Chamber and committees

There is constant evaluation on all our funding streams across Government. We will continue to consider how well they are performing to ensure that—as I have said—we are targeting our limited resource in a way that adds maximum value to our enterprises that are looking to come forward with decarbonisation measures. We will provide as much support as we can to industry. Mr Lumsden has already referenced a number of sectors. This is not just about one element of the economy that will do the heavy lifting for us to reach net zero—it will not just be about energy generation or heat in buildings; there will be a raft of areas, and all of us will have to play our part to ensure that we decarbonise and reach net zero by 2045.

Sorry?

Our target is 2045. We also have 2030 targets. All the funds that we put forward, which Mr Lumsden has listed, are intended to ensure that we take steps in different parts of the economy to reach those ultimate targets. Some of that is about trying to inspire good behaviour; some of it is to support people in taking difficult but necessary decisions around changing the way that they do their operations. All of it is geared up to ensure that we reach the 2045 target.

A process is on-going for each financial year, through the budget process, in terms of the allocation that goes to FMPG. Part of that is about assessing what money will be required in order to continue the work that is on-going. That is partly what has triggered my being here today, because there was a need for additional rigour in relation to the estimates that were given by the chief executive in September.

I am hopeful that we will be in a position where there will not be any further requirement for funding. However, it is not something that I can absolutely guarantee. We are in a very difficult economic situation. Everybody saw the very disappointing UK inflation figures yesterday. Inflation is sitting at a stubbornly high level and we are in a very turbulent economic situation, which will have an impact. However, I am hopeful that that impact can be minimised as far as possible. Obviously, there is a process to inform Parliament should there be any further requests, as there was last year, for an increase in funding. I will ensure that that process is followed, as it was last year.

The work that Mr Cook has outlined is being led by Ms Hall. Mr Tydeman has already sought to deliver productivity improvements and learn lessons from the process of getting vessel 801 to the stage that it is at, which is very close to completion. The substantial element of cost and, therefore, risk to the overall contract is the completion of 802. There was no value-for-money issue with 801. The issue was with 802, because it is further away from being completed.

As I have outlined, my hope is that, by being aware of the issues that there have been—which were, as I said, mostly due to the design issues of 801—we will be able to learn enough to mitigate as far as possible in relation to 802. That cannot be guaranteed until the process is continued, but it is certainly my hope. As I set out in that correspondence and as I have said in the meetings that I have had with Mr Tydeman, my expectation is that the yard will do everything possible to mitigate the risk of any further cost or time overruns.

No. The First Minister set out the Government’s position, which is that we do not expect that to be the case. The chair has a role to play and we have communicated our position to the chair very clearly. It is for the chair to go through the process that he needs to go through. I respect that and I respect his position in this case, but I also share what I presume is the displeasure of Mr Hoy and of colleagues on the committee and in Parliament at the idea of there being performance-related bonuses for a contract that has overrun in terms of both time and cost.

My understanding of the written authority process is that the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister are required to be part of the process of issuing written authority because of its nature. I will need to check, but I am pretty sure that they will have been sighted on my decision to decline the publication of the report, but that was a decision for me and Mr Irwin.

Yes.

I met colleagues present, who were at that time fed up of seeing my face on the screen, because I had requested quite a number of meetings and discussions. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were part of those as well, because of the nature of the written authority process. We ensured that we had rigorously interrogated the information that was before us.

No. If an accountable officer had been concerned at any stage, they would have had to request written authority to proceed.