Death in the afternoon

To the Holyrood plaza de toros for First Minister's Questions. And, first, the bandilleras, designed to irritate and confuse the bull:

Ms Sturgeon: Can I remind the First Minister that the future of Ferguson's shipyard in Port Glasgow, one of only three yards remaining on the Clyde, and the jobs of the 300 people who work there depends entirely on it winning a Scottish Executive contract to build fisheries protection vessels? Will the First Minister today tell his fisheries minister to stop dithering over this and instruct him to award this lifeline contract to Ferguson's shipyard now?

First Minister: I'm obviously restricted a bit, Presiding Officer, by the rules of procurement and tendering to go into all of the details in this case but I can assure Ms Sturgeon that of course we are looking at the tenders for this contract very carefully indeed and in particular we are looking into the evidence presented to us, not just recently in relation to the actions of the Polish Government and Polish yards but the evidence that we took to the DTI and the Department of Transport last October in relation to similar claims. The only dithering, though, that has been going on on this issue is in relation to the contracts for fisheries protection vessels, because I have to remind Ms Sturgeon that her front bench spokesperson, Richard Lochhead, said the last time that we gave Ferguson's a contract for a fisheries protection vehicle, Mr Lochhead said "our fisherman will have their heads in their hands when they learn that Ross Finnie has spent almost £8 million on a brand new boat to keep them in their place". The last time we awarded a contract to Ferguson's we were condemned by the Scottish National Party. This is the government that is determined to deliver for Scottish shipbuilding but also ensure we have fisheries protection vehicles-vessels in place too.

The bull is duly irritated, to the extent that he fails to make it clear just what stage the letting of the contract has reached. Instead, the First Minister introduces a totally irrelevant issue concerning fisheries protection, rather than dealing with the procurement question. And he makes his first slip by referring to fisheries protection vehicles (as if they were a bus or a lorry); this may well be corrected in the official version to appear tomorrow (which tries to clean up MSPs' oral delivery). He might avoid such errors if he looked at his notes more frequently but he seems to like to deliver his answers off the cuff. Anyway, Ms Sturgeon next wields the pic, intended to enrage the bull.

Ms Sturgeon: May I suggest to the First Minister that he raises his game? This is work that has been commissioned by the Scottish Executive and the question is: will it go to Poland or will it go to Port Glasgow? Isn't it the case that the Executive has been told repeatedly that the Polish yard is being subsidised? It won a contract from Ferguson's last year with a bid that wouldn't even cover the cost of materials, for goodness' sake. And can I remind the First Minister that, thanks to the SNP taking action, the EU Commission is now so concerned that it has launched an informal investigation into the Polish yard. So, can I ask the First Minister, what is it going to take to make him come down on the side of a Scottish industry, a Scottish shipyard and Scottish jobs? Why won't he, to quote Trish Godman, one of his own MSPs, show some backbone?

First Minister: Well, there's not only been plenty of backbone here but there's also been lots of action to try and ensure not only that Ferguson's win the current contracts that are out to tender but also in the past actually award contracts to Ferguson's despite the opposition of the Scottish Nationalist Party. And it's also wrong, as happened around about that visit to Brussels that Ms Sturgeon mentioned in her question, it's also wrong to imply that in some way this problem could be solved by transferring responsibility for this vessel from the Scottish government here in this Parliament to the British Royal Navy and the British government and the Ministry of Defence. The SNP leadership called, after the visit to Brussels, to re-classify the vessel as a "grey" vessel, ie a military ship. That would mean it was in the hands of the Ministry of Defence, not even this parliament. And it would also mean that Scottish fisheries protection was no longer being taken as a responsibility of this parliament and devolution but instead was being handed back to the Ministry of Defence and the British government. Now the SNP cannot have it both ways on this. I absolutely welcome the SNP's support and the support of any other party in this parliament for the efforts that we have undertaken, not only to help Scottish shipbuilding but to ensure that anybody who is breaking the law in distorting state aids across the European Union is being dealt with. And the SNP's - perhaps late, but very welcome - intervention on that is indeed welcome to us. We should be doing this on an all-party basis, but at the same time we need consistency not hypocrisy; we need honesty for the workforce at Ferguson's and not rubbish that would lead them up the garden path and lead to them getting no contracts at all in the future.

Nice piece of alliteration by Ms Sturgeon - Poland or Port Glasgow? And she deploys the traditional three piece rhetoric - Scottish industry, Scottish shipyard and Scottish jobs. The First Minister falls into the trap of answering a question - on grey ships - that Ms Sturgeon has not asked. He then tries to suggest that the classification of fisheries protection vessels as "grey" ships would automatically lead to the contract reverting to MoD and indeed to fisheries protection ceasing to be a devolved matter. This is utter nonsense of course. Then as the pic grinds into his back, he begins to lose vocabulary, syntax and semantics. For example, what is it that he wants to do on an all party basis? And he still hasn't answered the question about why he can't immediately move to let the contract to Ferguson's. Ms Sturgeon decides to tease him with a veronica or two.

Ms Sturgeon: Can I say to the First Minister that what he has just confirmed is that there are many ways in which the Scottish Executive could have given this contract by now to Ferguson's. Instead they have chosen to do nothing. Does the First Minister begin to understand the urgency and the seriousness of this situation? Does he know that, while he politics, more than 100 jobs at Ferguson's have gone already, a further 21 will be lost two weeks today unless this contract is awarded, and many more will follow. As even the local Labour MSP said yesterday, we cannot wait; this contract should go to Ferguson's right now. Can I suggest to the First Minister that, instead of cowering in a corner in case someone in Europe gives him a row, he should take this decision and he should make it clear that if it is challenged he will defend it? It's called standing up for the national interest. Why won't he do it?

First Minister: Ms Sturgeon's only two solutions to this issue are either to hand over responsibility to the Ministry of Defence - which would allow shipbuilding yards the length and breadth of Britain as well as yards in Poland to compete afresh for this particular tender - or indeed to break the law as she is now suggesting. That is utterly, utterly irresponsible. The best way to deal with any allegation of lawbreaking elsewhere in the European Union in relation to the contracts is to have those allegations properly investigated and that is what we called for, not in April in the middle of an election campaign but last October when we first approached the European Union and of course the British government on this issue. That is what we have consistently done in response to any evidence that has come in, either from Ferguson's or from elsewhere, and that's what we will continue to do, because we are determined to not only stick to the law but also make sure that others stick to the law elsewhere in the European Union and ensure that Scottish shipbuilding has the best chance it has and not, I remind Ms Sturgeon, condemn this Executive or anybody else for awarding fisheries protection vehicle contracts to Scottish shipbuilding yards as the SNP did not that very long ago.

More alliteration from Ms Sturgeon - "cowering in a corner"; she is actually becoming quite good at this. On the other hand, the First Minister is off on a blustering rant, his hands gesticulating wildly. Ms Sturgeon - rather coolly, I thought - administers the coup de grace.

Ms Sturgeon: Will the First Minister just confirm that all along it's been the SNP coming up with possible solutions and the Scottish Executive doing absolutely nothing? Isn't he aware that all Ferguson's Shipyard wants is fair treatment and a fair go? And while he dithers, jobs are currently being lost. Will he take a decision now in favour of a Scottish industry, a Scottish shipyard and Scottish jobs? Will he take that decision and defend it? Will he stand up for Scotland?

First Minister: I repeat, Presiding Officer, the last time Ferguson's got a fisheries protection contract from this Executive, the SNP said that people would be hanging their heads because it was such a disaster for Scottish fishing. The SNP opposed that contract, and they can't now come in late, 6 months after we first raised these allegations, and claim in some way that they are being consistent. I welcome your conversion. I want this to be an all-party effort. I want to ensure that in this parliament we do stick together, we do promote Scottish shipbuilding and we do tackle those elsewhere in the European Union who've been alleged to break the rules. But let's be consistent about it and let's not say one thing to one audience and another thing to another.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Why could the First Minister not have taken a sensible line: this is a difficult issue, requiring consultation with DTI as UK state aids authority and the EU Commission; pursuing these issues as quickly as we can but must recognise that there are no simple answers; no good awarding contract to Ferguson's if that proves in due course to be illegal. I readily admit that he did not have a good hand of cards to play but he did not appear to play them very well.