Kate Forbes writes to Public Audit Committee amidst investment concerns for Ferguson Marine

Kate Forbes has responded to the Public Audit Committee’s concerns regarding the “slow pace” of investment in Ferguson Marine.   

The committee wrote to the economy secretary in September, expressing its disappointment that “little tangible progress” had been made in the two months following its report, which warned that urgent investment was needed to secure the future of Scotland’s nationalised shipyard.  

In the letter, the committee’s convener Richard Leonard said: “We write to express our disappointment that, two months on from the publication of our report and more than a year from the Scottish Government’s commitment to provide £14.2m to the yard, there appears to have been little tangible progress.”  

He added that the “slow pace” of the new investment “raises serious questions” about the government's commitment “to providing Ferguson Marine with the urgent and sustained investment it needs”.   

Responding to Leonard’s letter, Forbes reiterated the Scottish Government's commitment of up to £14.2m over two years to support the modernisation of the shipyard.   

She said: “We are committed to strengthening governance, targeting investment effectively, and supporting Ferguson Marine to become a sustainable, competitive shipyard.   

“With the MV Glen Sannox now in service and Glen Rosa progressing towards delivery, the priority is to embed lessons learned and ensure the yard is placed on a firmer footing to secure future work.”  

Reacting to the deputy first minister’s response, Leonard said: “While the deputy first minister has supplied more detail, our committee has been clear about the need for urgent investment in the yard so that it can compete.   

“The Public Audit Committee will need to consider the extent to which the letter provides us with the reassurance we sought on the future of this historic yard.”  

Earlier this year, the committee considered the 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine by Audit Scotland, which highlighted “multiple and repeated failings”, including leadership and board instability, inadequate internal audit, serious weakness in contractor oversight, and governance failures around exit packages for senior staff.