trajectory of progress.

The reality is that our schools are still far behind where they were before the pandemic. We have heard about the failure to deliver the promise on teacher numbers. Despite a fractional increase since last year, attendance levels remain 2 per cent below the pre-Covid average, with unauthorised and persistent absence rates well above pre-Covid averages. Moreover, the Government has allowed a postcode lottery to develop. For example, East Ayrshire has one of the lowest attendance rates in the country, but, down the road in South Ayrshire, attendance rates are above the national average.

The cabinet secretary uses selective figures to claim that the combined measure for the numeracy attainment gap in our primary schools is the lowest that it has ever been. However, the attainment gap for those in primary 4, when they are in that crucial transition—the halfway point of a child’s journey through primary education—has significantly worsened.

Is not the overarching truth that John Swinney’s and the SNP’s stated mission on Covid recovery and education has completely failed? What is the cabinet secretary going to do about that, other than pat herself on the back?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I welcome Paul O’Kane to his position. I note that he has welcomed the progress today and has talked about the constructive approach that he will take in his new role. I look forward to that engagement.

Paul O’Kane provided challenge, and I am happy to talk to some of the challenges. For example, I absolutely accept the challenge relating to attendance, which he mentioned. The Government has taken forward a range of measures in that regard. Two years ago, I instructed the chief inspector to take forward focused work with local authorities on the matter.

Paul O’Kane was right to speak about the postcode approach that is taken by different local authority areas and the variance that we see in the system, but that is a feature of Scotland’s education system, with 32 local authorities running our schools. However, that is not a reason for further improvements not to be made, which is why—[ Interruption .] I hear Paul O’Kane chuntering from a sedentary position. If he will listen—

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I have never chuntered in my life.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

As I mentioned, the national marketing campaign was launched last month, and it has been supporting some of the improvements in that regard.

Paul O’Kane mentioned the attainment gap. I have mentioned some of the data that shows a narrowing of that gap. In 2024-25, the gap in relation to literacy has reduced to 19.4 per cent, which is its lowest-ever level. The gap in relation to numeracy in primary schools has also reduced to its lowest-ever level.

Undoubtedly, there are challenges in the system that relate to the pandemic and to the points that I made in response to Mr Briggs. We need to intensify progress, which is why I have set out a range of measures in that regard. When appointed, the new chief inspector will have a key role in driving that improvement.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

As the cabinet secretary has mentioned, the poverty-related attainment gap in literacy and numeracy among primary school pupils reduced to its lowest ever level in 2024-25. How will the Government continue to combat that gap?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I am delighted to see the progress across the board that the member has spoken about. The Government has given an undertaking that we will continue with the Scottish attainment challenge. Of course, it will be a matter for the next Government to decide on a policy approach, but, as we have seen evidence of today, it is delivering improvements in our schools as a direct result of the additionality that the Scottish Government has provided, whether through the pupil equity fund or the Scottish attainment challenge.

For example, the addition of extra staff in our schools is making a huge difference. Earlier I mentioned the primary school in Kirkcaldy where I saw the employment of a family liaison officer. Other headteachers take different approaches.

Across the country, around 3,000 extra staff are being employed in those roles as a result of the additionality from the Government, which is making a key difference and driving improvement.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I, too, welcome Paul O’Kane to his new role.

I noted the reference to early years funding in the statement and the subsequent request for advice from the primary headteachers national panel about the decrease in attainment at primary 1 level. I also welcome the request that, when the new chief inspector is appointed, they should look at that specific issue, and note that the Government remains determined to leave no child behind.

However, the Government has not addressed the funding model that is causing disparity in provision, resulting in a postcode lottery that means that some parents are being prevented from accessing childcare that is most suitable to their needs and to the needs of their child. When will the cabinet secretary finally address that issue so that the early years funding model can actually guarantee that no child is left behind?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

It is imperative that we focus on primary 1 pupils—the Covid babies as I called them in my statement—and intensify progress in that regard. Natalie Don-Innes and I are looking at a programme of work across Government to intensify some of that progress—Ms Don-Innes leads on early learning and childcare as the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise.

The member will have seen a dip in the uptake of early learning and childcare among our eligible two-year-olds in the statistics today. Again, we need to work with local authority partners on that, and I will meet them in the coming days to talk about how we might be able to intensify progress on that.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

With almost all three and four-year-olds across Scotland reaping the benefits of funded ELC, will the cabinet secretary set out exactly how that is benefiting young folk and their families?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

As I set out previously, high-quality childcare is vital to giving our children the best possible start in life, but it also helps to ensure that parents and carers can work, train or study. That is why Scotland’s offer is available to all three and four-year-olds, regardless of their parents’ working status.

I am pleased to see further evidence that uptake remains almost universal for that age group. Independent research that was done back in 2022 found that 74 per cent of parents and carers said that funded ELC had enabled them to work or look for work, while 63 per cent of families with preschool children aged two to five stated that they had no childcare costs as a result. We will publish a full evaluation report on the expansion in early 2026.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

At time for reflection today, we heard that democracy requires humility, so I am asking for an answer to Miles Briggs’s question. Will the SNP Government keep its promise of 3,500 more teachers by the end of the current parliamentary session?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I did not quite catch time for reflection as I was coming into the chamber. There is much humility on the statistics today around about where we need to drive improvements. Of course, we heard from Mr Whitfield’s colleague about the requirements around attendance and I have engaged with Roz McCall on our children and young people who are aged two and the uptake of ELC.

As I outlined in my previous response, we have seen an increase in teacher numbers this year. I thought that that would be welcomed by the Labour Party. Of course, last year, the Labour Party was not able to bring itself to vote for the Government’s budget and the investment that has sat alongside it, driving that increase in teacher numbers. It is interesting that Mr Whitfield comes to the chamber today to talk about humility, and yet he does not appear to have any answers himself.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Rona Mackay, to be followed by Willie Rennie—[Interruption.]

Let us hear one another, colleagues.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

We have seen the proportion of primary pupils achieving the expected curriculum for excellence levels in literacy increase to the highest level to date. How do you reflect on what that achievement tells us about Scotland’s education system?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Always speak through the chair.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

It is worth celebrating that improvement in relation to literacy in particular, as the level is at its highest to date, as the member has set out. We are seeing clear improvements in areas such as literacy in relatively short order, and that tells us that the education system is on the right track. That is being supported by the investment through the teaching workforce, which was mentioned previously, as well as the Scottish attainment challenge and the key national programmes on literacy and numeracy. It is important that we press ahead with our further reforms to the curriculum and our qualifications system, towards the longer-term vision of a globally respected, empowered education system.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Ten years ago, the then First Minister promised that, by now, the poverty-related attainment gap would be closed. That was Nicola Sturgeon’s defining mission, but Nicola Sturgeon cannot even be bothered to turn up today to see thousands of young people’s futures being betrayed by the Government.

In numeracy in primary school, it will take 133 years for that gap to close at this rate of progress. Without hiding behind staff and pupils, will the cabinet secretary say when exactly she was planning to apologise to those thousands of young people?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I find it remarkable that Mr Rennie is not able to welcome some of the progress that we have seen today across the board at every level. This is about celebrating our children’s and young people’s achievements.

I accept the challenge, however, in relation to intensifying progress, which is exactly why—

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

It is your promise.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I can hear the member heckling from a sedentary position, but I have spoken to the issues that we are taking forward with the chief inspector, who will be leading on intensifying the progress that we have seen. We are also mindful of our primary 1 pupils in considering how we can intensify that work—I spoke to Ms McCall about that earlier.

Let us look at the figures from today. The poverty-related attainment gap in literacy for primary pupils reduced in 2024-25 to its lowest-ever level. Our exam results this year show progress, with a narrowing attainment gap across the board, so the interventions that we are putting in place are making a difference.

I accept the challenge from Mr Rennie on the need for intensification, however, and that is exactly what the chief inspector will be taking forward.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

The poverty-related attainment gap for S3 pupils in literacy and numeracy reduced in 2024-25 to the lowest-ever levels. What is the cabinet secretary’s assessment of that achievement, and will she join me in paying tribute to our teachers for making that possible?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Mr Torrance rightly speaks about the achievements of our teachers in driving that progress forward. I notice that no one has yet commented on the fact that the ACEL data is informed by teacher judgment; that is an important factor in how we arrive at the measurements across our education system. We trust Scotland’s teachers to support the improvements that we need in our schools.

As a direct result of investment from the Scottish Government, we have been able to increase the number of staff in our schools, and not just the number of teachers. Educational psychologists, family liaison workers and ASN staff have been supported through additional investment from the Scottish Government. I absolutely join David Torrance in paying tribute to our school staff, who have helped to support the improvements that we are all welcoming today.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Moray has the highest level of teacher absences anywhere in Scotland. Councillor Derek Ross has described that as “shocking”, and Councillor Marc Macrae asked whether Moray teachers are “living in fear”. I ask the cabinet secretary for her response to Moray Council having the highest level of teacher absences in Scotland.

Given that the cabinet secretary has so far refused to answer this question twice, I will try for a third time. Yes or no—will the SNP deliver its manifesto commitment on teacher numbers?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Mr Ross will of course be aware that I began my teaching career in Elgin high school in Moray, in his constituency, and I found it to be a very supportive environment as a probationer teacher many years ago.

I am concerned about the statistics that Mr Ross has shared with me today in relation to teacher absence. As I think I set out in my statement, I and Ms Robison, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, will be meeting representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the coming days to discuss some of the figures, particularly in relation to variance in teacher employment across the board. I will also raise directly with COSLA the issue in relation to Moray to understand more about the detail. If the member is able to share any more detail with me on the matter, I am more than happy to consider it.

In relation to teacher numbers, I have set out the interventions that the Government has taken in relation to—

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Yes or no?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I repeat that I have set out the interventions that the Government has taken in relation to the budget, and those interventions made through the budget last year have led to an increase in teacher numbers this year, for the first time since 2022.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

It is very pleasing to hear that teacher numbers have increased. How does the Scottish Government intend to work with local authorities and other partners to build on that?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

It is important that we work with our local authority partners in relation to the improvements that we have seen across the board and, in particular, on teacher employment. That is a common theme that we have heard from members today. The education and childcare assurance board, which was established as a result of the Verity house agreement with local government, is the opportunity for the Government to undertake that work. We are looking at more strategic approaches to teacher workforce planning, which, to answer Colin Beattie’s question, will help to inform how we drive improvements and more teaching jobs in the future.

Urgent Question

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the decision of the employment tribunal of Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife health board.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We note the judgment in this very complex case. Individual decisions by the board in relation to employment matters are a matter for the board, but, as a Government, we will be considering the judgment very carefully for any issues that require wider consideration.

This Government has called for, and will continue to call for, a respectful and compassionate debate on gender issues, recognising the need for respect and dignity for all involved. These matters need to be carefully considered, openly and thoughtfully, and respectful debate among people with differing opinions should always be possible—that is the only way that we will make progress. My focus is to ensure that NHS Fife and other boards provide an effective health service for the populations that they serve across Scotland, and that will continue to be my focus.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

NHS Fife was found to have harassed a nurse of 30 years just for standing up for her rights to privacy and dignity. Her sex-based rights under the Equality Act 2010 were not protected. Too many female nurses are operating in a climate of fear in a two-class system. National health service boards are allowing trans activists to push their illegal and harmful self-identification agenda and fuel a toxic and harmful culture. The cabinet secretary talks about different opinions, but what about nurses who are being told to be nice, when nice means subjugating their rights to privacy, dignity and safety? Activism has no place in hospitals, where the number 1 priority should be safeguarding. Cabinet secretary, what will you do to keep all women safe in hospitals, protect their sex-based rights and eradicate this climate of fear, harassment and bullying?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Speak through the chair.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have been very clear since coming to office—as, I believe, my predecessors were—on the importance of dignity and respect for all people in the employment in the health service. I will say again that our health system is based on the core values of care, compassion, openness, honesty, dignity and respect for everyone, irrespective of their individual identities. This is an incredibly complex case and a lengthy judgment, so we will take care and time to reflect on it, as I urge all colleagues to do.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Cabinet secretary, what about the care and compassion for female nurses?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Through the chair, Ms White.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The floodgates have opened and the judgment is the thin end of the wedge for employment tribunal cases and settlements. Millions of pounds of hard-earned taxpayer money is being paid by the Scottish Government to fuel organisations such as Engender, LGBT Youth Scotland, Stonewall and the Scottish Trans Alliance, allowing them to go rogue and unchecked. Many of them push their illegal propaganda, influencing training materials, guidelines and policy in hospitals and the wider public sector. Under procurement policies, NHS boards do not award contracts to organisations that do not abide by the law. Why is this any different? Cabinet secretary, will you personally—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Through the chair, Ms White.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Presiding Officer, will the cabinet secretary personally oversee a review of the policies and guidelines that are being influenced by those organisations before they come up for financial renewal next year—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Cabinet secretary.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

—or will he, under his watch, allow—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Cabinet secretary.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Presiding Officer, I think that we are going slightly beyond the tribunal decision. To provide some context, the tribunal has still to proceed to a remedy; there are 14 days in which the people who are involved have an opportunity to appeal. It is important that we allow that process to take its course and that we respect it. The question of the wider considerations of ensuring that everybody is able to speak up and access and deliver health services with respect and compassion was answered by me in my previous reply.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

A number of members wish to ask supplementary questions; I hope to get all those in, but they will need to be slightly briefer.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The ruling in the Sandie Peggie case leaves significant questions for NHS Fife and the Scottish Government to answer. The Scottish Government wrote to health boards in early September about the Supreme Court judgment, but left it as a matter for individual boards to consider, following their own legal advice. Surely we should have one consistent approach across Scotland, in which the legal advice for boards is the same and a woman does not need first to complain to have her employer follow the law—or does the Scottish Government expect individual front-line staff to be their own experts on human rights law?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Again, the Scottish Government accepts the Supreme Court ruling. We accept that judgment and are taking forward the detailed work that is necessary as a consequence. A working group that has been established and convened by the permanent secretary has been actively considering the implications of the judgment across every key area of Government. As a result of that work, action has already been taken, including the production of updated guidance on the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 and an amendment to the public appointments recruitment process for regulated public bodies, through which the act is applied. Action is being taken.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

This case is a prime example of the Scottish National Party’s flawed self-identification guidance having gone wrong. It has been nearly eight months since the Supreme Court ruled that, when it comes to equalities legislation, the definition of “sex” is based on biology, yet public bodies under the direction of the Scottish Government have still not implemented that judgment. Will the Scottish Government finally commit to ensuring that all public bodies follow the judgment?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have already given the Government’s position on the Supreme Court, in answer to Jackie Baillie. Again, I will provide context on where we are when it comes to the tribunal ruling. The tribunal has still to proceed to a remedy. The remedy hearing is still to take place. There are 14 days in which those who are involved in the tribunal can appeal, so I caution us all against rushing to judgment while the process is still under way.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Despite the valiant attempts of anti-trans campaigners to claim a win on the issue, the tribunal found that Ms Peggie’s behaviour amounted to harassment of Dr Upton, and it dismissed the vast majority of her claims. Most important, it is the second Scottish employment tribunal in a month to find that employers are not, in fact, required to operate the kind of trans-segregation policies that anti-equality groups are pushing for. Does the Scottish Government agree that the blanket exclusion of trans people from the facilities that they need at work is generally unlawful, and will it therefore make it clear to all public bodies in Scotland that segregating trans people is not supported in law and that their human rights will be defended against the current onslaught?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As I said, we are still working through and will consider carefully the tribunal ruling and its implication not just for the health service but for wider public bodies as employers.

As I said in response to previous questions, our health system is based on the core values of care, compassion, openness, honesty, integrity and respect for everyone, irrespective of their individual identities. Four areas were upheld by the tribunal, which need to be taken seriously, and I will correspond with NHS Fife to hear how it intends to respond to those.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The conduct of the senior management of NHS Fife throughout this entire episode has been disgraceful. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money has been spent in legal fees defending the indefensible, and more money has been spent on media management. The character of Sandie Peggie, a nurse with a 30-year unblemished record, was traduced in court. A bizarre media statement was issued attacking Sandie Peggie’s legal team, which later had to be withdrawn and which we now know was instructed personally by the chief executive. Carol Potter, as chief executive of NHS Fife, has lost the confidence of the people of Fife and does not deserve to continue in that role. She should not be allowed to retire next year on a healthy pension. Will the health secretary now sack her and remove her from a job that she is not fit to do?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The tribunal has still to proceed to a remedy and the parties involved still have 14 days to appeal the decision. I note that four claims were upheld out of the 47 claims, and it is important that serious consideration is given by NHS Fife to those four claims that were upheld out of 47. I will be corresponding with NHS Fife in order to hear its response and how it will respond to those claims being upheld.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Everybody, regardless of their protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, has the right to feel safe at work and free from harassment. Organisations such as Engender do incredible work using their vast experience to contribute to debates and to promote and protect women’s rights. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we must listen to them when they do so?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have already set out that I expect, from a health service perspective, a culture of openness, transparency and support for patients and members of staff to be able to interact and go about their business, whether that is seeking to get access to services or, indeed, to deliver them. I expect that irrespective of people’s individual identities. Of course, it is open to anyone to bring forward concerns at any point and to ensure that those are properly remedied, and it is for those organisations to support people in doing so.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Shamefully, during the tribunal, the cabinet secretary expressed confidence in the senior leadership of NHS Fife. Now he must have come to the conclusion that most of us reached months ago—that they do not deserve that confidence. If the current chief executive does not do the right thing and resign immediately, will he do the right thing and sack her?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have already said in response to Murdo Fraser’s question that the tribunal still has a course to run, which includes the conclusion of the remedy, and that all parties involved have 14 days in which to appeal. It is important that the issues that have been raised around the four claims that were upheld out of 47 claims are responded to. That is why I will be corresponding with NHS Fife in order to get its response. Otherwise, it is important that we take the time to reflect on the judgment and the complexity that is involved here. We will certainly be doing that in Government.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Sandie Peggie employment tribunal exposes not just one employer’s failings but a systemic collapse in how public bodies understand and uphold women’s sex-based rights. This judgment further exposed how whistleblowers are harassed merely for speaking up for themselves or for others. Women in Scotland should not have to become litigants simply to secure their lawful rights to dignity and safety at work and in public spaces and services. The Supreme Court settled the law. Will the Government now act with urgency to follow the law, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission advised months ago, and support its public bodies to follow the law and stop this ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We have been clear since the Supreme Court ruling that we accept its judgment. We are taking forward the detailed work that is necessary as a consequence. We have had sight of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated code of practice, but it is for United Kingdom Government ministers to publish that, and we await that happening.

On the outcome of the tribunal, there are still matters to run their course, including the remedy hearings, and it is open to individuals to appeal the decision. It is important at this stage to take calm reflection of the judgment, which is complex both legally and from a policy perspective, and to ensure that we are responding adequately across Government.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

It is clear that the SNP’s gender self-identification policy still prevails in spite of the Supreme Court judgment. Sandie Peggie’s case proves that the burden of expressing concerns around safety, privacy and dignity lies directly with women and women only. Women’s protections must be guaranteed in the workplace. Will the cabinet secretary give biological females the assurance that they can feel safe in all health boards across Scotland?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Since coming into office, I have made clear the culture of respect that I expect within our boards as employers, and I continue to work on that with the Independent National Whistleblowing Officer and local whistleblowing champions, as well as with the chairs and chief executives of boards. Regardless of people’s individual identities, I expect everybody to be treated with respect and that boards will ensure that any concerns that people raise are properly considered and investigated, regardless of whether those concerns are about the issues that this tribunal is concerned with or about other matters around patient safety.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes this item of business. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow members on the front benches to change over.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20037, in the name of Neil Gray, on a legislative consent motion for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.

I call the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The debate is about whether the Scottish Parliament should give its consent to clause 43, on prohibition on advertising, in Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I am speaking to the provision as described in the motion. My recommendation on behalf of the Scottish Government is that the Parliament gives its consent.

The motion in front of Parliament today is necessary to protect the constitutional settlement in the normal manner of legislative consent motions and is not a comment on the content of Ms Leadbeater’s bill. The Scottish Government does not have an opinion on the content or principle of that bill, which it is the UK Parliament’s responsibility to scrutinise.

Ms Leadbeater’s bill has no effect on Liam McArthur’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, and neither does the motion; nor should the two bills be conflated, as they are undergoing very different processes in their respective Parliaments.

The Scottish Government’s view is that clause 43 is for a purpose within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, considering the schedule 5, section C7 reservation in the Scotland Act 1998. The C7 reservation covers regulation of, among other things,

“misleading and comparative advertising, except regulation specifically in relation to food, tobacco and tobacco products”.

It does not reserve advertising generally.

Therefore, we believe that the Scottish Parliament’s consent is required for clause 43 and that it should be given, so that we do not find ourselves in a situation in which the English and Welsh assisted dying service can be advertised in Scotland but not in England or Wales.

Let me turn to the substance of the provision under scrutiny today. Clause 43 of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill imposes a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make regulations to prohibit

“the publication, printing, distribution or designing ... of advertisements whose purpose or effect is to promote”

the England and Wales

“voluntary assisted dying service”.

The purpose of clause 43 is stated to be to prevent pressure from being put on vulnerable people or the undermining of national suicide prevention strategies through the unethical advertisement of the England and Wales service. By consenting to the provision, the Scottish Parliament would be agreeing that the English and Welsh service, if it was introduced, could also not be promoted in Scotland.

Effectively, we are making sure that Scotland could not be used to advertise the service and closing what would be a gap in these islands if the bill were to be passed and such a service established. Regardless of personal views on assisted dying or on Ms Leadbeater’s bill, I doubt that any member would wish to see such an anomaly.

In addition to lodging a legislative consent memorandum, I gave evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee on 23 September, where I set out the Scottish Government’s position, as I have to Parliament today.

I have also responded to questions that were raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee around the scope of the powers in clause 43, noting that our recommendation that consent be given was

“based on the substance of the provision, not the scope of the enabling power, which will be determined by the UK Parliament.”

In that response, I noted that, as the committee had acknowledged,

“the exercise of the power in clause 43 is likely to have a very limited impact on the law relative to devolved matters”

in Scotland. Both committees have since indicated that they are content with the motion and with our recommendation that consent be given.

I hope that Parliament finds that explanation and outline helpful in setting out the Government’s position, and I urge members to agree to give consent to clause 43 in so far as it relates to devolved matters being considered by the UK Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 16 October 2024, and subsequently amended, relating to the prohibition on advertising of the England and Wales Voluntary Assisted Dying Service, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Clare Haughey to speak on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

During September this year, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee undertook scrutiny of the legislative consent memorandum in respect of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. During the House of Commons report stage of the bill, several amendments were agreed to that extend the scope of certain provisions to Scotland. Kim Leadbeater, as the bill’s sponsor, concluded that the legislative consent process was not engaged by any of those provisions.

The Scottish Government agreed with that assessment, except with respect to clause 43, which makes provision for regulations that prohibit

“the publication, printing, distribution or designing (anywhere) of advertisements whose purpose or effect is to promote a voluntary assisted dying service”

and

“causing the publication, printing, distribution or designing of such advertisements.”

For the avoidance of doubt, a VAD service, for the purposes of that clause, means the services as set out in accordance with the act, should the bill be passed—that is, VAD services in England and Wales. The provision would, therefore, not apply to any such services in Scotland were the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill to become law.

However, I note that the issue of advertising was actively debated during stage 2 proceedings on the Scottish bill and an amendment was agreed to that introduces a new section to the bill that would create an offence of advertising assisted dying.

We began our scrutiny of the LCM by writing to selected stakeholders to request their written views, and a number of them responded that they had no comments. The committee also received a detailed submission from Alzheimer Scotland that raised some points about the LCM. Those included highlighting the importance of careful alignment between any UK and Scottish Parliament legislation on assisted dying

“to avoid confusion, duplication, or conflict”.

The submission emphasised the need for robust definitions to ensure a

“clear distinction between prohibited commercial promotion that may result in exploitation and permitted factual information”.

Alzheimer Scotland also raised concerns about the implications of the provisions covered by the LCM related to article 10 of the European convention on human rights, arguing that although

“limitations may be justified to protect vulnerable individuals from inducement, they must be proportionate and clearly defined.”

It concluded by recommending clear mechanisms to establish how any resulting prohibitions would be applied and overseen in Scotland.

As part of its scrutiny of the LCM, my committee received assurances from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care that the relevant provisions would apply only to what would commonly be understood as advertising and would not result in prohibitions being placed on the publication of factual information, for example, about the service in question or how it should be delivered.

On that basis, and on the understanding that the scope of the provisions is limited to the advertising and promotion in Scotland of a voluntary assisted dying service that would operate in England and Wales, my committee concluded its scrutiny by recommending that the Parliament agree to a legislative consent motion in similar terms to the draft motion included in LCM-S6-62.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments are currently scrutinising assisted dying bills. Although we may be doing so on slightly different timelines, the reality is that the debates are very similar and the nature of the amendments that are being considered are largely in the same territory of enhancing safeguards.

Wherever we stand in the debate, it is acknowledged that both bills, if successful, will have a profound impact on people across the UK, so it is right that the two Parliaments should work closely together. That is particularly the case when it comes to advertising and media, because online activity travels much more easily across borders than, for example, a poster on a wall.

In the recent House of Lords debate that considered the issue, it was noted that those with chronic illnesses have reported noticing Facebook adverts that include negative content about their treatment, about whether they can live with their condition and even content that suggests going to Switzerland for assisted dying. If Facebook algorithms are opaque, artificial intelligence is even worse. The House of Lords debate also referenced the current lawsuit against OpenAI from the family of a young man who allege that ChatGPT encouraged him to take his life.

Once again, the bill is a reminder of the work that the Governments must do to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in place. Combating advertising that targets vulnerable and suicidal people is an issue that the Governments should be working closely together on, regardless of the outcome of the bills. We, on the Labour benches, support the legislative consent motion.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I will be fairly brief in setting out my hope that there is broad consensus on the LCM before us. I would like to hope that, as the cabinet secretary said, regardless of the range of views on the merits of legislation here in the Scottish Parliament or at Westminster, very few people would want advertising to play any role at all in the issue of assisted dying legislation or any equivalent legislation at UK level for England and Wales.

As others have said, the issue has been debated in both Parliaments in relation to both pieces of legislation. When we debated the LCM, my additional concern was that we should ensure not only that we are clear that we do not expect and do not want to allow advertising to play a role, but that we do not inadvertently make provisions against advertising that would inhibit the provision of factual information about services or, indeed, arguments about the policy merits of the legislation or how services should be delivered. When we considered the LCM in committee, I asked the cabinet secretary whether it was his expectation that the restrictions that we are talking about would apply to advertising alone, and he agreed.

We considered a range of possible restrictions in the Scottish legislation, and I had similar concerns that some variants of what was being proposed might have been more of an inhibition on the expression of legitimate opinions about assisted dying or, potentially, on research or the provision of factual information.

As we go forward, we need to ensure that we pay due attention to both aspects of that concern, either by working with colleagues in the UK Parliament to ensure that the legislation there is in fit shape or by scrutinising Liam McArthur’s bill in this Parliament at stage 3. We must ensure that we not only do not allow advertising to play a role in a way that none of us would be comfortable with, but that we do not inhibit legitimate debate—nor that we allow the use of material on social media, for example, to influence or put pressure on people to make a decision in either direction.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will start where Patrick Harvie left off. Although there are disagreements across the Parliament on the principles of the bill, I think that we can coalesce behind the concern to ensure that the advertising of assisted dying services, whether in England and Wales or in Scotland, is robustly prohibited for the reasons that colleagues have set out.

The convener quoted the submission from Alzheimer Scotland, which pointed to the balance that needs to be struck. We all understand the importance of ensuring that access to factual information and advice—some may even need support to navigate the system—is available to those who need it. However, we must also guard against the risks that Jackie Baillie fairly highlighted in relation to the promotion—not just advertising—of assisted dying services.

I do not have a great deal more to add. The cabinet secretary set the scene well in explaining what this motion is and what it is not. There will be time enough for further debates on my bill and on this issue. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee considered amendments in this area, which went some way but, as Patrick Harvie suggested, potentially slightly too far in relation to the impact on access to information, which is crucial. The Parliament will have an opportunity to return to the issue at stage 3 and will, I hope, ensure that the protections in my bill are as robust as they need to be.

I hope that the Parliament will back the LCM at decision time.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have nothing further to add to the arguments that I set out in my opening statement. I rest on those arguments, and I again urge the Parliament to support the LCM.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes the debate on the motion on legislative consent for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which is UK legislation.

Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20036, in the name of Richard Leonard, on behalf of the Public Audit Committee, on its report, “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited”.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I remind members of my voluntary register of trade union interests.

I present this unanimous report to Parliament on behalf of the Public Audit Committee, and I thank all those who have contributed to it, not least the committee clerks and other parliamentary staff for the work that they have put into it.

It has been a great privilege to serve as the convener of the committee for the past four and a half years. Whoever takes over after the elections in May, in the next session of Parliament, can look forward to continuing much of the work that has begun in this session of Parliament, not least the continuing scrutiny of Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow); the final delivery of the Glen Rosa; a performance audit on completion of that order, which has already been promised to Parliament by the Auditor General; and the results of the forensic audit that is now being undertaken by Grant Thornton, which will be the subject of additional assurance by the Auditor General, ensuring that it will also come before this Parliament.

A forensic examination of the historical accounting records of Ferguson Marine is an audit that the committee strongly recommended be undertaken, because we believe that it is a matter of significant public interest that we properly understand—literally in forensic detail—how public money was spent when the yard was in private ownership between September 2014 and December 2019.

The committee report that we are debating this afternoon has its roots in a section 22 report that was laid before Parliament almost a year ago to the day. As part of our inquiry, we took evidence from old and new accountable officers, from the strategic commercial assets division of the Scottish Government, and from the trade union shop stewards in the shipyard itself. We did not just sit in Parliament—we went to Port Glasgow and spoke to the workers as well as to the managers.

Let me make clear at the outset why we produced our own report, conducted our own investigation and called for this debate in Parliament today. It is because we do not want this yard to fail. It is precisely because, above all else, we want this yard to succeed. So, when the Auditor General warns in his report to this Parliament that he is concerned that Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) may not be “a going concern”, the committee has responded by concluding that, without “urgent investment”, and so without new orders, the yard may not survive.

So, this report is about securing the yard’s future—we make no apology for that. It is about productivity and investment. It is about jobs and a strategic industry. It is about the last commercial shipyard on the Clyde.

That is why, when the Deputy First Minister told the committee just a few weeks ago, in early October, that, of the £14.2 million that has been set aside for capital investment in the yard, only £570,000 has been spent—that is less than 5 per cent—the committee was alarmed.

In paragraphs 49 to 52 of this report, which we should remember was first published in early July, we make it plain—again unanimously—that the Scottish Government needs to act with urgency and that the Scottish Government and FMPG—the ministers and the board—must publish FMPG’s strategy and revised business plan as soon as possible. We are still waiting.

The yard simply cannot modernise on the basis of a perpetually pending plan. The director general for economy told the committee way back in February:

“We need to align the nuts and bolts of what is required for the investment with the strategy and the business plan.”

We are still waiting.

But our concern is not solely with the Government. When we quizzed the then chair of the FMPG board, Andrew Miller, about the strategic plan for the yard, he answered in both a confused and a confusing way. He told us:

“We have been trying to pull that narrative into the future, with substantiated data to articulate the dialogue of what the business needs to do”.—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 5 February 2025; c 45, 41]

What chance have you got?

Mind you, this is the board chair who told us in June 2023 that he did not, in his words,

“understand the narrative around the term ‘bonus’.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 1 June 2023; c 17.]

Management bonuses were not bonuses; they were “retention payments”, he claimed.

He also told us

“We would definitely like to deliver some good news in the next six months.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 5 February 2025; c 46.]

That was 10 months ago. We are still waiting.

In carrying out our parliamentary scrutiny and taking evidence on activities like the extraordinary secondment arrangements or the eye-watering exit payments, the committee has had to make tough recommendations. We cannot ignore what went on.

Take the secondment. Here we had an employee—seconded from another public sector organisation, Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd—who decided to form their own limited company in which they were the sole shareholder, in which they were the sole director and into the bank account of which their FMPG salary was paid. Between February 2023 and March 2024, that added up to over £144,000. Neither the board nor even the remuneration committee had approved this arrangement. A substantial sum of unpaid income tax and national insurance contributions had to be reimbursed to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

In the lexicon of the Auditor General, this represented a weakness in governance and transparency, and the committee agreed, but it is hard to conclude anything other than that this was, in my lexicon, a secretive, tax-avoidance con trick. We should remember that this is in an organisation that is 100 per cent owned by the Scottish Government and so 100 per cent owned by us, and which exists in the first place only because of all of us paying all our taxes.

Then there were the exit packages. Three employees left with pay-outs above £95,000—which not only is a considerable amount of public money, but is above the threshold that requires advance Government approval—but this happened with only one out of the three exit payments, so where were the controls, internal and external? Where was the accountability? Where was the governance? Where was the Scottish Government’s sponsor division?

Let me offer another personal insight. In my almost five years of chairing the Public Audit Committee, it has never been those toilers, those lowest-paid workers or those creators of the wealth who break the rules. It is always—always—the highest paid and the most powerful people in an organisation who break the rules. It is as though some people believe that there is one set of rules if you are at the top and another set of rules for the rest of us.

Incredibly, we also discovered that, while the organisation operated with an audit and risk committee for three years post-nationalisation, it did not have a dedicated internal audit function until the financial year 2023-24. So, our report is clear—given the scale of historical weaknesses and the number of high-risk areas demanding close attention, the Scottish Government needs to closely monitor the internal audit plan.

Let me end, Presiding Officer, where I started. The Public Audit Committee of this Parliament wants modernisation in the yard. All we want is for the workers to be given a fighting chance to compete for future work. We think that the workforce should be at the centre of decision making, not at the margins of it, and that, if they had been—instead of a reliance on retired naval commodores and rear admirals, international management consultants and highly paid turnaround directors—there would not have been some of these multiple and repeated failings, and our island communities would have been served by these two ferries quite some time ago.

This is a state-owned yard and the Scottish Government is the sole shareholder. There is no shortage of shipbuilding orders out there and no shortage of potential work. So, the cross-party parliamentary Public Audit Committee is unanimously calling on this Government to act decisively, because, if it does, this yard, which has a distinctive and proud history, can have a distinctive, proud and positive future.

Let me finish with something that Alex Logan, the GMB convener, candidly said to me when we visited the yard back in June. I hope that all parties will pay attention to this. He said:

“We don’t want to be just another sub-contractor to BAE Systems. If that’s the case, we may as well just get taken over by BAE and become a defence sub-contractor. But that’s not who we are, or have been for a hundred years.”

That is what we need to fight for and that is what this is about. On behalf of the Public Audit Committee, I move the motion in my name,

That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Public Audit Committee’s 3rd Report, 2025 (Session 6), The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited (SP Paper 846).

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Daniel Johnson to speak to and move amendment S6M-20036.1.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The report by Audit Scotland and the subsequent report by the Public Audit Committee are stark and emphatic, and Richard Leonard’s words emphasised that. We already know about the Government’s incompetence, which has led to years of suffering for island communities and to a £400 million bill being picked up by the taxpayer. That is why we have taken the unusual step of seeking to amend the motion. That is not something that would normally happen, but it is important, because the issues raised by the committee’s report are substantial.

I urge members to read page 11 of the report, which lists the committee’s first four conclusions. The first conclusion is that the committee has “significant concerns” about the long-term financial sustainability of the yard. The second conclusion is that part of the problem is the “significant reputational damage” that has been caused by the process of overseeing the two vessels. Although the third conclusion is that the committee “notes” the Scottish Government’s financial support, the fourth conclusion is that “urgent investment” is required to secure the yard’s future.

I point members back to the second conclusion, on the reputational damage to the yard. Why did that reputational damage come about? It came about because the Scottish National Party Government used the yard as a political football for a political stunt. That politicisation is the exact reason for the reputational damage.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member take an intervention?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I will do in a moment.

There is not just a financial story to be told—the Government and, indeed, all of us have a moral responsibility to ensure that the investment goes in, so that the yard can have the future that we all know that it deserves.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

With regard to reputational damage, would Daniel Johnson also acknowledge the fact that the yard went into liquidation in 2014? Clearly, the reputation of the yard was already damaged.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

What has happened since then? A £400 million bill is being picked up by the taxpayer—that is on the Scottish Government.

We all know that, beyond the Glen Rosa, the key to the long-term sustainability of Ferguson’s yard is simple—it needs orders. It is welcome that Ferguson’s has secured work through BAE Systems to build the next generation of Royal Navy warships. That is proof that the United Kingdom Labour Government’s investment in defence is supporting skilled jobs in Scotland.

However, the subcontracted fabrication work on HMS Birmingham is not, on its own, enough to sustain the yard and its workforce; Ferguson’s needs a steady supply of whole-ship orders. As we have heard, the Government promised to invest £14.2 million in modernisation, but, 18 months later, only £500,000 of that has been forthcoming. That is not good enough.

During that time, the Scottish Government has issued a contract for seven small electric Caledonian MacBrayne ferries—but to a Polish firm. A Scottish yard that employs Scottish workers and that is owned by the Scottish Government is losing vital contracts to foreign yards, while the Government prevaricates on its investment promise to make the yard competitive. This is a party whose mantra is, apparently, “Stronger for Scotland”. That is almost as big a joke as using two ferries as a punchline. It is laughable, but that is the catch-22 situation that the Scottish Government has created: it will not provide the money until orders are forthcoming, but the yard cannot secure those orders without the investment that it needs.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

To use his word, the member talked about the “politicisation” of the award—I assume that he means back in 2015. He now wants us to break subsidy control and procurement law by making a direct award for the small vessel replacement programme. Can I just get the story straight?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The Subsidy Control Act 2022 is clear—this has not changed since 2014—that there are several criteria that can be used, including local context and social value, and a direct award is certainly possible. If the Scottish Government wants to prevent the issue from being a political football, it should provide the yard with the investment that it needs in order to operate.

That brings me to my second point. We know that CMAL did not take account of the immense social value that the small ferries contract would have brought to Scotland and to Inverclyde. Despite scoring strongly on the technical aspect of the bid, Ferguson Marine lost out on price to a yard that has no obligation to meet the same high standard of labour laws that we have in this country. The Government needs to develop, at pace, a model of public procurement that takes account of social value. Procurement law has not changed since 2014—

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

If it is brief.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I am sure that my friend would also note that, unlike in Scotland, the Polish Government offers generous patient finance to Polish shipbuilders through its state investment bank.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

That is a point worth noting.

The United Kingdom Labour Government has committed to reviewing UK procurement legislation to boost domestic supply chains and support British businesses and local jobs. I ask the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government to explore how the legislation can be changed. The issue is not just with shipbuilding; we also have the example of Alexander Dennis, to which the Government gave millions of pounds in grants only for buses to be built in Egypt and China.

The skilled and dedicated workers at Ferguson Marine have been failed time and time again by SNP chaos and incompetence. The fear now is that even changes to procurement legislation will not come quickly enough to secure the future of the yard. That is why the Government needs to act quickly to ensure the yard’s future.

We call on the cabinet secretary to commit to bringing forward the full £14.2 million, as was promised; to level the playing field for Scottish manufacturers by reforming its approach to public procurement; and to issue a direct award for the MV Lord of the Isles. Anything less risks losing another vital piece of our critical industrial capacity.

I move amendment S6M-20036.1, to insert at end:

“, and calls on the Scottish Government to fulfil its commitment to invest all of the £14.2 million promised to modernise the yard to enable Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) to secure orders.”

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I welcome the opportunity to open this debate for the Government and to respond to the Public Audit Committee’s report on the 2023-24 audit of Ferguson Marine. I am grateful to the committee and to Audit Scotland for their continued scrutiny and the constructive challenge that they bring to the operations of an important Government-owned business.

Ferguson Marine is the Clyde’s last commercial shipbuilder. It plays an essential role in providing lifeline ferries for our island communities, and it remains—as, I am sure, my colleague Stuart McMillan, the local MSP, will make clear—a cornerstone of the local economy.

By taking Ferguson Marine into public ownership in 2019, we protected more than 300 skilled jobs and ensured that the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa would be completed in Scotland. Our three core objectives remain unchanged: to complete the ferries that are required by our island communities; to support a highly skilled and dedicated workforce; and to secure a sustainable future for a shipyard that is of national industrial importance.

We share the committee’s ambition for a competitive, resilient and well-managed shipyard. In particular, I noted Richard Leonard’s point that the committee wants the yard to succeed. That is a good point of consensus as we start the debate.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the Deputy First Minister give way?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I ask Craig Hoy to allow me to make a bit more progress, and then I will be more than happy to take his intervention.

We want Ferguson Marine to be capable of supporting Scotland’s long-term maritime and economic interests. We also recognise the frustrations that are felt by Parliament, which the two previous speakers expressed, as well as those that are felt by island communities and, indeed, by the workforce due to the delays and cost pressures in the MV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa projects.

The delivery challenges and governance issues at Ferguson’s have been significant, and it is right that we address them openly. I will always apologise to our islanders, many of whom are my constituents, for the disruptions that they have faced in the ferry network as a result of delays at the yard.

With our support, the board of Ferguson Marine has, over the past year, taken sustained action to recruit fresh leadership, strengthen governance standards and improve oversight. A new chief executive, Graeme Thomson, who brings extensive shipbuilding and engineering experience, was appointed in May. He is tasked with driving completion of the MV Glen Rosa and developing a long-term commercial strategy for the yard.

Board governance has been strengthened, too. The Ferguson Marine board has introduced clearer segregation of duties and more structured agenda planning, and it has enhanced its programme of board and committee meetings. Four new non-executive directors with strong commercial and shipbuilding expertise have been appointed, and the board will continue to review its governance arrangements over the next 12 months to ensure that they remain robust.

Internal audit capability has also improved substantially. External expertise from BDO Global has enabled Ferguson Marine to address all high-risk and most medium-risk audit recommendations, with strengthened reporting to the audit and risk committee and improved corporate and project risk registers.

Nevertheless, I recognise the Public Audit Committee’s concerns regarding earlier governance failings. I am very clear that the handling of certain matters during the financial year 2023-24—especially matters that were concealed from the board and from ministers—did not meet the standards that are expected of a publicly funded body. When they were uncovered, the board alerted ministers and Audit Scotland and took appropriate steps to address them, including through the removal of the former chief executive.

The improvements that are now embedded across leadership, assurance, financial controls and governance represent a meaningful shift in capability and discipline at the yard.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the Deputy First Minister give way?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I do not know whether Craig Hoy wants to come in at this point.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The minister is painting a rosy picture of the situation now that borders on recklessness and complacency. Is it not the truth that this has been a fiasco in procurement, a fiasco in governance and a fiasco in providing a strategic direction to the yard? Why, throughout all this, has no SNP minister resigned?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Craig Hoy was not listening if he thinks that I was painting a rosy picture in my comments a few minutes ago.

Let me turn to the delivery of the MV Glen Rosa. A joint project group now brings together Ferguson Marine, CMAL and Government officials to monitor progress and assess risks in real time.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

[Made a request to intervene.]

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I ask the member to let me get through my points and, if I have some time, I will bring him in.

Lessons from the MV Glen Sannox are being applied to the MV Glen Rosa’s build and commissioning stages.

Looking ahead, the future of Ferguson Marine must be built on strong leadership, improved productivity and a sustained pipeline of work. Incidentally, I think that most members across the chamber are agreed on that point.

The Government remains firmly committed to supporting the yard to compete for and win new contracts, and to secure its long-term sustainability. As part of that commitment, up to £14.2 million has been allocated over two years to support yard modernisation, subject to due diligence and commercial tests. That commitment has not changed, and, in that spirit, I am more than delighted to support Daniel Johnson’s amendment.

To date, we have received 11 capital expenditure requests from Ferguson’s, all of which have been scrutinised rigorously and approved. That targeted investment supports essential repairs, health and safety improvements, and equipment upgrades. It is intended to assist with the delivery of the MV Glen Rosa and to build capacity for the yard to deliver future work more efficiently.

Access to the remainder of the modernisation funding requires a clear, board-approved long-term strategy, which will be evidenced through the revised business plan that is currently being finalised. I cannot remember whether it was Richard Leonard or Daniel Johnson who talked about that. However, it is important to note that that is the board’s business plan, which will then be submitted to ministers.

The yard is actively pursuing commercial contracts, and it has been clear about the importance that it places on securing future public sector work. As Parliament knows—this is so important—shipbuilding is a competitive global market and any public contract award must fully comply with procurement and subsidy control rules. If it does not, we will have the worst of both worlds—no work for Ferguson Marine and ships not being built.

In conclusion, there is still much to do at Ferguson Marine, but strengthened leadership, firmer governance, targeted investment and clearer strategic planning provide a more stable foundation for the yard’s future.

Presiding Officer, I will close there, considering the look that you are giving me.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Edward Mountain. You have around five minutes, Mr Mountain.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will try to stick to my time, as the other speakers have.

I congratulate the Public Audit Committee on its detailed report. I do not recognise all the things that the convener said in his speech from the report, but the majority of them are there. I am delighted to see the forensic approach that has been taken by the committee, including my ex-colleague Jamie Greene, who was with me on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and has spent as much time as I have looking at the ferries. He and I, as well as this Parliament, have survived four chief executive officers, four chairs, seven cabinet secretaries and 10 ministers—quite a number, in other words.

Where are we now? As the Public Audit Committee has reported, we are with a yard with no orders; a yard that, going by the evidence that we have been given on the way that it is structured, is going to need 25 to 30 per cent more money to produce a ferry than any other yard in the world; and a yard that needs about £14.2 million invested—I will come back to that last point, because at one stage we heard that it would be £25 million, so there seems to have been a bit of a reduction.

How have we got here? It is quite clear that there has been Government incompetence and management incompetence, and there is now no confidence from people who want to order ferries.

The Government incompetence goes back many years. First, who would award a contract to a company with no proven management experience in shipbuilding? I acknowledge that there might have been great experience among the workers, but the management of the yard would never have built a ship in their lives. Secondly, the Government allowed two ferries to be built at a yard that could not house two ferries, despite the fact that, as part of the contract, they had to be built at the same time. If that is not incompetence, I do not know what it is.

Then we got the arrangement of 15 staged payments for each of the ferries. What a great idea. Most yards across the world ask for five, but because the Government was keen to ensure that the person running the yard got as much support as possible, it agreed to 15 staged payments, and then managed to pay £82.5 million of the £97 million contract value when less than one ferry was built. That is incompetence.

What did we do then? When we got the yard into private ownership, we appointed Tim Hare to be the turnaround director. I know for a fact that, if you are a good turnaround director, you are never out of work. Well, Tim was the only one who was available. I also know that, if you are the turnaround director and you are six months into your job, you are no longer the solution to the problem—you are the problem. That was proved by the fact that, when he left, he had taken a huge amount of money from the Government and had not done much to turn the yard around.

We then got to the situation with the chair—I was amused by the convener’s comments about this. The Government appointed a chair to run Ferguson Marine who had never built a boat in his life. He had pretty incompetently run Prestwick airport, and he gave speeches to the committee, which I heard a number of times and which I did not understand. They seemed to be a series of jargon-speak joined together into paragraphs that did not make any sense. Perhaps it was a code that the Government understood, but, as a human being, I could not understand it, so I am with the convener on that.

Where are we now? We have a yard with no orders. Western Ferries has taken its order and given it to Cammell Laird, and even the Government has turned the yard down, taking its orders to Turkey and Poland.

What we do not know at this stage, and what the Government has never come clean about, which I find quite bizarre, is what the unrecoverable costs of running the yard are. How much does it cost to keep the lights on, to pay the rates and to run the electricity in the yard? We do not know, but no more money is going to be paid for the ferries. We have been told that the yard has had all the money that it is going to get, apart from some contingency funds. So, apparently, the money that the yard has—although I do not see it in any bank account—is mythically going to multiply to cover its running costs until it gets a new order. I hope that the Government will tell us about that.

The Labour Party is calling for another £14.2 million to be invested in the yard.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

It is not extra.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is an extra £14.2 million, because, as Mr Johnson will remember, we gave the yard £30 million—well, Derek Mackay did, without telling the Parliament or the minister who had ordered the ferries. The Labour Party is calling for another £14.2 million to be invested. The question is, who would invest £14.2 million—

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

[Made a request to intervene.]

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I cannot take an intervention from Mr Johnson unless the Presiding Officer will let me. I am coming to a conclusion.

The people of Scotland are being asked to invest that money when there are no orders in the order book and in the hope that an order will come along. To me, that is pretty dangerous and is a bit of a gamble. I hope that the Labour Party is going to explain that but, at the moment, I cannot support the amendment.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I like Kate Forbes—I hope that my saying that does not damage the rest of her time in Parliament. When she was appointed Deputy First Minister, she was given a number of challenges—we could call them poisoned chalices—and Ferguson Marine was certainly one of them. Today, she tried her best. She tried to make a virtue of admitting the failings in 2023-24, although not all the other failings in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and she tried to make a virtue of admitting that there were board and management failures.

How many times do we have to listen to ministers telling us that it is nothing to do with them? They were the ones who appointed the board and brought in all those numerous directors to run the yard but, somehow, it is nothing to do with them. Well, the fact is that it is everything to do with the SNP, because it was the SNP that brought in its favourite businessperson to run and own the yard. When that failed, the SNP took over the yard, and that failed, with work that was over budget and over time, with painted-on windows and numerous other failures such as chains that were not long enough. There were all sorts of difficulties and problems, all because of the SNP and the decisions that it took in politicising the process.

Who was it that suffered? The workers. They have a tremendous reputation for doing a good job, but they were led by very poor management, appointed by the SNP. Taxpayers are hundreds of millions of pounds out of pocket when people are struggling to put the lights on and keep their homes warm, and we are told that it is nothing to do with the SNP. Of course, there are the islanders who cannot even get a ferry on time to go to work, get a hospital appointment or visit friends and family. All of that was on the SNP’s watch.

The SNP needs to accept responsibility—Edward Mountain is right that no one has accepted responsibility enough to resign. We have been through numerous ministers, and they all run for the hills as soon as they can, but they are ultimately responsible, and somebody should pay the price, even if it is Kate Forbes.

Shipbuilding has its challenges, and it is difficult. I understand that it requires co-ordination and investment and that a drumbeat of work is needed to maintain the skills and good management, and to have security of investment and maintenance in the yard. We know that that is how it works. We know that we need a pipeline of work to give confidence to all those people that there will be work for the future—and there is a host of work. We are surrounded by seas, which are bustling with potential activity in relation to offshore wind, the remainder of the oil and gas sector and the Border Force. There is also BAE Systems just up the road, which is providing investment as a result of the UK Government investment in defence work.

A host of work is out there. What is the point of the Scottish Government owning a yard if it will not give it a future? At least plan for the future. Give the workers a chance to get some of that work, so that the yard can have a future.

The overall image is of a Government that we have transformed from cavalier—it was smashing champagne bottles and painting windows on the sides of boats—to one that is too scared to even come out from under its shell. We need a proper Government that has proper plans for the future to give those workers a chance.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the open debate.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

I thank my fellow Public Audit Committee members, the committee clerks and parliamentary staff for their work in producing the report, as well as those who gave evidence. The report is important not only to hold the Government and the management at Ferguson Marine to account but for the skilled workers at Ferguson Marine and the island communities whose lifeline services depend on having a modern ferry service.

Ferguson Marine has, in several different iterations, featured far too often in the Public Audit Committee’s work over a number of years. I welcome the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment to Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) and its long-term financial sustainability. The yard remains strategically important to Scotland’s shipbuilding capability because it provides high-skilled jobs and supports our industrial base. The cost overruns and delays to the MV Glen Sannox have created reputational damage that will be difficult to overcome. The setbacks have impacted on confidence in the yard’s ability to deliver on time and to budget, and island communities have felt the consequences most directly.

The report draws attention to a critical issue: there was no pipeline of future work beyond completion of the MV Glen Rosa, which is expected in Q2 2026. However, since the report, Ferguson Marine has signed a contract with BAE Systems to build three sections of a Royal Navy warship. The news is welcome, but it is important that the yard secures orders to build ships, not only fabrication work, as it is doing for BAE Systems. Without clarity on future contracts, the yard faces uncertainty that could affect employment and the value of the public investment that has already been made.

It is therefore disappointing that FMPG was unsuccessful in securing phase 1 of the small vessels replacement programme. It underlines the urgency of developing a revised business plan that is realistic, competitive and capable of securing future orders. The committee also found that urgent targeted investment at the yard is required if it is to compete effectively after decades of underinvestment. We must acknowledge the significant sums that have already been committed, but those must now be matched with robust monitoring to ensure value for money and measurable improvement.

Financial monitoring, in particular, must be strengthened if future investment is to genuinely support long-term sustainability rather than simply manage short-term pressures. The report is clear: FMPG needs stronger oversight and tighter governance. The increased cost forecast of the MV Glen Rosa exposes serious weaknesses in project management and financial planning, which cannot continue. We need non-negotiable accountability at every level of the organisation, so I welcome the commitment from both Ferguson Marine and the Scottish Government to improve internal controls. Since our inquiries began, we have seen early signs of progress: engagement between the strategic commercial assets division, board and senior management has strengthened since the new chief executive came into post.

Governance has tightened around non-standard staffing arrangements, settlement agreements and exit packages. Importantly, the new chief executive now meets regularly with trade unions, which gives the workforce a direct and influential role in shaping decisions. I am pleased that the Scottish Government will ask the board to consider the committee’s recommendation for greater union participation in governance structures. Those changes are welcome, but they will ultimately be judged on whether Ferguson Marine delivers vessels, restores confidence and secures new work.

Although mistakes have been made, the report provides a route to improvement. I am pleased with the committee’s work and believe that our recommendations will significantly strengthen governance at the yard and improve its ability to secure future contracts. The Scottish Government must be held to account for its stewardship since the yard came into public ownership. That is right and proper, but I remain convinced that public ownership was the right decision. Without it, Ferguson Marine would have likely closed, taking skilled jobs, shipbuilding capacity and decades of expertise with it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to conclude.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

We must now ensure that Ferguson Marine becomes a modern and competitive shipyard that delivers for island communities and supports skilled employment.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

The Public Audit Committee’s unanimous report on Ferguson Marine is a damning indictment of SNP incompetence and failures in ministerial accountability. The SNP’s nationalisation of Ferguson Marine has resulted in islanders having to wait for delayed ferries and taxpayers having to foot the bill for the ballooning costs of new vessels. Since the yard was nationalised in 2019, the Scottish Government has poured more than £500 million of taxpayers’ money into this fiasco. What do we have to show for it? Two ferries—not quite two, remember—that are years late, are massively over budget and have still not been delivered.

The latest figures are staggering: £47.9 million has been allocated for 2025-26, including £38 million for the MV Glen Rosa and £9 million for yard improvements; an additional £14.2 million has been allocated for modernisation; and the forecast cost of the MV Glen Rosa now sits at £185 million, up from £150 million last year. That is not just mismanagement; it is a scandal.

The SNP promised island communities lifeline ferries back in 2018. Instead, the MV Glen Sannox entered service six years late, and the MV Glen Rosa will not be delivered until quarter 2 of 2026—which is getting closer and closer, by the way—a full decade after the original contract. Meanwhile, businesses on Arran and the Western Isles suffer, and confidence in the Government collapses.

The Public Audit Committee’s report exposes systemic failures: internal audit was so weak that assurance on governance could not be provided; exit packages exceeding £95,000 were paid without ministerial approval; and contractor arrangements bypassed board oversight, leaving the yard liable for £48,000 to HMRC.

What has been the SNP’s response? More money, more excuses and still no ferries. Douglas Ross said it best when he said:

“This is the SNP’s ferry fiasco—an embarrassment that has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions while islanders are left stranded. Ministers must stop hiding behind excuses and start taking responsibility.”

As I have said previously, it should be a given that a nationalised shipyard wins a Scottish Government contract, but ferries that should be being built on the west coast of Scotland are instead being made in eastern Europe.

Beyond the numbers lies the human cost. Ena Burke, from Arran, told reporters:

“When you live on an island the ferry rules your life. It puts huge pressure on us. You find yourself sitting there crying, thinking I can’t go through this anymore.”

Local business owner Morag Kinniburgh said:

“People are saying they won’t be back until the ferries are fixed because they can’t risk being stranded. My takings are down 20 per cent—tourists have heard the horror stories and stayed away.”

Barb Toab, from the Arran ferry action group, summed it all up by saying:

“We’ve gone beyond frustrated. We feel like we’ve been abused and ignored by the very people supposed to have our best interests at heart.”

The committee is clear on what must happen next. First, Ferguson Marine and the Scottish Government must immediately publish a revised business plan and strategy to set out how the yard will secure sustainable work beyond that on the MV Glen Rosa. Secondly, all future investment must be subject to transparent governance and rigorous value-for-money checks, with clear monitoring of outcomes. Thirdly, the Government must implement stronger oversight and accountability to prevent further cost overruns, including by providing a detailed plan to deliver the MV Glen Rosa without any further delay.

This fiasco is not about shipbuilding. It is about trust. It is about a Government that cannot deliver its most basic promises. The SNP’s failures have left islanders isolated, taxpayers fleeced and Scotland’s reputation for shipbuilding in tatters. The Scottish Conservatives demand clear ministerial accountability for every penny that is spent and every broken promise. A revolving door of transport ministers, chief executive officers and chairmen, along with the lack of a coherent business plan, means that the future of Ferguson Marine is uncertain, and the blame lies with the SNP Government. Enough is enough. The time for excuses is over—it is time for answers.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I was a member of the Public Audit Committee during its inquiry, and I fully support the recommendations that are set out in the report. I thank the convener for his flexibility in allowing me time to ask questions during the sessions.

The Scottish Government has invested in Ferguson’s to protect jobs, finish the vessels and, ultimately, save the yard. The yard would not be in the position that it is in today if regular investment had been made during the decades before it went into liquidation, in 2014. We need to remember the fact that the number of overseas workers who are employed in naval construction yards has attracted criticism recently, with people arguing that it is being done at the expense of Scottish or UK workers and that it demonstrates the impact of a lack of investment in people. Willie Rennie talked about the pipeline and the drumbeat of investment and orders, and he is absolutely right about that.

To go back to the report that is before us today, thankfully there have been some personnel changes at the yard. For example, Duncan Anderson is the new acting chair of the board, and I wish Duncan well, while I hope that a permanent appointment to the position is found soon. The current chief executive officer, Graeme Thomson, also took up his post in May, joining the yard towards the end of the committee’s work. He can therefore be absolved of any of the legacy issues.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am sorry, but I only have four minutes.

The Audit Scotland report was mixed, as was the committee’s report, as the convener touched on earlier. Ultimately, the yard does need orders and, as section 18 of the report indicates

“there is no shortage of potential work.”

Section 19 outlines the key steps to enable the yard to attract that, including four bullet points: rebuilding its competitiveness; sustained investment; effective management; and learning lessons from the recent tender bids.

It was foolish in the extreme for the yard management to decide to include the small vessel replacement programme 1 direct award order in the previous business plan. I know that I am not alone in thinking that. The subsequent wage bill was bloated, so its bids were always going to be exorbitant.

Notwithstanding the social value clause, which I am sure that Paul Sweeney will touch on in a minute and that has been touched upon many times in this chamber, the 65 per cent to 35 per cent ratio of quality and cost respectively gave the yard’s board and management a prime opportunity to win the work. However, they did not just fail—they failed spectacularly, letting down the workers, the local community and the taxpayer.

The committee and anybody who will listen will have heard about the revolving door of highly paid senior personnel coming and going within months, costing a small fortune. That has not been a good use of taxpayers’ money, and it certainly has not helped morale on the shop floor.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

No, I am sorry—I have only four minutes.

Sections 37 to 41 cover the then chair’s frustration at the bidding process and the claim that UK yards cannot compete on a level playing field, despite section 38 suggesting that UK yards can win. As the convener touched on earlier, the then chair is quoted in section 41 as saying:

“There is work—a possible contract which involves a private individual. There are two or three other things in the pipeline that we are very enthusiastic about. We would definitely like to deliver some good news in the next six months.”

There has been one bit of good news. That chair has gone from the yard, and I welcome that, because the yard management at that time lost orders and the workforce deserves better.

The yard needs investment and, notwithstanding some of the hyperbole that Daniel Johnson came up with earlier, I support that £14.2 million and want it to go into the yard, because it is crucial for the yard’s future. The key to boosting the yard’s efficiency and putting it in a position to secure some of that work that is mentioned in section 17 is for the board and the management to work effectively and efficiently and to turn our yard—because it is our yard—into a yard that we can all be proud of, and to support our workers.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I commend the committee on its excellent work on Ferguson Marine and echo the sentiments of the convener in saying that the whole Parliament wants it to succeed. When we boil it down, the question is whether this country has the will to have a commercial shipbuilding industry. If we do, we need to be clear about what we need to do to achieve that objective national mission. Perhaps that was the Government’s original aim when it saved Ferguson Marine from liquidation in 2014.

I visited the yard a year later as an account manager for Scottish Enterprise. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only member of the Parliament with any direct industrial experience of shipbuilding, so I speak with some direct insight. I visited the yard when it was largely under demolition and Ferguson’s was constructing new facilities while simultaneously constructing a ship. Alarm bells immediately began ringing for me regarding the inherent risk of disruption to production during that process, challenges indeed emerged with hull 801 and hull 802, and the rest is history—as has been well rehearsed.

The question is where we go from here. We need to address some fundamental considerations. First Marine International, an excellent benchmarking organisation, has done a thorough analysis of Ferguson Marine’s facilities from end to end—from steel coming into the yard to the ships coming out, outfitted, at the other end. It has set out a series of recommendations, which I understand are commercially confidential, so neither the Government nor Ferguson has disclosed that information in the detail that I would perhaps like to see. Clearly, however, there is a prescription for investments, which will allow the yard to achieve upper-quartile performance, as FMI would describe it—as I know, having worked with it before in world shipbuilding. That will involve elements such as a panel line, overhead cranes, welding equipment, outfitting facilities and cranage.

There are a number of obvious issues with the shipyard’s layout. I walked the yard in great detail with David Tydeman, the former director, and we looked at some of the obvious issues. For example, in the module hall, the overhead cranes that were installed in the original upgrade in 2015 do not have a third hook, so it is not possible to lift and turn units of ships. Normally when you build a ship, you put the ceiling on the floor, you lay out the ventilation, the cabling and the complex pipework downhand, and you then turn the unit shipwise and stack it on the berth. It is not possible to do that in the module hall, because the cranes there were not specified properly. That is basic stuff—it is basic incompetence—which has cast a long shadow on the efficiency of the shipyard.

There are issues about the infrastructure that urgently need to be addressed. The £14 million or so of investment is so important for that reason, but I imagine that there is a lot more that needs to be done besides. The yard needs a comprehensive, end-to-end renovation to allow it to perform at an upper-quartile level. There are also wider considerations. It is basically not viable to build ships commercially in Scotland right now, because we do not address some of the fundamental issues.

Other countries have patient finance products offered through their national investment banks, which are standard across Europe. In Spain—where the Northern Lighthouse Board’s most recent vessel has just been completed—there is a tax leasing arrangement, whereby you can effectively stagger your VAT returns over a long period, so that, in effect, you get a 20 per cent reduction on the up-front price of the ship. Poland offers patient loan finance to 100 per cent of the value of the ship through its state investment bank. That means not having to chase milestone payments to cover the overhead of the shipyard, which is exactly the mess that Ferguson’s got itself into: chasing milestone payments while knowing that the design was not ready. It got itself into a right old guddle with that, which is why it is such a problem right now. If we had that patient financing, things could be carried out much more patiently and collaboratively.

There is also the issue of the demand signal. We are not converting state demand into domestic orders and domestic production, because of the laissez-faire procurement rules. We need to get that minimum 10 per cent social value baked into our future procurement cycles, which would create more of a demand signal to be converted into Scottish orders. If we can get some of those fundamentals correct, as well as specific investments in the yard, we have a good chance of making a success of commercial shipbuilding in Scotland.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I join others in welcoming the efforts and diligence of the Public Audit Committee. More than 10 years ago, two ferries were ordered from Ferguson’s yard. The Glen Sannox has only recently entered service, and the Glen Rosa still has not been delivered. It is now six years since the SNP took Ferguson’s into public ownership but, rather than a steady course being set for the yard, there has been a shameful tale of mismanagement from right at the very top of Government—yet not a single SNP minister has lost their job or resigned in the past 10 years of failure.

Meanwhile, islanders and other communities who are dependent on reliable ferry links have suffered from the SNP ferries scandal. I intend to speak to their interests today. The enormous cost to the taxpayer impacts us all, but it is in the communities for which the Glen Rosa and the Glen Sannox have been built, and all the other communities that are dealing with outdated or absent ferries, where there is real anger. That is anger not just at the delays but at the impact on those communities and frustration at the insensitivity and lack of focus from too many politicians here, in Edinburgh, who see islanders’ concerns as peripheral at best and impertinent at worst.

The scale of the problem is already challenging, and it is only getting worse. The capital expenditure that is required to meet the cost of ageing ferries across Scotland is considerable. It is not only the west coast routes that are affected; the northern isles vessels are now more than 20 years old, and it has been estimated that replacing the Orkney inter-island ferry fleet alone will cost near enough £1 billion. Shetland is in the same boat—if members will excuse the pun—and the most recent Conservative UK Government had to step in to fund the new Fair Isle ferry.

It is not just the islands that are affected. Only last week, I raised local concerns over the future of the Corran Narrows crossing, which is one of Scotland’s busiest routes, yet one for which the back-up vessel is now on the historic ships register.

A comprehensive long-term strategy—one that island and ferry-dependent communities can have confidence in—is long overdue. It should take an honest view of timescales and costs; recognise the impact of the neglect that has got us to where we are now; and put the needs of communities ahead of procurement, greening the fleet and other incidental considerations that might be the priority of SNP ministers but are far from being the priority of islanders. It should look to new approaches but also ask fundamental questions about where the Government has been getting things so badly and disastrously wrong. It should look at the cost implications of privately chartering vessels, such as the MV Alfred, which has had its charter extended so many times to plug gaps in the west coast service that the bill to taxpayers is now more than the cost to build that ferry in the first place. It should look at whether the Government has considered fixed links seriously enough, where they are possible.

Ferguson’s can be part of that strategy, but ministers must appreciate that, given its track record, the idea of further vessel contracts being awarded to the firm concerns the island communities that I represent. Those of us in Orkney with long memories remember that, in the early 2000s, Ferguson’s won but then binned the contract for the MV Hamnavoe. The committee puts it bluntly. Although it recognises the work that has been done, it notes that

“the scale of historic failings highlights the need for continued vigilance.”

I wish Ferguson’s every success, but an enormous amount of work remains to be done to build public confidence in the company and to demonstrate its long-term viability. Ministers must never be allowed to forget that, although Ferguson’s might employ hundreds of workers in Inverclyde, the company’s failure, and that of successive SNP ministers, to deliver the promised ferries on time and on budget have impacted hundreds of thousands of islanders, island businesses and ferry users in communities right across Scotland. Their needs are non-negotiable, and any future strategy for shipbuilding cannot put what is good for Ferguson’s ahead of what is good for the Highlands and Islands communities that I represent.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I commend Richard Leonard, as convener of the Public Audit Committee, for insisting that the Parliament should debate the conclusions and recommendations that are contained in the committee’s report, “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited”. Although I was not a member of the Public Audit Committee at the time, I acknowledge the hard work of the committee clerks and my colleagues on the committee, both past and present. I am also grateful to the Auditor General for Scotland for his thorough and detailed report.

I will highlight the response from the Scottish Government to the Public Audit Committee dated 27 August 2025, in which the Deputy First Minister welcomed the committee’s scrutiny and constructive recommendations. She acknowledged the frustration of the workforce, of the communities that will benefit from the ferries being built at the yard and of the Parliament, while sharing the committee’s ambition for a competitive, sustainable and well-managed shipyard. She also recognised key aspects of the report that, rightly, highlight concerns around standards and governance. Those aspects include leadership, board governance, Scottish Government engagement and support, internal audit capacity, oversight of staffing and contracts, and staff engagement.

Governance, internal controls and contractor oversight in the early years clearly did not meet the standards that are expected of a publicly funded body. I therefore welcome the significant improvements that have since been made through close collaboration between the Scottish Government’s strategic commercial assets division and Ferguson Marine’s board of senior management. Ferguson Marine’s leadership has been strengthened, robust governance processes are now in place and, crucially, transparency and accountability have improved. The Parliament has already heard that a new chief executive was appointed in May 2025, helping to drive the delivery of the MV Glen Rosa while learning lessons from the MV Glen Sannox project.

Other key aspects of the report focus on project delivery and financial controls, the future of the yard and reputation and performance.

Although it is crucial that lessons are learned and swift action is taken in the areas highlighted in the report and by colleagues from across parties, it must now be everyone’s focus to ensure a successful future for Ferguson Marine.

I accept that there have been difficulties. However, let us not forget the key fact that the SNP Scottish Government stepped in and saved the yard to save jobs. We will never apologise for that. Had it not been for the actions of the Scottish Government, there was a real risk that Ferguson Marine would have ceased trading on the Clyde and lots of jobs would have been lost.

I urge members to compare the SNP Scottish Government’s response to Ferguson Marine to the UK Labour Government’s response to Grangemouth. The Labour Government at Westminster has failed to fulfil its election promises to bring forward the necessary investment and action to save Grangemouth. Anas Sarwar pledged on national TV to

“step in to save the jobs at the refinery”.

His London bosses have, of course, found money to nationalise British Steel; they have found money for petrochemicals in Belgium; and they have found money to back the Ineos chairman’s development of Old Trafford. However, they have repeatedly failed to invest in the workers and industrial future of Grangemouth.

Again, I thank the Public Audit Committee and the Auditor General for Scotland for their reports. I am confident that, with the Scottish Government’s support, Ferguson Marine will once more be competitive on the open market.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the closing speeches.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I join other members in thanking the Public Audit Committee’s convener, Richard Leonard, and its members for bringing this important debate to the chamber. The figures that were laid bare in the Auditor General’s 2024 report, and the conclusions in the report that the committee published subsequently, are stark.

The reports highlight multiple and repeated failings, including instability around changing leadership, inadequate internal auditing processes and serious weaknesses in oversight at the Ferguson Marine yard. Decisions were made on matters such as £95,000 exit packages without the required ministerial approval, which demonstrated a lack of oversight and scrutiny of a yard that is under public ownership. Concerns were raised about that—

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Neil Bibby for highlighting those issues. Does he agree that the appointment of Tim Hair and, subsequently, of Andrew Millar caused further problems for the yard, which it could have well done without?

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Clearly, turnaround directors were appointed who did not turn around the yard, and significant payments were made to individuals from public cash. I heard the Deputy First Minister say that appropriate action was taken on those exit payments. If that is so, I wonder whether she will confirm how much of that money the taxpayer has received back.

There has been, of course, the well-publicised controversy over the delay to the vessels MV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa, failing not only islanders but taxpayers. Compared with the original contract price, the combined cost to taxpayers now stands at an estimated £460 million for the yard’s completion costs alone. The Glen Rosa, which was originally due in 2019, has been delayed again; its delivery date has been pushed into late 2026.

Clearly, there is a lot of blame to go round for the ferries fiasco. That applies to agencies, management and a merry-go-round of ministers. However, I want to be clear that the one group of people who have been blameless throughout are the workers, who are highly skilled and remain deeply committed.

As Paul Sweeney said, the question is where we go from here. The workers and their union, the GMB, have shown the leadership that has been lacking from others, and have been working to turn around the yard. That is why, alongside Inverclyde Council and a cross-party group of MSPs, the GMB has called for urgent investment in the yard to improve efficiencies and help to win future work. Paul Sweeney set out in detail the reasons why that is required.

The Public Audit Committee was clearly in agreement, stating in its report that

“urgent investment in the yard is essential if it is to become competitive and stand a realistic chance of securing new work. The yard’s inability to compete effectively is, in part, the result of decades of under investment. Without addressing this, its long-term viability remains at risk.”

However, in the months following those calls by the union and the committee, the pace of delivery of that investment has been glacial. Daniel Johnson pointed to the fact that only 5 per cent of the promised funding has materialised. Scottish Labour has repeatedly called for action and for that capital investment. It must be delivered as promised by the Scottish Government, to modernise the yard and provide it with a secure future.

Although the contract work with BAE Systems to build three sections of a Royal Navy warship is welcome, it does not secure the shipbuilding future that the yard and its workers urgently need. There is no doubt that those contracts and the significant investment in shipbuilding and defence from the UK Labour Government—I note that Joe FitzPatrick wants to concentrate on what the UK Labour Government is doing—demonstrate that we can help to secure the future of shipbuilding in the west of Scotland where there is the will to do so. The work from BAE has been a sign of confidence in the yard. However, we now need the Scottish Government to show a sign of confidence in the yard, too, not only with the capital investment, but with future Scottish Government work being awarded to the yard. The GMB has called for the yard to be awarded work from the small vessels replacement programme, specifically the replacement Lord of the Isles ferry, the original ferry having been successfully built at Ferguson’s.

Ferguson Marine deserves an opportunity to begin to restore its reputation, which has been damaged by the ferries fiasco, with robust oversight and checks being in place. The Scottish Government should not be sending ferry contracts to Poland and Turkey for smaller, simpler vessels when Ferguson Marine has a proud track record of building such vessels on time and on budget.

The people of Scotland deserve better than yet another report, this time from the Public Audit Committee, highlighting the consequences of more inaction by the Scottish Government. It is ultimately responsible for the ferries fiasco that has unfolded at the Scottish Government-owned yard, and it is for the Scottish Government to fix the mess of its making. Willie Rennie is absolutely right: the Scottish Government is scared to do the right thing now. To do that, it needs to listen to the skilled and dedicated workers at Ferguson Marine and their union, the GMB.

It is time for the SNP Government to move beyond the warm words and the letters of comfort that it continually sends to the committee along with vague commitments. It must invest in the yard and deliver the promised £14.2 million without delay to help it to win a long-term commercial pipeline and make it again a competitive bidder for domestic and international work. It must also show confidence in the yard—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Bibby, you need to conclude.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

—by awarding it future Scottish Government ferry work to safeguard Scotland’s iconic shipbuilding industry. If the Scottish Government does not provide certainty—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Bibby.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

—and show confidence in the yard, why should anyone else?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank Richard Leonard and the Public Audit Committee for bringing this important debate to Parliament and for their dogged work to make sure that we continue to expose what I think is one of the greatest scandals in the history of this Parliament.

It was a scandal of the SNP’s making, because many of the problems that we see in the yard today stem from the initial corruption—I use the word in its broadest context—of the procurement process. As we have heard, those on-going problems include the real concerns about governance and financial management that have been identified by the Auditor General for Scotland, who has rightly taken more than a keen interest in the yard. I commend him for the dogged way in which he has independently ensured that he has kept abreast of developments at the yard. Not only has he probed the procurement of the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa, but he has continued to probe the on-going management of FMPG and the wider issues at the yard, because public money is at their core. It is taxpayers’ money, and all taxpayers should be concerned about the revolving door of highly paid senior managers who have sailed through the yard, seemingly incapable of turning it around.

When I visited the yard with the convener and the Public Audit Committee in 2022, one worker described the situation as a gravy train—or a gravy boat—that had sapped the morale of the workers, who felt as though they had been used and abused for political purposes. On bringing party politics into the matter, I say to Joe FitzPatrick that he is naive if he thinks that the SNP Government is not to blame. It is the SNP Government’s inaction and its inability to remain on top of the matter that have led to two ferries costing millions and millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and, all the while, have deprived islanders of their lifeline ferries.

The exit payments—the golden goodbyes—should be a matter of very real concern to ministers because, since the yard’s nationalisation, ministers are meant to have been in constant contact with managers at the yard to ensure that such issues do not occur. It provides the minister with no cover to say, “We weren’t aware—we didnae know.” At the end of the day, ministers should have known. They should have had the governance and accountability processes in place to ensure that they knew.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I clarify that, as soon as ministers became aware, action was taken.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The ministers appointed the directors and the boards that allowed those things to happen. If ministers had been more engaged from the outset—in fact, if ministers had abided by the procurement processes that should have been in place, rather than simply giving the contract to their pal—the rot that set in at the beginning would not have continued all the way through.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The way that Mr Hoy is speaking at the moment makes it sound as though he thinks that Government ministers should be micromanaging these contracts, which surely in itself would be very wrong?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I think that what Mr Stewart showed as a minister is that he could not manage anything, micro or otherwise.

On this Government’s record, the problem is that, even after all that money has been spent and after the employees, particularly those at the yard whom we met, have poured their heart and soul into keeping the yard alive, it is quite clear that, because of the SNP’s incompetence, there is a question whether the yard has a future.

As Mr Mountain said, we have a yard with no order book. I recognise the intention of the Labour Party, but to put a further £14 million into a yard that is, at present, failing would be naive.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

What should happen? If there is a failure to invest, does the member think that the yard should close?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I think that it is quite clear—get the present vessel finished to a satisfactory standard, get it out the door, get the order book and then seek to invest in order to be able to build the capacity to deliver on that. That would be the logical thing to do, because at present it looks as though we are throwing good money after bad.

At the end of the day, we all want to see Scottish industry thrive, but I asked Nicola Sturgeon the same question that I asked the Deputy First Minister. In November 2022, I asked her:

“How can it be that painters, welders and cleaners might lose their jobs as a result of the fiasco, but you keep yours?”—[Official Report, 4 November 2022; c 28.]

I appeal to the Deputy First Minister again. If she is to look the islanders and workers in the eye, can she not now say that a minister—any minister—should have paid the price for this? Perhaps the Deputy First Minister may be the leader that the SNP never had—the First Minister that they never had. Perhaps she could look those islanders in the eye and say, had she been First Minister and the leader of her party, whether she would have sacked the ministers responsible for this.

I welcome the committee’s view that on-going scrutiny is essential to ensure that public funds are managed appropriately in the future. However, the onus of that should not just fall on the Public Audit Committee or on the Auditor General, because it is SNP ministers who have got taxpayers into this position. It is for SNP ministers to now act decisively to end the waste; to finally get a grip of this yard; and to ensure that the governance and accountability arrangements are in place, that the yard is on firm foundations, that it is fit for purpose and that there is an order book to invest in. Otherwise, it will be hard-working Scots and islanders whom the SNP has taken for fools who will continue to pay the price for the SNP’s incompetence.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call the Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, to close on behalf of the Scottish Government. You have up to seven minutes, minister.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I will start where Craig Hoy left off by talking about looking islanders in the eye. I want to link that with what Willie Rennie said about ownership and responsibility. To be clear, I look islanders in the eye regularly. In fact, I have represented those very same islanders for almost 10 years.

I will say unequivocally in my closing speech what I said in opening speech—I apologise and the Government apologises for all the ways in which islanders have struggled with the lack of resilience in the ferry network, as linked with some of the delays at the yard.

In terms of assuming responsibility, it is crystal clear—all the debates and the scrutiny that has happened over the Ferguson marine yard and the number of times that I have responded to questions will leave the public in absolutely no doubt—that we take ownership of and responsibility for what has happened at the yard.

I was going to respond to every point that has been made. Unfortunately, however, all my scribbles basically demonstrate that the same four themes came through from all the speakers. I will therefore reflect on those four themes, which are future investment at the yard; direct award or order book; reputation of the yard; and leadership.

On the point about investment, we have—as I set out previously to Parliament—committed up to £14.2 million over two years to modernise Ferguson Marine. That is subject to full legal and commercial diligence. Edward Mountain put his finger on it when he talked about the importance of investment with contracts. It is clear, given the responsibilities that we have to abide by, that that investment needs to go hand in hand with the prospect of future income in and around contracts.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Does the Deputy First Minister recognise that there is a chicken-and-egg question there—

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Yes—yes, I do.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Perhaps she can respond to that point.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Funnily enough, I use the phrase “chicken and egg” quite regularly in relation to investment. That is why we have taken a proactive approach in being very open with Ferguson Marine where there is investment that we can make now.

Paul Sweeney referred to some other forms of investment, such as investment in equipment—he talked about panel lines, for example—and we are very open to discussions about that. However, it is the board’s business plan. It has been revised recently, as Daniel Johnson might be aware, and it is very important that the funding is aligned with the prospect of future income in a very sensitive market, in particular with regard to subsidy control limits.

That funding of £14.2 million is still available—there has been no change in the Government’s appetite to invest—but it has to be invested in line with subsidy control rules and in line with the business case. All those who have spoken in Parliament this afternoon have talked about the need for a future order book, and, if our focus is on the order book, that investment needs to follow the prospect of future orders.

That programme is partly under way. I appreciate what Richard Leonard said about the funding.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I suppose that one of the outstanding things is the length of time that it has taken. The quotation that I gave from the director general for economy, who reports directly to the Deputy First Minister, was from February this year. We are now nearly towards the middle of December. Why has it taken so long to get the business plan and to get action for the yard?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

It is for three reasons. First, it is because of the revisions to the business case directly from the board. We engage constructively with the board, but it is the board’s business case—that is important. We have had a new chief executive in the course of those months, and it is important that he is able to own plans for the yard. He brings a very commercial approach to it all.

Secondly, some of it is dependent on new work. We have been open to these discussions. The member will know, because it was covered in evidence to his committee and it is in the public domain, that the yard essentially tested the market on questions around pricing and interest. There was talk about it going up into procurement, and that was about testing the market. That work has been under way.

Thirdly and lastly, it is about future orders. The yard is in constant dialogue about potential future contracts. We will come in and support where we can and where it is appropriate to do so under the governance arrangements. Those are the three things that have to happen, and which are happening, in order to release that funding, but there is certainly no delay on our part. The funding is available—it is about drawing down that funding. There is no challenge in respect of that funding not being available.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I realise that I am getting short on time. Can I talk about the direct award? In the debate this afternoon, we have heard from members of all parties about the direct award. Shipbuilding is a competitive global market and any direct award of public contract must comply with applicable procurement and subsidy control rules, and must be capable of withstanding legal challenge. With regard to the small vessel replacement programme—as I have said previously in the chamber—we must avoid having the worst of both worlds, in which there are legal challenges because of the process, and islanders do not end up with ships while, simultaneously, the yard does not have work.

We will consider vessel contracts case by case; that includes for MV Lord of the Isles. I hear what the Labour Party has said and what islanders are currently saying. It must be an appropriate and lawful route to market, and Transport Scotland is currently considering the business case and next steps in relation to the replacement for MV Lord of the Isles.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I am assuming that I am out of time to talk more generally about reputation—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

You have 50 seconds.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Wonderful. In general, with regard to reputation, this is critical. We recognise the reputational challenges that have been caused by past delays. There are clear signs that Ferguson Marine’s standing has improved. The yard’s technical bid for the first phase of the small vessel replacement programme was rated as very strong; cost was the only factor in the final decision. That should encourage us all to recognise not only the talent in the yard, but its potential to secure work as it nears the completion of the Glen Rosa—

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

[Made a request to intervene.]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The Deputy First Minister is concluding.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Leadership will help enormously, and I have talked about the real progress that the yard has made.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Jamie Greene to close the debate on behalf of the Public Audit Committee.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

I thank all members for their contributions today; it has been a good committee debate.

As someone who was born and raised in Inverclyde, I always relish the chance to talk about Ferguson Marine. However, I do so in today’s debate without any pleasure, because I am as disappointed as I am sad to have had to co-author the report that we are debating.

The report unearthed a catalogue of issues with regard to this publicly owned, apparently strategic asset that has been the source of so much attention over the past decade. Our report brought to light many issues: poor governance and leadership; the uncertainty of the future of the yard; the secondment arrangements, which inexplicably lacked any financial transparency; the lack of adequate internal audit functions in the yard; and the highly valuable exit packages that were discussed. They were way above Scottish public finance manual thresholds and seemed only to serve as reward for failure culture in the yard’s management.

Of course, there was that repeat offender, as Mr Leonard will know, in Public Audit Committee reports—a complete and severe lack of oversight on behalf of the Scottish Government’s sponsorship department, the Scottish Government being the sole shareholder of that business.

It became clear to us that the yard’s interests have not always aligned with the interests of the protagonists involved in this lengthy saga.

I will not repeat the convener’s comments, but I will pick up from where he left off and talk about the future of the yard. When the committee went to Port Glasgow, it was clear that there is bags of potential for Ferguson Marine. We saw opportunities for small vessel shipbuilding, work on offshore wind tri-floaters, steel work and defence work. We saw a yard that was clearly willing to rise—and capable of rising—to the challenge to take on new projects and grasp new opportunities, but those opportunities have continued to pass it by. The small vessel replacement programme was a contract that the committee, the yard’s board and even the Auditor General for Scotland acknowledged would be the key win to underpin the success of its business plan, but that business plan now lies defunct.

It became clear to everyone concerned that Ferguson Marine could never compete against yards in Turkey or Poland—not on price, anyway, because we rightly pay our shipbuilders well in this country and we have high standards of working equality. However, the chair of the board of Ferguson Marine sat in the Public Audit Committee and told us:

“We are not playing on an even field. No shipyard in the UK ... can hit the prices of overseas shipyards. It is impossible.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 5 February 2025; c 42.]

However, the benefits of building ships in our own backyard and the immense social value that that brings have been consistently overlooked.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

I do not have time at the moment—I will make some progress first.

That surely is the very ethos of another Government bill, the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill, which this Parliament has been asked to consider. It makes no sense to observers that CMAL, which is a state-owned public body, has set its bid-scoring criteria in such a way that it clearly excludes yards such as Ferguson Marine—a state-owned shipyard—from winning contracts. Ferguson can absolutely win on quality, but never on price.

We urge the Government to revisit that weighting so that Scottish shipbuilding is on an even footing with that of the rest of the world. If the issue is not addressed, the outcome will be fatal for the yard.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

If I can have my time back, I will happily take interventions.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There is no additional time, so it is up to the member.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

Okay—if it is quick.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

What Jamie Greene has just said is very different from the fact that Cammell Laird won the order from Western Ferries, which Ferguson, as we know, was bidding for but did not get, because Cammell Laird was far more competitive.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

I will come on to how the yard can be competitive, because the committee looked at that.

There are opportunities now with MV Lord of the Isles and the second stage of the small vessel replacement project, as well as many other contracts, which will undoubtedly go abroad if the yard is not fit for purpose.

The Deputy First Minister seems to agree that the yard needs new work, but she failed to acknowledge in her comments that the primary source of such new work is the front benches on which she currently sits. The committee called for the yard to get sufficient investment to be upgraded, which it must do to stand any realistic chance of securing new work. We went as far as to say that we have

“significant concerns about the ongoing uncertainty”

regarding the yard’s long-term financial sustainability once the Glen Rosa has set sail.

That point is where I will address the Labour amendment. It raises a fair point. Of course, of the £14 million that was promised by the Government, less than around £500,000 has actually been delivered to the yard. However, it is clear from the correspondence that I received from the yard that that is because it failed to request the true value that is available to it.

That leaves a worrying end result: we could be in a use-it-or-lose-it scenario because that money cannot be rolled over to the next financial year. Therefore, the yard must spend what is available to it to upgrade the business. We must also see an upgraded and revised business plan, but one that, this time, is realistic and accounts for the loss of the contract that was not awarded to it—a contract on which the previous business plan was heavily predicated.

Money is not all that the yard needs. Of course, it needs new orders, but the restoration of the yard’s reputation is paramount as well. The past few years have been painful for the yard—I think that we all accept that. The cost overruns and delays to the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa are significant, and they come at a huge price not just to the public purse but to the islands that those vessels are meant to serve. No one now truly believes that the Government will ever say no to further asks for money to finish the job of building the Glen Rosa, because the whole project is simply too far down the line to stop bankrolling it at this late stage.

The reality is that the yard’s reputation can be rebuilt only through the demonstrable and successful delivery of future projects—projects that are built on time and on budget. However, that means being awarded or, indeed, winning contracts in the first place. If the Government is as confident in the yard’s abilities as many of us are, it must prove it.

The committee had no view on the issue of direct award—others do—but it begs the question: what is the point of having a publicly funded state-owned asset such as a shipbuilding yard and then consistently overlooking it when issuing contracts? It is an injustice to the talented workforce at the yard that there is no medium or long-term forecast or future for the yard that listens to the workers themselves.

The Ferguson Marine shipyard has a future. Its failure is not inevitable, but neither is its success. Although the Public Audit Committee was critical about the yard’s current position, we were also clear in our recommendations about what needs to change for it to succeed. A bright future is possible: a yard that bustles with a long line of orders, makes money and pays for itself, invests back into its workforce, creates good local jobs, invests in the Inverclyde economy and gives a big boost to the Scottish national economy. It can be a yard that puts us back on the world map as a proud shipbuilding nation.

We were unanimous in our conclusions and recommendations and, equally, we were unanimous in our criticisms of all parties. If the yard fails and if it closes its doors for ever, that will not be an embarrassment for the Government; it will be a national shame. We cannot let that happen.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes the debate on the Public Audit Committee’s report, “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited”.

Veterans and Armed Forces Community

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20050, in the name of Graeme Dey, on support for the veterans and armed forces community in Scotland. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

It is my pleasure to present the Scottish Government’s ninth annual update to the Parliament on our support for Scotland’s veterans and armed forces community. Before I reflect on the report, it is important to acknowledge what has brought us here today, which is our invaluable armed forces community, veterans, serving persons and their families, who should have access to the help, support and public services that they need, when they need them.

The impact of service life for the vast majority of people is positive, but we know that some face unique difficulties and risks as a result of their time in the military. I know that, for older veterans, for example, accessibility of services and support can present particular challenges that demand that we think outside the box and consider innovative ways to support them.

As in previous years, alongside this debate, we have published our annual report, which details fully what we and our partners have done throughout the past year. The debate is intended as a welcome opportunity to highlight successes and the progress that has been made by that collaborative effort, and to offer members the chance to challenge us on where we can do more. In the time that I have available, I hope to cover as many aspects of all that as possible.

This year, I was delighted to attend the launch of the veterans in-service injury network in Inverness. VISIN will provide independent expert clinical review of military service-related injuries that remain a concern despite treatment, either previous or current. There have already been nine referrals to the service in just a few short weeks, five of which were progressed to the multidisciplinary team.

The issue of waiting times for serving personnel has also come to the fore recently. We are aware that such delays can affect operational readiness and continuity of care and, in some cases, can lead to medical discharge due to prolonged deployment ineligibility. I understand that that is an issue in Scotland as well as in England and Wales.

To identify solutions that work within the context of the national health service in Scotland, my officials are engaged with Ministry of Defence counterparts and are exploring direct referral pathways from defence medical services to NHS services, to help to tackle issues, reduce delays and improve access.

I take this opportunity to thank the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, Susie Hamilton, who is in the gallery today, for all of her hard work over the past three years, and for continuing to hold us to account for delivering our support to the veterans community.

A few months ago, the commissioner published her latest progress report, summarising our delivery against the recommendations that she and her predecessors had set out for us. I was delighted that, for the first time, we had no red assessments regarding progress against all the recommendations, which, at times during my tenure as veterans minister, has seemed as aspirational as Scotland reaching the world cup finals. However, both of those goals have been achieved—and in the same year. As the commissioner highlighted, work remains to be done, and we cannot—we will not—allow ourselves to become complacent.

Uptake of the general practice armed forces and veterans recognition scheme remains unacceptably low, and it is vital that it improves to ensure that as many veterans and armed forces families receive the understanding and tailored care that they deserve in primary healthcare settings.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Does the minister agree with me and Forces Children Scotland about the challenge that children of service people face in this transition? Does he agree that children should be explicitly mentioned and targeted in the whole-family wellbeing support that the Scottish Government is championing?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Martin Whitfield makes a reasonable point.

I go back to the point that I was making when I took Martin Whitfield’s intervention. Work is under way to intensify promotion of the scheme in question, with the help of some of our key stakeholders. I hope to report that significantly more practices have signed up in the coming months.

Plans are now progressing quickly for our veterans mental health and wellbeing pathway, and we hope to have in place the pilot for that quite soon. It is essential that we balance pace with quality and ensure that the pathway meets the complex needs of veterans and builds confidence in the system from day 1.

The number of veterans who are assessed as homeless has decreased by 3 per cent over the past year, while the proportion of veterans in the overall number of households that are assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness has remained at 2 per cent, which is roughly proportionate to the veterans’ population as a whole. However, we know that some veterans can be at greater risk of homelessness, and that is recognised in our homelessness strategy and in our housing emergency action plan.

Just last week, I met the Scottish Veterans Commissioner and Màiri McAllan, the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, to discuss the work that is under way with key stakeholders and to agree the best approach to progressing the recommendations in the veterans homelessness prevention pathway relating to local authorities and social landlords. In addition, we are working with Veterans Scotland’s housing group on prioritisation of the key pathway recommendations for the Scottish Government.

Parliament passed the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025 this year. The legislation will, along with vital partnership working with our stakeholders, help us to support our veterans in their times of need. We continue to engage with underrepresented groups in the armed forces and veterans community in Scotland to ensure that their needs and experiences are better understood and supported.

As colleagues will be aware, last month the commissioner published a short report into the bereaved armed forces community. Although the report did not include any formal recommendations, we will be taking forward, as a priority, work to raise awareness of the bereaved armed forces community and the need, as she rightly pointed out, to ensure that they are explicitly referenced and considered within the development of policies, guidance and services, where that is appropriate.

I and the Government remain committed to providing the very best support for our veterans, their families and service families. The report sets out the breadth of work that has been undertaken over the past year and demonstrates our commitment to ensuring the veterans and their families suffer no disadvantage as a result of their service.

I give my heartfelt thanks to all those who contributed to this work—our partners in the public, private and third sectors, and the many individuals who worked tirelessly every day to support our armed forces community. Together, we will continue to build a Scotland that recognises the contributions of our veterans and their families and ensures that they are supported to lead fulfilling lives.

I look forward to members’ contributions to the debate, and to responding to them in due course.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Minister, can you move the motion?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges and recognises the importance of Scotland’s veterans and Armed Forces community and greatly values the significant contribution that it makes to society; recognises that the skills and experiences that it brings enrich communities; continues to support the Veterans Strategy Action Plan, which has a clear vision to ensure the best outcomes for veterans and their families; notes the progress made in delivering the action plan and the future work to develop an updated plan following the publication of the new UK-wide Veterans Strategy; welcomes the findings of the Scottish Veterans Commissioner’s latest progress report and acknowledges both the successes she identifies and the areas where further work is needed, and agrees that the Scottish Government should continue to work with partners across the public, private and third sectors to ensure that the veterans and Armed Forces community receives the access to support that they need.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for giving Parliament the opportunity to have a debate on veterans, and I thank Susie Hamilton for the work that she has done over the past year. I am delighted to say that I, too, welcome the work that the Scottish Government has undertaken to help our veterans—the veterans who stood by us.

I do not need to remind Parliament that national service stopped being a requirement in 1960 and that the last national serviceman probably left the services in 1963. Many of us do not know how many veterans are out there. We probably do not know that a person we are talking to is actually a veteran until we see them wearing a medal at a remembrance Sunday parade, whether it be a campaign medal or a medal for valour.

We could probably all put our hands on our hearts and name some of the conflicts that our soldiers have been involved in since the second world war. We could probably reel off Northern Ireland, the Falklands, the first Gulf war, the second Gulf war, Afghanistan and probably a few others. However, do we really know the extent to which our armed services have been involved in those conflicts and where they have been deployed? I can list a few. We have been involved in 45 official conflicts and many others besides. We could talk about Libya, Sierra Leone, Yugoslavia, Belize, Gambia, Angola, Oman, Tanzania, Uganda, Cyprus, Malaya, Kenya, Aden and many more. I will not list them all, but there is a huge amount of them.

To my mind, we owe a debt of gratitude to those veterans who stood by us, fought on our behalf and, when they were not fighting, helped to keep the peace in the places that I have mentioned. They allowed us to rest easy in our beds at night, so we owe them the ability to have a bed themselves. After the 1914-18 war, we gave many returning soldiers smallholdings across the country to allow them to come back to a house and to farm the land. I think that that was a great idea. Over the past 110 years, Veterans Housing Scotland, which we know a lot about, has been helping veterans to obtain housing.

I remind members that, currently, about 176,000 people across Scotland have served our country. Fifty per cent of those are over 65 years of age. In my area, in Moray, we have a high proportion of veterans—about 9 per cent of the population. In Highland, the proportion is slightly less, at 5 per cent. Those veterans play a huge part in society. Their great contribution has been recognised in the NHS and Police Scotland reports that we have read, which recognise that veterans bring so much to us.

Businesses across the country recognise the skills that veterans bring, whether in problem solving or in being worldly wise when they look to address problems. In my opinion, we need to encourage veterans to move to and settle in Scotland, and to help them do that. That is why the Conservatives have lodged an amendment that seeks to increase the availability of housing for veterans who move back here.

In the reports that she has presented the Scottish Veterans Commissioner makes the point that we need to do more on local housing strategy. In the amendment lodged on behalf of my party, I propose that the Scottish Government should talk to the UK Government to see whether any armed forces married quarters could be made available to retiring service personnel to facilitate them moving back to Scotland, possibly at a reduced rent for a period of up to a year, so that they can bring their skills back here and we can seek to use them.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Will the member give way?