Chamber and committees

No.

I will bring in Colin Cook to comment on the particulars of that figure. The future of the yard will depend on ensuring that it is productive and competitive. Some of that work will require difficult decisions to be made about the future nature of the yard, including the capital investment that will be required to bring it up to competitive standard. A request has come in from the chief executive for work that he believes is required to bring it up to standard, and we must go through a rigorous process of ensuring that we are in line with subsidy control measures to take that decision—something that both the convener and I mentioned during the debate.

I bring in Mr Cook to provide further detail on the figure of £120,000.

There is undoubtedly a requirement to do more. The request that I mentioned earlier has come in. From a subsidy control perspective, we have to assess whether that work would be forthcoming if the yard was in private ownership, and whether, by our providing it, we would be providing a subsidy or a competitive advantage to the yard that it would not have in the private sector.

That work is on-going, but, undoubtedly, work is required to ensure that the yard is competitive going forward. That is where some of the difficult decision making will be over the coming months in terms of ensuring that the yard is in as fit a position as possible to ensure a good future.

In relation to what we are discussing today, I took a decision on 14 May and made a statement in Parliament on 16 May—the next parliamentary sitting day. I hope that that gives some comfort to Mr Coffey and his colleagues that I am committed to providing information as quickly as possible to ensure that there can be public scrutiny and that this committee can discharge its duties as effectively as possible. We will seek to put information into the public domain as quickly as we can.

I do not need to respond to you in writing, then. [Laughter.] Ms Hall has assisted me by saying that it will take £70 million to complete 802.

No—and I have said why, convener. I hope that it would be understood that, by releasing the report, we would be putting the yard at a competitive disadvantage. Yards—

No. That decision was taken by me and Gregor Irwin.

No; I did not. That was a collective decision taken in the Government. Gregor Irwin suggested that it was the right—

That decision was taken first of all by the director general, and I was asked to confirm it, and so I confirmed that that was the appropriate action to take.

Again, I would not want to put words in Mr Irwin’s mouth, but it was not his advice not to proceed, as Mr Hoy has perhaps suggested, although I might be wrong in that regard. It was rather that Mr Irwin wanted my authority to proceed, knowing that there was not a narrow value-for-money case for vessel 802.

I think that Mr Hoy wants to establish that we have brought the required rigour to ensuring that we spend taxpayers’ money appropriately. The Teneo report gives us a significant amount of information, but we also have our assessments of the work that is on-going at the yard. We know the impact that delaying any further would have on island communities and the impact that putting the future of the yard in jeopardy would have on the local economy in Inverclyde and the workforce at the yard. Another important consideration is the need to ensure the best possible future for commercial shipbuilding in Scotland.

Those were all important considerations, as colleagues have acknowledged, and that is why I gave written authority in this case.