Small Vessel Replacement Programme
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the reported decision to award phase 1 of the small vessel replacement programme to a Polish shipyard. (S6T-02425)
Although there will be disappointment that Ferguson Marine was not identified as lead bidder, for our islands, this is an important milestone in the procurement to build and deliver seven new small vessels for our ferry network. The new vessels will help to improve connectivity and resilience for island residents, businesses and communities, and their electric operation will contribute to a reduction in carbon emissions from Scotland’s ferry fleet and make ferry travel more sustainable.
In advance of further questions, I point out that this is still a live procurement process, and we are limited in what we can say during the 10-day standstill period. The process is being led by Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd as the procuring authority.
The Deputy First Minister will be aware of the frustration of many people in my community, including the local workforce of Ferguson Marine and me, who want answers to vital questions, such as where Ferguson Marine ranked among the five candidate locations, how its bid compared to other yards in quality and price and what the Scottish Government is now doing to ensure that it has a future.
Will the Deputy First Minister answer those three questions now, and if she is not able to do so because of the 10-day standstill period, will she commit to publishing that information when that period concludes?
I know that Stuart McMillan understands that this is a live procurement, so there are limitations on what I can say or the level of information that I can share at this point in the process. Scottish ministers did not play any part in the review of the bids. CMAL is the procuring authority and has started the 10-day standstill period before the contract can be signed.
However, we understand from its feedback that Ferguson Marine scored highly on quality. As noted in the news release, CMAL used a technical quality weighting of 65 per cent for this contract, with 35 per cent for price.
David Dishon, the chief financial officer, said:
“We are very proud of our bid and although we priced it competitively, we were up against extremely tough competition ... we were pleased to see Ferguson Marine’s bid rated so highly on quality ... Reaching the final round of bidding demonstrates the strength of our proposal and gives us renewed confidence in our ability to produce Clyde-built ships that are world class.”
I understand that the member has also received some direct assurances from CMAL on the process that was carried out.
I have never doubted the shop floor workforce’s abilities. That they have built vessels, including the three previous small vessels, with some antiquated equipment highlights their abilities. Quite frankly, the workforce has been let down by the board and yard management.
What steps will the Scottish Government now take to ensure that a board and management team are at the helm that can deliver a yard that the workforce deserves? Will the Deputy First Minister agree to meet Alex Logan, the shop steward, and me to discuss Ferguson Marine’s future? Will the Deputy First Minister say whether there is a prospect of the yard being directly awarded work at phase 2 of the small vessel replacement programme?
I agree with Stuart McMillan about the workforce’s ability and dedication. I would be happy to meet Alex Logan and Stuart McMillan to discuss those matters. I have spoken with Alex on a number of occasions and I hugely value his insights and commitment to the workforce.
Stuart McMillan talked about the equipment, which is why we have agreed on and allocated up to £14.2 million over the next two years in order to enhance the yard’s infrastructure and deliver productivity improvements so that it is in a better place to bid competitively. We will consider future vessel contracts from public agencies, but the board is developing its commercial strategy, which will target a range of opportunities. That will be spearheaded by the new chief executive when they come into post, which will, we hope, be shortly.
The Scottish National Party’s catastrophic mismanagement of Ferguson’s means that it looks as though ferries that could have been built on the west coast of Scotland will, instead, be made in eastern Europe. Phase 2 of the small vessel replacement programme is a long way off, so, in the light of what has happened, what action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that the Glen Rosa is delivered on time? Will the Deputy First Minister deliver a statement to the Parliament on the future of Ferguson Marine and the hundreds of jobs that depend on it?
The hundreds of jobs have been protected only because of the actions of the Government. The constant negativity from the Conservatives—with words such as “catastrophic” being used—does nothing to help the yard to secure work on the open market, so it is extremely frustrating to hear such comments.
The bottom line is that Ferguson Marine is focused on completing the Glen Rosa. We await, as does the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, an update from the yard on the timescales.
Ferguson Marine’s second focus is its commercial strategy, which was never predicated on only one contract, because that would not be a commercial strategy. It has additional work coming in, which we hope will be secured in April, and it is very hopeful that it will secure other contracts shortly, as David Dishon referred to in his comments yesterday. There are also opportunities relating to phase 2 of the small vessel replacement programme.
She will know that extensive analysis and legal advice indicated that a direct award of the current SVRP contract to Ferguson Marine would have introduced substantial risk that might have led to the worst of both worlds, with the boats not being delivered to islanders and Ferguson Marine not getting the contract because the matter ended up in the courts. We tried to avoid that by agreeing to an open procurement process.
It is a sorry state of affairs when a shipyard that the SNP Government nationalised is not competitive and is unable to successfully bid for work that was widely recognised as being a good fit for Ferguson’s. To secure work, Ferguson’s needs investment and support as well as stability. In the light of the failure to secure the work for Ferguson’s, does the Scottish Government believe that the current procurement process for our ferry fleet is fit for purpose?
I find that question remarkable. The member has, in essence, told me that she does not think that the procurement process is fit for purpose because Ferguson Marine did not win the contract. The procurement process needs to be fair and to inspire confidence. If CMAL had made an alternative decision—it is important to stress that CMAL acted independently of ministers—there would have been questions about what else ministers had been doing.
The member asked about investment support. The bottom line is that we have agreed to invest £14.2 million in equipment for the yard so that it can compete on a global basis. She also talked about stability. The yard’s commercial strategy is very clear about the potential work that it can secure, and the yard has secured additional work. It would be nice to see the yard being recognised for the work that it has secured to date while it completes the Glen Rosa. Perhaps if we talked more about the skills and ability of people at the yard, instead of constantly talking them down, the yard might have greater potential to win work.
As members might expect, there is great interest in today’s questions. In order to get in as many members as possible, concise questions and responses would be appreciated.
The Deputy First Minister’s hubris is outstanding. Ferguson Marine has been let down not by the board but by members on the SNP front bench and the Scottish Government. If Ferguson Marine is supposed to compete on price with companies in Poland and Turkey, how on earth will it ever win any contracts? The workers of Ferguson Marine and the people of Inverclyde want to know why the Scottish Government and its agencies have lost confidence in our ability to build ships in Scotland. The Deputy First Minister has an opportunity right now to look into the camera and tell those people why that is the case.
I do not need to look into any camera—I have been at the yard, and I regularly speak directly to the workers.
Tell them!
Members!
I find this conversation incredibly frustrating because it is not about how I feel; it is about supporting Ferguson Marine to be as competitive as possible so that it is able to secure work through a fair and open procurement process.
That is the reason for the £14.2 million investment. The commercial strategy would never rely on one contract alone. The point is that it is competing for a number of different opportunities and it has already secured some of that work. I therefore stand here reflecting on the talents and skills of the workforce in having secured work already. We will back them to be as competitive as possible with that investment in additional support.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that there is a social and economic value in the yard and that there would have been public value in a direct award? Does she accept that, although no shortage of money has been spent, there has been a lack of investment and that the investment now is too little and too late? Does she accept that we now need investment to ensure that future contracts are made to Port Glasgow? Can she outline how the £14.2 million that she has referred to is to be spent?
I thank the member for those questions, which are very fair.
On the point about the public value of a direct award, I take that question seriously. I outlined my concern last summer, although I did not make the final decision—that is for CMAL—that, in a very litigious industry, going down the direct award route would have created significant levels of risk that could have resulted in the contract being in the courts, which would have ensured that Ferguson Marine did not get the work when it needed it and that the islanders did not get the vessels. The member might shake her head at that but, looking at the legal advice and the analysis that was done, I am afraid that that was a real and pressing possibility. The route that we have taken ensures that we have reached the significant milestone of delivering seven new vessels for our islanders.
The member is right to talk about investment. Although a lot of attention has been given to the funds that have been given by the Government to deliver the Glen Rosa and the Glen Sannox, that is not the same as investing in the yard itself. The £14.2 million is based on a list of equipment and infrastructure priorities at the yard that Ferguson Marine has supplied to us that will make it globally competitive.
Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that the permanent secretary advised the Scottish Government that it would be illegal to make a direct award? That is certainly what he told the Finance and Public Administration Committee this morning. Can she also expand on what the seven small vessels will mean for our rural and island communities?
The seven small vessels will be absolutely transformational for our island communities. How challenging it has been for those islanders has been well documented. They will supplement the six larger vessels that are due to come into service over these years. There is no doubt that they will be transformational. This is an important milestone, and we have to make sure that the procurement process is complete and that the boats are delivered.
On the legal advice, there was extensive analysis and legal advice that indicated that a direct award of the small vessel replacement programme contract to Ferguson Marine could have introduced substantial risks, meaning that the yard did not have ships to build and our islanders did not have the ships that they need. That was not a risk that I thought was appropriate to introduce into the process.
Hospital Equipment (Replacement)
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason hospitals are reportedly still using MRI scanners, CT scanners and X-ray machines that are decades old, in light of reported warnings by experts that equipment over 10 years old should be replaced. (S6T-02426)
Jackie Baillie will appreciate that equipment does not cease to function as soon as it reaches 10 years old. However, we know that equipment does not have an infinite lifespan, and life-cycle replacement planning is on-going. That includes a radiotherapy replacement programme, which is supported by annual funding, including £18.5 million this year. A further £19 million has been allocated for equipment investment, as part of additional funding that is being provided to the portfolio at the spring budget revision, to support the replacement of ultrasound and X-ray machines and other imaging equipment.
The 2025-26 budget provides a 5 per cent uplift to boards’ core capital allocations to support maintenance and replacement programmes. A further £30 million supports priority equipment replacement, based on boards’ assessment of need.
In hospitals across Scotland, patients are going back to the future, with vital MRI and CT scanners that are often more than 15 years old and X-ray machines that are up to 27 years old. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the independent report that has recommended that CT and MRI machines that are more than 10 years old should be retired. The Society of Radiographers has said that
“older equipment is unreliable”
and
“is often operationally slower”.
First, how far does unreliable equipment contribute to the current diagnostic waiting times? Secondly, given the extra £2.5 billion for Scotland’s national health service from the United Kingdom Labour Government, will the cabinet secretary confirm when the out-of-date machines will be replaced?
I believe that I already answered the second part of Jackie Baillie’s question in my first answer about the resources that we are allocating to boards, which take the decisions. It is also for boards to make a risk-based analysis of the appropriateness of the equipment that they have—including parts, availability and maintenance—and of its reliability and productivity. We make our assessments on that basis.
On the first part of her question, Jackie Baillie will know that we are already seeing improvements in diagnostic waiting lists. Quarter 4 of 2024 had the fourth-largest improvement since the pandemic. At the end of December, the waiting list had reduced by more than 18,000 compared with the end of 2024. Significant progress is being made in diagnostic testing, and there is more to come with the budget—which Jackie Baillie did not vote for.
Far be it from me to point out that it was the UK Labour Government that gave you the money, and the Scottish National Party failed to vote for it—
It is our money.
The SNP failed to vote for that in Westminster. That is just a fact.
The cabinet secretary set out the money, but he did not say when the machines would be replaced. We know that outdated equipment is only part of the story. Only a few weeks ago, I asked the First Minister about the reported shortage of clinical radiologists, which is projected to rise to a total of 263 fewer posts than will be needed by 2028. The effects of that are being felt now. The latest diagnostic waiting list data shows that, at the end of last year, there were 3,954 waits of more than a year, which is an 11.7 per cent increase in the space of a year. When will those long waits be eradicated, to ensure that patients who need tests are seen without any further delay?
I have already set out the high-level data around waiting times. The latest figures show that our plan to bring down waiting times is delivering. That was part of a £30 million investment in this financial year, and we are investing £100 million in the coming year. The £30 million delivered almost 56,500 diagnostic procedures, which exceeded the original plan to deliver 40,000. The figure is up by 41 per cent, reducing the waiting list for imaging by almost 12 per cent and that for scopes by more than 4 per cent.
On the plan that we have in place, I remind Jackie Baillie that she did not support the budget that saw that money going into the system so as to get those reductions in waiting times. She wants to see the end without willing the means. We are delivering on that, and I look forward to reporting more to Parliament in that regard in due course.
Unlike Jackie Baillie, I was proud to vote, along with the cabinet secretary, for the Scottish budget that provided that record direct investment for our national health service here in Scotland. It is really important that we recognise that the money that is involved in that is Scotland’s money, and it is for this Parliament to decide how that money is allocated. I voted for it, the cabinet secretary voted for it, and Jackie Baillie and her colleagues did not.
Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on his engagement with health boards regarding the potential for that funding to be used to update equipment, while encouraging conversations on increasing innovation across the NHS and social care?
On this budget and budgets past, we have taken decisions here in Scotland to raise additional revenue by using the Parliament’s powers on taxation, which the Labour Party apparently no longer supports.
We are already working with all health boards to develop a whole-system NHS infrastructure plan that focuses on reform, innovation and resilience. That includes specific consideration of on-going work on the equipment replacement cycle, which is being undertaken by the NHS national equipment group. The first part of that whole-system planning work is to assess immediate priorities and is well under way. It includes an assessment of equipment replacement priorities and will be supported by funding of £30 million in the coming financial year. That is in addition to the funding that is already allocated to the radiotherapy equipment programme each year.
Single-sex Spaces (Public Sector Guidance)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will review public sector guidance on single-sex spaces, in light of reported concerns about the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Prison Service. (S6T-02422)
In April 2022, the Equality and Human Rights Commission published some revisions to its guidance, “Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment provisions.” In that guide, the commission clearly states that, as the regulator for the Equality Act 2010, it provides
“guidance on the law to help organisations comply with their legal obligations.”
The commission has recently completed a consultation on its statutory code of practice, which
“sets out the steps that should be taken to ensure people are not discriminated against.”
The code of practice explains
“how the Equality Act 2010 works in relation to the provision of services, public functions and associations”
and provides practical examples to illustrate how the law can be used to protect equality. The updated code of practice has yet to be published.
The Scottish Government expects all relevant organisations to comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and other legislation in their role as employers.
The cabinet secretary may be interested to know that the Care Inspectorate’s “Guidance for children and young people’s services on the inclusion of transgender including non-binary young people” makes the following statement:
“The provision of gendered facilities such as toilets is social convention. There is no law in Scotland about this.”
Does the Scottish Government agree with the Care Inspectorate’s statement?
The provisions of the Equality Act 2010, including those relating to single-sex spaces and the general exception relating to communal residential accommodation, apply to Scotland. Any issues of how those are operating in particular situations are matters for the EHRC as the enforcement body for the act and for the relevant public body concerned.
The answer is “no”.
That is a ludicrous and, frankly, a chilling statement from a regulator that is supposed to protect Scotland’s most vulnerable children and young people. There are massive safeguarding issues arising from that reckless guidance.
However, it is not just the Care Inspectorate. The Scottish Prison Service is in the spotlight once again because it is allowing trans-identifying prison officers to perform intimate and utterly unacceptable rub-down searches of vulnerable women who are visiting the prison estate. Violent trans-identifying men can still be housed in the female prison estate in certain circumstances.
Will the Scottish Government finally do the decent thing, lay down the law for Scotland’s public bodies and tell them to withdraw ill-informed and insidious guidance that allows the rights of male-bodied individuals to transcend those of women and girls?
With regard to the part of the member’s question relating to the Care Inspectorate, I note that everyone in Scotland deserves to receive safe and high-quality care that meets their needs and respects their rights and choices. It is very important that the rights of all those who are involved are considered and respected in everything that is done.
In respect of the Scottish Prison Service, the member will be aware that new rules with provisions on visitors were introduced in 2023. The law states that visitors are to be searched in accordance with rule 106 of those rules. Consent is required. Rule 106(3) makes it clear that general searching of the person or their clothing is to be done by an officer
“of the same gender as the visitor”.
The search must be completed
“as quickly and decently as possible”
and the use of force is not permitted.
Rule 106(4) states:
“A visitor who is being searched ... cannot be required to remove, and a search ... must not involve the removal of, any clothing other than an outer coat, jacket, headgear, gloves and footwear.”
With another week comes another egregious breach of the human rights of women and girls, this time impacting on vulnerable children in care and on women on the prison estate, many of whom will have backgrounds involving trauma.
Does the Government not understand that promoting illegal and illiterate gender self-identification policies that override and nullify sex-based safeguarding and giving out access-all-area passes is completely unacceptable? When will the Government wake up to its obligations to ensure that public bodies follow the law? Will it ensure safeguarding and that women’s human rights are upheld before the next scandal unfolds, which will probably be next week?
As I have made clear on many occasions, the Scottish Government strongly supports the separate and single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act 2010, which can allow for people to be excluded when that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
In my original answer, I also mentioned the important guidance published by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the commission’s work to update the statutory code of practice. I look forward to the commission continuing that work and to the publication of that updated code of practice.
That concludes topical question time. I will allow a moment or two for those on the front benches to reorganise themselves.
Air ais
Point of OrderAir adhart
Food and Drink Sector