Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful, and it would be good if you could provide that information, Mr Rhatigan.

On Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow, Mr Irwin, you touched on the reports that First Marine International sent to the committee. There were six different reports and the covering letter accompanying them states that the first study, which took place in 2020-21, was, in effect, about the benchmarking, and the second study, which took place in 2022-23, was the potential improvements study.

Between those two reports and the level of scrutiny that the division, with that information, has placed on the yard—obviously, you have the unredacted versions as compared to us—and bearing in mind how politically sensitive the situation with FMPG is and how many jobs are involved with the yard, what genuine activity has your division undertaken and what input does it have with regard to the yard?

That is quite helpful information.

How does SCAD assess the effectiveness of previous decisions to intervene, or not, in a particular business or to make follow-on investments such as the recent investment of £14.2 million in Ferguson’s?

With regard to that expertise, would you get somebody who has an understanding of and experience in the shipbuilding industry to give you that advice?

I do not dispute that in any way, shape or form, because I genuinely recognise that it is a different operating model.

We have heard today that you do not deal with the day-to-day operations—that is obviously for others—but the fact is that the yard has clearly not been competitive. If there was more scrutiny of the day-to-day operations—whether that is scrutiny of the accounting officer or of the new chief executive, who must obviously be given time to prove his worth—that would surely help to make the yard competitive. The yard cannot compete with China. Very few can compete with countries where the labour costs are a lot less; I think that we would all acknowledge that. There are things that the yard can do, and has done in the past, so that it can compete, but the cost situation is clearly hampering that. Therefore, I implore you and your staff to have more input and to carry out more of a scrutiny function and more due diligence of the yard’s day-to-day operations.

This is my final question, convener. The version of the First Marine International report that we have is heavily redacted, although there is some very useful and helpful information in what we can read of it. To what extent did Scottish Government officials challenge the levels of redaction in the reports? Did FMI provide you with a rationale for the aspects that it deemed to be too commercially sensitive to release?

That is unacceptable.

The correspondence in relation to the instruments has been published alongside the papers for this meeting. It sets out the committee’s questions and the Scottish Government’s responses in full.

The committee’s detailed findings will be set out in its report, which will be published in due course. The report will also set out its consideration of subordinate legislation at this meeting.

The first instrument would make significant amendments to the deposit and return scheme that is contained in the Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Regulations 2020, or SSI 2020/154. Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground (i), which is that its drafting appears to be defective in respect of the point that is raised in the committee’s question 10, and on the general reporting ground in respect of the points that are raised in questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9?

Members indicated agreement.

The correspondence in relation to the instruments has been published alongside the papers for this meeting. It sets out the committee’s questions and the Scottish Government’s responses in full.

The committee’s detailed findings will be set out in its report, which will be published in due course. The report will also set out its consideration of subordinate legislation at this meeting.

The first instrument would make significant amendments to the deposit and return scheme that is contained in the Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Regulations 2020, or SSI 2020/154. Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground (i), which is that its drafting appears to be defective in respect of the point that is raised in the committee’s question 10, and on the general reporting ground in respect of the points that are raised in questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9?

Members indicated agreement.

In evidence, we have received a range of detailed drafting suggestions for the bill. Do you have any comments on any of the suggestions that have been made by members of the legal profession and others who have been in touch with the committee?

Minister, what are your thoughts on the argument that the Scottish Government should carry out an awareness-raising campaign on the impact of the bill? If the Government is minded to do so, what form would a campaign take?