Ministerial Statement: Ferguson Marine: Planned Investment and Future Business - 17 September 2026

That concludes the debate on addressing the harms of health misinformation. The next item of business is a statement by Steven Flynn on Ferguson Marine planned investment in future business. Questions will be taken at the end of the statement. There should be no interruption or interventions. I call on Steven Flynn to 10 minutes, please. >> Thank you very much, presiding officer, and I welcome this opportunity to update Parliament on Ferguson Marine. Before I do so, it is important to remember how we arrived at this point. Ferguson Marine entered public ownership following the collapse of its previous private owners. Without intervention, Scotland could have lost its last commercial shipyard on the Clyde along with hundreds of skilled jobs and an important industrial capability. Nationalization protected jobs, retained skills, and safeguarded a significant part of Scotland's industrial base. Today, Ferguson Marine remains a major employer in Berkeley and an important contributor to Scotland's maritime economy. It has built vessels that operate in Scotland and around the world and has a well-earned reputation for the skills of its workers and the quality of its apprenticeship scheme. I'm aware of the strong public interest in the yard and know members across parliament recognize the importance of retaining industrial capability, preserving vital skills and supporting Enver Clyde's future. Our program for government reaffirmed our commitment to Ferguson Marine and today I will update Parliament on the work being undertaken to support a sustainable future for the yard. Now in March this year we announced our intention to award contract for four vessels to Ferguson Marine subject to detailed due diligence and assurance processes. These comprise two fairies from the small vessel replacement program, a marine protection vessel and a marine research vessel. The fairies will serve the sound of Harris and the sound of bar roots supporting vital connections for island communities. The marine protection vessel and marine research vessel will support Scotland's marine environment and wider national priorities. We expect that each vessel will serve our country for many years to come and therefore is right that our technical and procurement experts take the time to conclude robust due diligence. The proposed vessel program forms part of a wider package of support intended to modernize the yard, strengthen its cap competitiveness, and improve its long-term sustainability. Ministers must be satisfied that the program provides value for money, complies with procurement and subsidy control requirements, and represents an appropriate use of public funds. Since March, alongside procurement activity to develop vessel designs and the governance needed to support timely delivery, Scottish government officials, Ferguson Marine senior leadership team and external adviserss have worked intensively to assess the the viability of the wider transformation program. This has included reviewing and challenging the yard's business plan, testing assumptions, delivery proposals, and financial projections, and analyzing Ferguson Marine's contribution to the local and national economy to inform an evidence-based case for public investment. Like everyone who cares about Ferguson Marine, I want this work to move forward as quickly as possible. It is equally important that decisions are evidence-based, transparent, and capable of withstanding scrutiny. That is why we are taking the necessary specialist advice and doing everything we can to protect public funds and ensure decisions are made transparently and responsibly. The chamber would expect nothing less. Presiding officer, there has been considerable interest in the role of the competition and markets authority in this process. To establish that a subsidy is lawful, the Scottish government must prepare a detailed principles assessment demonstrating that the policy rationale, economic case, and commercial justification align with subsidy control requirements. The technical requirements for each vessel must be developed sufficiently to allow Ferguson Marine to prefer designs, delivery plans, and cost estimates. Those estimates are then assessed through independent technical, commercial, and financial scrutiny. Due to the nature and value of the proposed support package, the subsidy control act requires a mandatory referral to the CMA. The CMA does not approve or reject proposals. Its role is to independently assess the evidence and publish advice which ministers must carefully consider before reaching a decision. This is an important safeguard that helps ensure any support package is supported by credible evidence and robust analysis. Scottish government officials continue to engage closely with the CMA and under the current timetable we expect the principal's assessment to be submitted for formal pre-referral assessment in the coming weeks with a final submission following thereafter. The resulting report will inform the will inform the decision ministers ultimately take and I will continue to keep parliament updated on key milestones. Presiding officer in planning for Ferguson Marine's long-term future, I am also conscious of the immediate challenges facing the business. MV Glen Rosa is the final vessel currently under contract, and once delivered, the yard has no contracted ship building work scheduled for 2027. Without a future pipeline of work, the business faces significant challenges in retaining skills and securing long-term sustainability. Let me be clear, this issue is not technical capability. Ferguson Marine retains a highly skilled workforce. The challenge is competing in a global market where many overseas shipyards benefit from lower costs and greater scale. That is why vessel opportunities, business transformation, and capital investment are being considered as part of a single program to modernize a yard and strengthen competitiveness. Investment to date has focused on essential repairs, health and safety improvements, and targeted equipment upgrades. Any future investment will remain subject to the wider business case and subsidy assessment process and will be directed towards supporting a more sustainable operating model. Presiding officer, I also want to address the voluntary redundancy consultation currently underway at Ferguson Marine. No compulsory redundancies are proposed and participation in the scheme is entirely voluntary. The company considers that these changes will support the transition to a more modern, efficient and competitive operating model. As shareholder, the Scottish government sought assurances that the proposals have been subject to proper governance and oversight and an appropriate business case before consultation commenced. Having received these assurances, I have agreed the workforce changes are necessary to support the long-term future of the art. Separately, officials continue to work with Ferguson Marines leadership team to manage the periods between completion of MB Glen Rosa and the proposed direct awards. As part of these discussions, the business has requested working capital to enable it to build a small number of tugboats for subsequent sale into commercial markets. I have agreed that this proposal should be taken forward because I agree with the board that it represents a sensible commercial approach to maintaining productive activity within the yard following delivery of MV Glen Rosa. It has the potential to retain critical ship building capability and workforce skills during an important period for the business. I have therefore asked officials to work with the company to progress the necessary commercial, financial and governance arrangement as quickly as possible. This work is separate from the broader program of vessel opportunities, investment and transformation currently under consideration. Presiding officer, I want to place on record my thanks to everyone who has taken a constructive interest in Ferguson Marine, including trade unions, local communities, industry partners, and members across parliament. Above all, I want to thank the workforce. I recognize that this remains a period of uncertainty for many employees and their families. Despite that uncertainty, they continue to demonstrate professionalism, resilience, and commitment while delivering MV Glen Rosa and supporting the future of the yard. The skills they possess are of enormous value, and they matter to the future of Scottish ship building. I believe Ferguson Marine can have a strong future as a modern and competitive shipyard. Our ambition is not simply to preserve Ferguson Marine. is to strengthen Scotland's commercial ship building capability, retain critical skills, and ensure the CLI continues to play an important role in our maritime and industrial economy. I also want to be clear to island and coastal communities that delivery of these vessels remains every bit as important as securing a sustainable future for Ferguson Marine. The communities they rely on that rely on these services need modern reliable vessels and they need them as soon as possible. The work we are undertaking is intended to achieve both objectives because this is about more than a single shipyard. It's about retaining the capability needed to support ferry services, protect our marine environment and sustain commercial ship building in Scotland for future generations. Thank you presiding officer. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. We're in 20 minutes for questions on the issues raised. Members wishing to ask a question should press the request to speak buttons now. And I call Gem Simpson. Thank you, presiding officer, and can I thank the cabinet secretary for advanced sight of the statement. However, um it will come as no comfort to workers at the yard. There's no contracted ship building work for 2027. We've known about the legal issues around a direct award for years, but in March, Kate Forbes announced the intention to award four vessels to the yard. She called it a watershed moment and said there was a clear pipeline of work. Now there's no contract, no watershed, and no pipeline of work, apart from maybe some speculative tug building. Steven Flynn appears to have rode back on that announcement. He told us today um that the government doesn't know whether the program provides value for money. That needs to be assessed. That's what's in his statement. uh whether it uh complies with procurement and subsidy control requirements or represents an appropriate use of public funds. So when will workers uh be told uh whether there will be a direct award? What happens to the yard without the direct award? Where will the work go if it's not offered? How much working capital is being requested for the tugboat program? How many vessels are envisaged? Are there customers out there? And after years of public ownership and substantial public expenditure, what is the government's timetable for Ferguson Marine becoming genuinely competitive and capable of winning commercial contracts? >> Gavin secretary. >> Yes. Thank you, Presiding. Officer, I'm a little bit unsure as to whether Mr. Simpson supports the additional proposals in respect to Ferguson Marino whether he wants the yard to simply close because it would be closed if it wasn't for this SMP government and decisions that we took in years gone by and I will come to his points because I think he has confused presiding officer me explaining the process that legal complex legal process that we must go through in relation to the the CMA as me putting doubt on in relation to the four vessels I did nothing of the sort and he should listen more clearly not just in relation to that but in relation to the points I've made with regards to the tugboats because we want to offer certainty to the yard to ensure it has a pipeline of work into next year which is why I have agreed that the proposal for the tugboats should be taken forward because I agree with the board that it represents a s sensible commercial approach. It would be good to hear from Mr. Simpson and his party whether they support investment in Ember Clyde or not. >> Neil Bby >> the >> the cabinet secretary stated the government's actions have been driven by the need to protect jobs. That's why I and others on these benches supported the nationalization of the yard. Yet now up to 70 workers are set to lose their jobs on his watch. and not one of the many ministers responsible for the ferious fiasco have lost theirs. Why does the cabinet secretary support these redundancies when the GMBB have warned the yard risks losing vital experience and it goes against the government's previous stated aim? The GMBB are also warning it will take a year to cut the steel for the four vessels designated for direct award. Does the cabinet secretary therefore accept the urgency of this situation for islanders and workers? And is he confident that he will deliver on the government's promise of direct award to the yard? >> Cabinet Secretary, >> thank you. Uh thank you presiding off and I'm glad that someone uh within the chamber on the opposition benches recogniz recognizes the the purposeful and right decision that we made to nationalize the yard in order to protect it long into the future. With regards to the point that I think Mr. Bby was making in respect of what happens next, I have outlined very clearly the process that we must comply with in relation to the subsidy control act and the CMA moving forward. Those are requirements that are set down by the UK Parliament and we are responding to that accordingly and I will update Parliament as swiftly as I can as outlined in my statement once I know the specific answers to the points that the CMA will likely make in respect to the desire to take forward the direct award. With regards to the workforce, I think that the announcement I've made today in respect of the opportunity to move forward into a commercial space with regards to the tugboats will be something that is welcomed by the workforce because it will give them the opportunity to put their expert skills to use and to evidence that this yard can be turned around and can be commercially viable long into the future. So through the tugboats, through the four future vessels, we are investing in Ferguson's to make sure that this yard can deliver for Ember Clyde and deliver for Scotland long into the future. And I'm sure Mr. Bby would agree with those sentiments. >> McMillan, >> thank you. Thank you, presiding officer. First of all, I do welcome the announcement regarding the funding for tugboats and see this very much as an interim measure towards a brighter and more sustainable future for the yard as the cabinet secretary spoke about the the four vessels previously announced. But quite frankly, any work going to the yard is something that is very much as good news if it helps to maintain experienced workers but also the apprentices so that when we do get more work, we actually have a workforce that can deliver. But on the statement that the cabinet secretary has spoken about today, does the and I quote the future investment uh mentioned in the statement does that include the 14.2 million pounds of capital investment previous announced by the government or is that additional monies and also with regards to the CMA principles assessment once that is submitted or the pre assessment is submitted what is the time scale for that information to come back from the CME? Thank you >> cabinet secretary. Thank you to to Mr. McMillan for for his questions. I know he has been a fierce advocate for Ferguson's over very many years and that's reflected in the support he has in his local community. With respect to the 14.2 million pounds of outstanding investment to to upgrade infrastructure within the yard, that is obviously very much still on the table and is directly related to the future delivery of the the four vessels that are going to be taking place as part of the direct award. It's important that those things happen in tandem to support productivity at the yards. In relation to the CMA, I I think it's important that I be very clear with the chamber that I don't decide the the timelines or the answers that the CMA can give us. But what I can do is advise the chamber very clearly that I will take the response from the CMA very seriously, which is why we are putting a significant amount of work into making sure that we provide them with all of the relevant details that they require. >> Patrick Harvey, >> the uh Greens also welcomed the action that was taken to save the yard and we want to see modernization work so that this uh yard is not only viable but thriving into the future. But I remain a little unclear about the long-term intentions of the government. Is it the cabinet secretary's view that a business like this should only remain in public hands while it's struggling and in need of support? Or should a future vibrant and successful future for this yard remain in public hands so that in the long term it operates in the interest of the public sector and the workforce. >> Cabinet Secretary, >> I appreciate Mr. Harvey's desire to talk long into the to the future in terms of what the future of the yard could look like um a a date unspecified in time. He'll he'll appreciate that my focus right now is very much on making sure that we're working very closely with the the board at Ferguson's to deliver upon the the tugboat proposal that they've put to us and also to get on and deliver the four vessels that are required in order to make sure that the yard can properly evidence that it has a a viable vibrant commercial future going forward and I'm sure we can revisit the the wider discussion uh in the future >> steer this is either gross minister ial incompetence or a con by the SNP spin machine because we knew all of this six months ago. 6 months ago, just before the election, it was made to sound as if the orders were in the bag. The yard future was secure. As has been referenced earlier, it was a watershed moment. Not one contract's been awarded, as many of us said would be the case. No submission to the CMA, no work for the yard in 2027, and now redundancies have been announced. So what exactly has the SNP government been doing for the last 6 months apart from conning the good people of Inenver Clyde? >> Cabinet Secretary, I >> I'm not sure uh from Mr. K's uh Steven Ker's uh remarks um as to whether he was supportive of the of the proposals that I've put on the table today in order to ensure that the yard has work next year. I think that was missing from his comments. What was also missing presiding officer was the reality that we must comply with the UK's substate control act and we also must comply with the CMA. I don't know if Mr. care is intimating that we should ignore those aspects just as we should ignore the good news that's been announced in relation to tugboats. He seems very angry on both those points, Mr. Speaker, presiding officer, but I'm sure he'll clarify in future. >> Mr. Speaker, presiding officer, I'm confused. Will there any? It it is now clear that the government had failed to carry out all the appropriate legal checks before it told this parliament before the election that would make a direct award to the Ferguson yard. It failed to do so and the consequences are being felt by the the third of the workforce that have lost their jobs at Ferguson's as a result of this government's negligence. So at what point at what point because the minister must have some clue about this. At what point does he think a decision will be made by this government cuz the workers deserve not to wait another minute. >> Secretary officer I I I contend furiously the point that Mr. Rene has made because he knows as an esteemed member of this parliament and a parliamentarian of very many years that when it comes to direct awards we must comply with the subsidy control act and the provisions set out by the CMA. If he is suggesting that he was unaware of our duties in that respect then that is on him that is not on us. >> Okay we've had a member from each party ask a question and we're 12 minutes in. Uh a lot of members are just not going to be able to ask questions unless we get short on sharp questions and responses. Thank you. Call Alan Brown. Uh thank you Mr. Officer. Obviously we hope um we hope everybody here does want to see a sustainable future for Ferguson Marine. Back to 14.2 million pounds of capital investment. Will that money be able to be invested and have the yard modernized while we await the CMA recommendations and get that in place before hopefully the four direct awards are made to Ferguson Marine >> cab secretary >> Colin Brown for for his question and his and his interest in this very important topic as I sought to outline earlier and as has been outlined on very many occasions by my predecessors is important that those two things happen in tandem because the productivity benefits that will be gained from the 14.2 million pounds of investment are directly linked to the delivery of the four vessels. >> David Smith. >> Thank you, Presiding Officer. Now, most of the workers at Ferguson Marine are on temporary contracts. Can I ask the minister if reducing the number of full-time employees and replacing them with temporary contractors is a clear statement from Ferguson Marine that they do not have confidence that this government will award the contract? >> Cabinet Secretary Chief I I'm I'm afraid that when it comes to the the issue of of individual contracts that that's a that's a matter for the the board that Ferguson Marina and I'm sure the member will take that up directly with him to get the the clarity that he surprisingly needs. The important point I would like to make so maybe I didn't make in relation to to Mr. Bibby's question to me which was perhaps unfair earlier on because I had an officer was the fact that when it comes to the voluntary redundancy that's been put on the table. This has been done in a position we didn't want to be in this position. We want to see this yard successful. And it's because we want to see this yard successful that I'm making the announcements today in respect of moving forward with the tugboats, moving forward with the direct award and safeguarding the jobs of the people of Inverly is paramount to the future success of this company. >> Jamie Mento. >> Thank you, presiding officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and absolutely agree with his point that the delivery of vessels is is as important to our island and coastal communities as ensuring we secure a sustainable future for Ferguson Marine. Can the cabinet secretary please advise whether in order to support that pipeline of work he mentioned? Might the government consider further direct awards given the points around uh the subsidy control act for example for my constituency like the Denoon and Guruk route and the Campbell Town route. Cabinet Secretary, >> I I thank Jenny Men for her question and for raising a very important point as to what happens next. And I I can advise her and the chamber that we will continue to monitor where we can make direct interventions to support the yard, but also incredibly importantly to make sure that the communities that she represents and indeed others in this chamber represent have the fairies, the reliable fairies that they need in order to get around on their daily lives. That's important to me. It's important to this government and we'll continue to work to that end. >> Katy Clark, >> in announcing the Scottish government's plan for direct awards in March, the then deputy first minister Kate Forbes said that a lot of the work on scoping out and legal advice had already been done, but an application needed to be made to the competitions and markets authority. Was that correct? Because the cabinet secretary today seems to be going backwards. We were told there would be a pipeline of work. Will the cabinet secretary commit to fighting for these contracts to be awarded and that the promise made in March will be kept? >> Cabinet secretary. >> Presiding officer, I I appreciate the members might have pre-prepared questions, but I cannot keep reiterating the same point when it comes to the substate control act and the CMA. This is a complex legal process that we are working through. I I cannot be any more clearer with parliament than I am being in respect of that. But what members seem to be ignoring in the opposition benches presiding officer is the fact that we are seeking to provide certainty for the yards during the gap between the Glen Rosa um be between the delivery of the Glen Rosa and the award of these new contacts by making sure that we have a commercial alternative in place with tugboats that is to be welcomed but there's a shortage of welcoming coming from the opposition members. Jack Middleton. >> Can the cabinet secretary tell me more about the expected timeline of delivery for upcoming vessels and the benefits of this pipeline of work? >> Cabinet Secretary, >> I thank Jack Middleton for his question. And I think it's important once again to reiterate this government's commitment to delivering these four vessels, which is why we are putting the effort in to making sure that we can comply through the subsidy control act with the provisions that are going to be put upon us potentially by the CMA. We need this to be as robust as it possibly can, but it's not enough in and of itself, which is why I am very pleased to have been able to come to the chamber today to outline our intentions and respective tugboats. Christopher Leisk. Thank you, siding officer. Ferguson Marine must remain competitive, and I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to that principle, but it must also be able to tender for contracts at a bare minimum. Longer term, its lack of activity and track record of build history will only hamper the yard's ability to tender for work, and we saw that directly with the ineligibility to tender for the Lord of the procured by Semouth. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge this liability to Ferguson Marine? And how will it overcome this barrier to ensure it is competitive beyond government contracts? >> Cabinet Secretary, >> I think the government contracts give Ferguson Marine the opportunity and the ability to say to the wider commercial market that this is what we can do and this is what we can deliver. And when they do that and they deliver that, then they'll hopefully secure those commercial orders that are going to be absolutely essential to its vibrant future going forward. And I believe that the tugboat's proposal can play a key part in that process, too. >> Dawn Black. >> Thank you, presiding officer. Uh, can the cabinet secretary provide further information on the Scottish government's latest conversations with the Ferguson Marines workforce and the trade unions in light of the outlined investment in the shipyard's future? and also how he can how the Scottish government is taking um steps to ensure good planning, cost control and delivery on site. >> Cabinet Secretary. >> Yes. Can I thank Don Black for her question and the very important point she raises because it is vital that we have continued positive discussions with the workforce and indeed the trade unions. I met with the trade unions on the 8th of July when I was three in Glasgow and the first minister had the opportunity to speak both with unions and with the workforce on the 24th of August. It's my intention to get to the yard in the very near future to meet with both and I'm sure that they'll welcome the announcements that I've been able to make in Parliament here today. >> Paul Sweeney, >> thank you for presiding officer. Does the minister accept that the fundamental issue is we don't have competitive ship building finance in Scotland and that hampers any shipyard in Scotland from winning commercial work? Does he also agree that we should be exploring section 45 of the subsidy control act on the national security provisions? Will they write to defense ministers on that issue? And has the peame paneline been ordered yet? because that is a critical piece of machinery with a long lead time for installation. >> Cabinet Secretary, >> I can assure Mr. Sweeney that my officials remain in constant dialogue with the the UK government in respect of a whole host of matters of which the subsidy control act will most certainly be one. And if there's an opportunity for me to explore a discussion with the UK's defense secretary at a certain point in the future, I'm more than happy to to take uh the defense secretary up in relation to that particular order. With relation to to finance, I'm assuming this relates to the questions that Mr. Sweeney has posed to me um in written form in respect of the regimes that exist elsewhere, particularly in Spain and the ability for them to uh procure contracts through the Canary Islands. I would gently say to to Mr. Sweeney, I have looked at this matter in a great deal of detail and I'm not sure that the decision or the ability for the Canary Islands to operate at a significantly reduced tax rate is one that his colleagues in Westminster would welcome us seeking to pursue. >> And Malcolm offered >> presiding officer, this is the only shareholder statement I've ever read with zero financial information included. >> Yeah. >> Can the cabinet secretary please explain why? Cabinet Secretary, >> I'm sure I'm sure Lord Offford will get the opportunity during the budget process to look at the numbers that the government operates under. >> Thank you. That concludes the ministerial statement on Ferguson Marine planned investment and future business. We now move to decision time and there are four questions to be put as result of today's business. The first question is amendment 12000.3 in the name of Helen McDeade which seeks to amend motion 120 in the name of Angel Constson on addressing the harms of health mis information be agreed. Are we all agreed? >> We are not agreed. Therefore, we'll move to a vote. It'll be a short suspension to all members to access the digital voting system.