Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful. Can we drill into some of the numbers that sit behind the conclusions that have been drawn? It is probably worth saying for the record that no one is comfortable with talking about the yard in this context. However, we are reflecting on what is in the section 22 report, so we have to talk about it.

When the report was issued, it was your understanding that, at the time, there was no financial underpinning from Government for the year 2025-26. However, since then, a draft budget has been produced, in which a budget line is allocated to FMPG. Can you perhaps talk me through what your understanding is?

Let us assume that the number in the draft budget is the final one. It might change, of course, but for the purposes of today’s meeting, let us work with what we have in the public domain. Is it your understanding that that is money that has been allocated for the next financial year by the Government to keep the yard on its feet and to fund operational costs? Is it for staffing costs? Does it include any investment or upgrade allocation? Alternatively, in your understanding as an auditor, is that money simply for finishing the job of completing the second vessel that the yard is still responsible for? From reading the papers, it is a bit unclear how we follow that money.

I will go back to that issue separately, but, before we do so, let us look at page 8 of your section 22 report, where you make some assumptions. I am trying to get my head around the fact that, for the year 2025-26, there will be a number of variables.

How much money will be required to keep the doors open, to keep the staff there and to keep the yard functioning as a going concern for that financial year? That will come at a cost, and there will be a number associated with that—presumably, there will also be a cost to finish the Glen Rosa, either separate to or included in that number. Additional moneys could be required, for example, for capital investment to upgrade infrastructure in the yard—technology, machinery and so on—to secure future business. From reading the papers, it is not clear to me whether what is in the draft budget for 2025-26 will cover all that. That is where I am looking for risk. Perhaps that is a question that you do not know the answer to.

In essence, you are making that assertion because the management and the leadership team at the yard have made that assertion—you are not making an external judgment on the yard based on the evidence that you have been provided with, but repeating what they are saying in their own audit of the business.

There is a lot of auditing legalese in the report—you talk about disclosures and points of emphasis and so on. What effect does it have on the business when directors make such announcements? Is there a legal necessity for directors make such a disclosure in the reporting of the accounts? It is a profound announcement, given that it is such a big business.

Will you be able to achieve all that with a real-terms budget cut?

You must sit around the table with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care or the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government—

This brings me on to a point that was discussed earlier around minimum unit pricing. I am open-minded about doing whatever we can to tackle Scotland’s drug and alcohol deaths problem. I hope that you appreciate my earnest approach to that. However, I was not entirely convinced by the academic research that makes the link. I want there to be a link—I want the policy to be a success, if that is the policy—but we also need to be clear that there is evidence that makes the link. The evidence that I have is from speaking to alcoholics and drug users. I can tell you that when the cost of alcohol went way above what they could afford, many of them simply moved on to street drugs. There are many people who will tell you the truth about that situation.

That is not a case of me trying to politicise the matter because I have a problem with the policy. It is just evidence from the anecdotal conversations that I have had with many of the support groups in the third sector that are helping people on the ground. I hope that you are open-minded to that work as well, because feedback from real users is what matters, not just spreadsheets and statistics plucked out of NHS boards.

—and say, “We need more money. It’s as simple as that.” I hope that you can give me some reassurance that you are jumping up and down in asking for more money, because you know that that is what it will take to deliver improvements. We cannot settle for a real-terms cut.

That will work only if the services are available. The reality is that people have a very limited time to speak to their general practitioner about such issues, and services need to be as close as possible to people in their own communities. I am afraid that the reality is that, over the past decade, many services have simply disappeared due to funding issues. That is a real source of shame and has resulted in many regional disparities, including in my West Scotland region.

The report paints a picture of a postcode lottery on outcomes. After Glasgow and Dundee, Inverclyde and North Ayrshire, in my region, are numbers 3 and 4 in relation to the per capita drug death rate, but East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire are at the bottom of the league table. At the bottom of the table, seven or 11 people die per 100,000 of the population, but, at the top of the table, the figure is 33 or 37 per 100,000, so there is a huge difference. Life expectancy in those areas is massively different, too, but they are a stone’s throw away from each other. That does not make sense. What is going wrong?

Thank you. I appreciate your time.

I am glad that that is the focus.

We are running out of time, but another part of the Auditor General’s report that really struck me was exhibit 4, which is on barriers to accessing services. I think that I raised the issue with the Auditor General when he gave evidence. The table talks us through someone’s journey from identifying that they have a problem to getting treatment and being supported after treatment, but it paints a very dim picture, given the many barriers that exist as people go through that process.

The same issues come up time after time, including being unaware of where to get help, people being unavailable to provide help, waiting lists, shortages of suitable staff and the strict eligibility criteria, which Mr Dornan mentioned. Once people get into the services, they need to find a service that works for them, because everyone is different and every situation is unique, and once people come out of those services, they need to sustain their sobriety or abstinence from substances. It feels as though the whole system is stacked against people, and I know from anecdotal evidence that it is incredibly difficult to navigate it.