Ministers admit signing NDA around ferry due diligence in climbdown

The Scotsman was initially told the Scottish Government had not entered into any non-disclosure agreement.

Ministers admitted the had indeed signed a non-disclosure agreement.

Ministers have been forced to admit they did sign a non-disclosure agreement over work around further funding for Ferguson Marine shipyard in an embarrassing climbdown.

The Scotsman revealed in July that ministers had signed the gagging clause around the work, but the Scottish Government claimed it “has not entered into any non-disclosure agreements”.

However, following a further disclosure from Ferguson Marine and the government, it can be confirmed a non-disclosure agreement was signed by the government, Ferguson’s, consultancy giants Teneo, and independent advisors Woodbank Marine.

This work led to a recommendation from civil servants for a rarely-used ministerial direction on further funding for the two ferries being built at Ferguson’s due to the costs being more expensive than scrapping hull 802 and restarting the tender.

Ministers maintain the non-disclosure agreement has no bearing on whether the report submitted to ministers outlining this cost should be made public. However it is not clear whether the contract with Teneo and Woodbank Marine contained a non-disclosure clause that ties ministerial hands.

Holyrood’s Public Audit Committee has had requests to see the information and report rejected by civil servants.

It is understood this is due to concerns that key information about Ferguson Marine’s business would then enter the mainstream, potentially impacting both its ability to bid for work and its possible return into the private sector.

The government said that the gagging clause that was signed was “immediately superseded” by the contract for the work with Teneo, and had been for information sharing prior to the finalisation of that contract.

A spokesperson said: “A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) was signed in preparation for confidential information to be shared ahead of a contract commissioning the due diligence report being awarded. The NDA did not extend to the completed report.

“As it transpired, the NDA was only finalised by all parties on the day the contract was signed, meaning it was immediately superseded.”

Opposition parties rounded on the government for the admission, with Scottish Labour stating the revised position “looks downright dishonest”.

Martin Whitfield, the party’s business manager, said: “The SNP is famous for its secrecy and spin, but this looks downright dishonest.

"The decision to sign an NDA is a scandal in itself, and it would add insult to injury if they have lied about it.

“The culture of cover-up in this sleaze-ridden SNP government must end – Scotland deserves a government willing to act with transparency and accuracy at all times.”

Graham Simpson, the Scottish Conservative transport spokesperson, said the “culture of secrecy” around Ferguson’s is a “total scandal and is deepening by the day”.

He said: “Ministers have serious questions to answer over this latest revelation. There is no justification for the SNP Government to be claiming a non-disclosure agreement wasn’t signed, only to now produce such an agreement.

“The lack of lifeline services for islanders and squandering of hundreds of millions of taxpayers money has been shocking enough, without the SNP’s subsequent total lack of transparency.

“There must be a full independent inquiry into the SNP’s ferry fiasco to give the public the full account of how everything went so badly wrong and to finally hold someone responsible for catastrophic mistakes and their attempts to cover it up.”

Economy spokesperson for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Willie Rennie, added that the government must say why they initially denied the existence of the non-disclosure agreement.

He said: “A secretive and evasive approach has been the Scottish Government's hallmark when it comes to handling anything related to the long overdue Ferguson ferries. They will need to explain that why they appeared to hide that they had a secrecy agreement.

"If this was an error than we need an immediate apology. If this was intentional, we need ministers to explain what action will be taken to rectify this situation and ensure that bad actors are removed from the process."