Chamber and committees

I will make the briefest of comments rather than ask a follow-up question. I am not trying to be awkward about the issue. It appears to me that, under your tutelage, Ferguson and the workforce representatives whom I can see sitting in the public gallery have come through a really difficult period and a quick learning curve in recent years in fixing a lot of errors that predecessors made, and Ferguson is very close to being in robust health. However, for additional taxpayers’ money to go in, we have to be very clear and transparent about what we are getting for our money. It almost seems that Ferguson could be held to a higher standard than otherwise would have been the case because of what has happened previously.

I hope that we get to a position at which appropriate capital investment could be made, we can be clear about the efficiencies that that would give to the yard, and we can retain strategic commercial shipbuilding and the workforce in Scotland. However, we need transparency about what we get for our money.

I have a much more mundane question, coming back to clarification on Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa. I do not know whether other members have questions on this topic.

I am sorry if I get the numbers wrong—the exchange between you and the convener was complicated—but was it always intended that the original design would hold 127 cars and 16 lorries all at the same time? My understanding was that that was not the case.

It would be good to hear from the witnesses, convener.

In my head, £23 million or whatever at today’s prices, invested now, would do everything that you wanted the yard to do, but it could be phased in over a longer period of time and there would be different degrees of efficiencies.

I hope that someone can give light and shade to the answer to that.

Okay. In the exchange with the convener about what was in the tender for the two ferries that will shortly be completed, the convener made the point that we are paying more and getting less. I want some clarity around that.

David, you said that the tender was for up to 1,000 seats but that it did not have to be 1,000 seats. Can you confirm what was in the original tender document? Also, if I can roll all this together, you said that the number of seats was reduced to 926 because of other work that had to be done on fire safety, evacuation and different things, but your client requested 852 seats. I just want to be clear that the client is still getting the seating capacity that it requires and that, technically, there is some flexibility to add a small amount of additional seating if need be. Have I captured that correctly?

I am not pushing anything. I am happy to be told I am wrong.

That is fine. Is the overall tonnage the same? What I got from your exchange—and this is what I want clarity on—is that weight-bearing vehicles and lorries have to be placed strategically and safely on the vessels to make it seaworthy and safe for everyone travelling on them. Has the maximum tonnage that the vessels can take remained the same or has it had to be reduced?

I am interested in the financial realities of some of this. You said in your opening statement that the spend on social welfare provisions in Scotland is £1.1 billion more than what we get in comparable Barnett consequentials from the United Kingdom Government. That is additional spend that we have invested in Scotland due to our priorities. As the gap grows between what we get from Westminster and the additional money that we spend, does it reduce the Scottish Government’s flexibility to do more?