Chamber and committees

There is a wider question. I am looking at the major strategic investments of the past five to 10 years in Burntisland Fabrications, Ferguson Marine, Lochaber and Prestwick airport. A lot of Government loans seem to be involved in a lot of those businesses. Obviously, there are different types of investment. There will be strategic infrastructure investments and cash injections to do things and make those businesses better, but there are also straightforward cash injections.

It seems that many of those are being written off. I presume that the decisions to write off loans are political ones made by ministers. The figure for BiFab is around £50 million, there are about £45 million to £50 million loans to Prestwick and there is at least £100 million—possibly more—in loans to Ferguson. It is hard to track down the numbers but it is an awful lot of public money.

Who makes the decision as to whether loans are written off? When you look at the future strategy or the exit strategy for those businesses, is it more than likely that the loans will not form part of any takeover strategy?

Do you have any women in senior leadership roles in those forty positions? I just see a panel of men in front of me.

However, the problem is that this is the groundhog day that we have all heard about before. Time after time, we have heard people sitting in committee rooms saying exactly what you have just said. They say that things are all heading in the right direction, and lots of positive noise is made, but then it all falls apart. Nobody knows why, who has bid, how much they bid or the reasons for the Government turning down bids There is a general lack of transparency around decision making about why ownership bids are refused or denied. You are advising ministers on those decisions. Is there any way in which you could increase the transparency around them?

Mr Cook, did you say that you attend board meetings at Ferguson Marine?

Was he not the chairman of Prestwick airport?

There clearly has to be an exit strategy for the businesses, and you have a whole department that considers nothing but benefit realisation. Is there any reluctance in your department to return the businesses to the private sector as going concerns? In effect, you are talking your department out of jobs. If all four of the businesses went into private ownership, there would be no SCAD and, presumably, 40 people would be doing something else in Government. Is there any conflict between what you are doing in keeping the businesses going and a definite strategy for getting out?

Why has there been so much churn at the top of these organisations? Why are companies not able to hold down well-paid chief executives?

Are you aware of any other potential business opportunities for the yard?

Did Andrew Miller tell you the reasons?

Are there any other live potential business investments that the Government is considering that you are advising it on?