Scottish Parliament, 21 April 2022

276 contributions from 65 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The

first item of business is general question time. I would appreciate short and succinct questions, and answers to match, in order to get in as many members as possible.

Women’s Access to Clinics and Hospitals

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Police Scotland to discuss safe access for all women to clinics and hospitals. (S6O-00982)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The Scottish Government convened in December 2021 a working group with members from COSLA, Police Scotland, and councils and health boards that are affected by vigils and protests that take place outside abortion clinics. The group is specifically focused on seeking solutions to ensure that women can access abortion services safely and without fear of harassment. The working group last met this morning: it was our third meeting. The agenda and minutes of previous meetings can be found on the Scottish Government’s website.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Last week, at the end of 40 days of continuous demonstrations, there were 100 anti-abortion protesters outside the Queen Elizabeth university hospital’s maternity unit. Does the minister accept that women and the workforce are being harassed and that

urgent action is needed to bring that type of behaviour to an end? Does she accept that we need to know that action is being taken urgently and that steps will be taken to ensure that such protests cannot continue? Will the Scottish Government have the courage to introduce Scotland-wide legislation to create buffer zones?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I put it on the record that I was very dismayed to hear about the protests at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital last weekend. There is absolutely no place in our society for harassment, abuse or intimidation of women and girls who are accessing healthcare services. The Scottish Government is committed to women being able to access timely abortion without facing judgment. Both our programme for government and our “Women’s Health Plan: A plan for 2021-2024” include undertakings in that regard, which I hope indicates the level of importance that we give the issue.

I am working closely, collaboratively and constructively with Gillian Mackay, who intends to introduce a member’s bill on the issue. I met her in February and she was at this morning’s meeting of the working group to meet all its members and to share her consultation. We all agreed to work constructively with her on the issue.

Home Heating Support Fund

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the roll-out of the home heating support fund. (S6O-00983)

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The h

ome heating support fund is delivered on our behalf by Advice Direct Scotland. It reopened at the end of last year with funding that was provided from our fuel insecurity fund. Since then, it has been successfully helping households that are at risk of severely rationing their energy use or of self-disconnecting entirely. Although figures are still being collated, the provisional figures show that more than 7,300 applications for support had been received by 11 April.

The fund will continue to offer households support through the current financial year, thanks to the additional £10 million funding that we recently announced for the fuel insecurity fund.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

As the Tories waste precious energy running to the defence of their law-breaking Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, people across Scotland are focused on how to make ends meet, feed their children and keep their homes warm. Does the minister agree that, instead of navel gazing, the Tories must engage with reality and encourage the chancellor to cut VAT on energy bills as a way of helping people with the cost of living crisis?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I very strongly agree that action must be taken and that a short-term cut to VAT on energy fuels, among a range of other measures, would be one way of providing short-term relief for households that are faced with the huge increase—resulting from the price cap that has just come into effect—which we expect will get worse later this year.

We first suggested such a cut in VAT back in January. My colleagues, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy and the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, both reiterated the request when they wrote to their United Kingdom Government counterparts last month. We have proposed a range of other actions to address the cost of living crisis, some of which sit with the UK Government and some of which, as discussed, we have already implemented in Scotland through our devolved powers.

For some time, we have been pressing for an end to VAT on energy-saving measures, which would increase uptake of those products. It is good that the UK Government has finally recognised the merits of that policy. We also continue to urge it to commit to rebalancing the policy cost element of energy bills in order to reduce the premium that is paid by households that rely on electric heating, and to unlock deployment of low and zero-emissions heating.

Finally, I say that it is astonishing that the UK Government has published an energy security strategy that says absolutely nothing about energy efficiency. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government continues to make the matter a long-term high priority.

National Health Service (Rural Areas)

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what help it will provide to tackle any national health service backlogs in rural areas. (S6O-00984)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The on-going impact of addressing the Covid-19 pandemic has meant that many health services have been suspended or reduced in scope and scale. That has affected almost all aspects of planned care; as a result, many people are waiting longer for the care that they need. I hope that Finlay Carson and the Parliament are assured that addressing that backlog, while continuing to meet on-going urgent health and care demands, is a top priority.

We published the “NHS Recovery Plan 2021-2026” in August 2021. It sets out our plans to address the backlogs in care throughout the current parliamentary session. In Dumfries and Galloway specifically, we are working closely with the health board on its local recovery plan, which recognises the specific challenges that the board faces. They include recruitment to a number of key roles to support increased capacity, use of the independent sector where appropriate, and funding to open short-stay and ward beds in order to accommodate additional activity.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Earlier this month, the Scottish Government announced that it had purchased a private care hospital—

Carrick Glen hospital in Ayr, which specialises in orthopaedics. Given the important role that is played by cottage hospitals at Castle Douglas, Kirkcudbright and Newton Stewart, which provided vital health services to nearly 600 patients before the pandemic, will financial assistance be made available either to retain or replace those crucial local facilities in order to reduce the growing backlog in delayed discharge and to move palliative care patients closer to home?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Mr Carson has raised an important point. It is for our local health boards to make decisions and assessments about the premises and acute sites that they have in their regions. If the local health board comes to the Government with a plan for how purchase of those premises might help it to reduce the backlog, of course the Government will look at it.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Recruitment of new staff to the health service will play a crucial role in supporting the recovery of our NHS. Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on progress since the launch of the recruitment drive in October, and can he outline how measures in the “National Workforce Strategy for Health and Social Care in Scotland” will promote the growth of Scotland’s remote and rural workforce in the long term?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am delighted that we were able to announce this week that we have recruited more than 1,000 healthcare support staff in a mixture of acute sites and community sites. They are in urban areas and in remote and island communities, which is very positive. We have recruited almost 200 overseas-registered nurses, and more than 200 more will come on stream over the weeks and months ahead. The overseas recruitment is ethical international recruitment, which is incredibly important.

We are absolutely committed to developing a sustainable healthcare workforce, and we have committed to developing a remote and rural workforce strategy. As Stephanie Callaghan is no doubt aware, we are creating a national centre for remote and rural health and social care, which is due to be operational by spring next year. That centre will support recruitment, retention, ideal practice, evaluation, training, education and research.

Department for Work and Pensions (Meetings)

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

4. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the Department for Work and Pensions, and what was discussed. (S6O-00985)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Ministers and officials are in regular contact with the Department for Work and Pensions. Joint ministerial working group meetings are held twice a year. The most recent meeting took place in November last year, when the adult disability payment, child disability payment and the Scottish child payment were discussed.

The Minister for Social Security and Local Government holds regular bilateral meetings with Chloe Smith—the UK Government Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work—on priorities for delivery of devolved social security, the most recent of which took place last month. There is also a well-established programme of meetings at official level on delivery of devolved welfare benefits.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

As the cabinet secretary knows, the Tories’ cost of living crisis is causing real hardship, and their lack of action is staggering. Does she agree that the UK Tory Government must review and increase its local housing allowance to help people with spiralling costs; raise all social security payments by at least 6 per cent, to protect people from poverty; and implement fair and fast compensation, as requested by Women Against State Pension Inequality—WASPI—to ensure that women who were born in the 1950s are not further penalised?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government has fully supported the work of the WASPI campaign and has consistently called on the UK Government to take responsibility for the hardship that is being caused to thousands of women who are negatively impacted.

Local housing allowance rates were last set on 31 March 2020 and have not been elevated since. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 1 January this year, urging her to take steps to restore rates to a level that will prevent many people in Scotland from having to make the difficult choice between paying the rent and feeding their families, and heating their homes. In contrast, we acted urgently, in spite of our limited powers, by further increasing, from 3.1 per cent to 6 per cent, several devolved social security benefits and forms of assistance.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

The DWP’s nationwide closures include its office in Aberdeen, which leaves more than 60 workers at risk of redundancy. I previously raised the prospect of those highly skilled workers being redeployed to Social Security Scotland to assist with roll-out of new devolved benefits. At the time, the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise indicated that the Scottish Government could explore that option, but no clear commitment was given. I ask the cabinet secretary for a firm commitment. Will the Scottish Government work with the Public and Commercial Services Union and the DWP to explore redeployment of those workers to Social Security Scotland?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Mercedes Villalba is probably aware that a number of DWP staff have successfully moved across to Social Security Scotland in recruitments since it has been up and running. However, I am happy to take forward the suggestion that she has made. I will look at what was said previously and write to her with more detail.

Benefit Cap

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to proceed with its commitment to mitigate any impact of the United Kingdom Government benefit cap as much as possible within the scope of its devolved powers. (S6O-00986)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We know that households that are impacted by the benefit cap lose almost £2,500 per year. Mitigation of the cap will help the families who are hardest hit by the UK Government’s cuts to keep their homes. We will invest up to £10 million in 2022-23 to mitigate the benefit cap as far as we can within our powers. We are working with local authorities to identify existing good practice in benefit cap mitigation and to agree how best to support those who are affected by that damaging policy. That additional funding will be rolled out as early as possible this year.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The cabinet secretary will remember that the first conversation that I had with her as a newly elected MSP was about mitigating the benefit cap and I am delighted that we are doing that. It is beyond belief that the Westminster Government is implementing a policy that denies families with children basic levels of subsistence and continues to make things even worse with its two-child policy and its abhorrent rape clause. Will the cabinet secretary join me in condemning that approach and agree that it would have no part in an independent Scotland, which would have dignity, fairness and respect at the heart of its approach to social security policy?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I whole-heartedly agree with Marie McNair on that point

. I also recognise her long-standing support of the move to mitigate the benefit cap. Indeed, she raised it in the early days after she was elected.

We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to urgently review the various failings of the universal credit system, such as the two-child limit and the rape clause, which is abhorrent and would have no place in an independent Scotland’s social security system. In contrast, we are committing more than £3.9 billion for benefits expenditure in 2022-23, providing support to more than 1 million people. That is more than £360 million above the level of funding to be received from the UK Government through the block grant adjustment, which shows the investment that we are making in the people of Scotland in this important area.

Cladding (Replacement)

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how it is progressing with the replacement of unsafe cladding on tall buildings. (S6O-00987)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We will introduce legislation tomorrow

to ban the highest-risk cladding and combustible materials in residential and other high-risk buildings above 11m. That will apply from 1 June 2022. All unsafe cladding that is being replaced through our assessment and remediation programme will need to meet that standard.

Our programme of single building assessments, which is free for home owners, is currently under way in 25 buildings. It will determine what, if anything, needs to be done to ensure that those buildings are safe. We expect some of the assessments, which are detailed and very complex, to be completed in the coming weeks.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In January, the United Kingdom Government

pressurised housing developers to commit to removing dangerous cladding from buildings. Three months later, we have seen no such moves from the Scottish Government. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that developers remove flammable cladding from buildings as a matter of urgency?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am glad that Alexander Stewart has asked me that question. I say to him first that, unfortunately, the building safety pledge and building safety fund are for England only. Despite assurances that we would work closely together to tackle building safety issues, the devolved Administrations have yet to have a seat at the table. We have raised deep concerns with the Welsh Government about that.

The change from a fund to pledge letters means that less in consequentials is available for the devolved nations to

tackle their own cladding issues. We remain open to all solutions, and we are currently working with several developers to try to action remediation and to get it done on a voluntary basis, but it is deeply unhelpful that the UK Government has excluded Wales and Scotland from the developers fund. We are urgently seeking a meeting with Michael Gove to request that the pledge letters cover Wales and Scotland. It is deeply disappointing that, to date, we have not managed to get that meeting arranged.

Perhaps my colleagues on my left in the chamber who are heckling from a sedentary position could refocus their attention on requesting Michael Gove to meet with Wales and Scotland, because at the heart of this is the very important issue of unsafe cladding on buildings. Surely that is something that transcends party politics. If they can be of assistance, that would be most helpful.

Fuel Costs (Support for Agriculture and Fishing)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the agricultural and fishing industries with rising fuel costs. (S6O-00988)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

It is clear to all of us that Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the justified western sanctions in response are having impacts, not the least of which are the hugely challenging increases in energy bills, which affect households and everyone in the food industry, from farmers and processors to the fishing industry. I am acutely aware of the impact that that has across the food supply chain and of the particular issues that it causes for our fishing industries, which are facing financial hardship as a result. The continued lack of engagement from the United Kingdom Government will lead again to consternation for Scottish businesses that are dealing with an already unsettled international environment.

On 17 March, I announced that we have convened a food security and supply task force, jointly with industry, to monitor, identify and respond to those issues, as well as to recommend actions that can be taken by business and by the Scottish and UK Governments to mitigate some of those challenges. Further to that, on 4 April I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice, requesting an urgent four-nation summit on the impact of fuel prices. Yesterday, he finally agreed to that request during a meeting. We will now work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that that happens at pace.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Although we are all feeling the pinch at the pumps, the exceptional rise in input costs is forcing boats in Orkney to either tie up or leave the industry entirely. The combination of feed, fuel and fertiliser costs threatens the very viability of many farms. Given the importance of food security, which the cabinet secretary has recognised, when would she expect the working group to come forward with recommendations? Will she give a commitment to implement those recommendations with absolute urgency?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Yes. The task force was set up as a short-life task force to do exactly that—to look at the short, medium and longer-term actions. We had our third meeting yesterday and we will be having what is expected to be our last meeting shortly. We will produce a paper with a report with recommendations from that, which, of course, the Scottish Government will consider carefully.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes general question time. Before we move to First Minister’s question time, I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery the Hon Jonathan O’Dea MP, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Parliament of New South Wales. [

Applause

.]

Charges for Drivers (Edinburgh and Glasgow)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. I begin by wishing Her Majesty the Queen a very happy 96th birthday. On behalf of the whole chamber and people across Scotland, we send our best wishes to the monarch, who has been a constant in our country for many decades. Through good times and difficult periods, while the country has been at war and during peace time, she has been a global figure and our remarkable head of state. I know that everyone in the chamber will join us in wishing Her Majesty a very happy birthday.

Does the First Minister support plans for drivers who live outside Edinburgh and Glasgow to be charged extra to get into Scotland’s two largest cities?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I, too, take the opportunity to wish Her Majesty a very happy 96th birthday. Her service has been, and continues to be, an inspiration to many, not just in Scotland and the United Kingdom but across the world. I know that all of us, in sending her our very best wishes today, will also wish her many happy returns.

It is right that we support people who require to use our roads and that we do that in a range of ways—for example, by ensuring good maintenance of our roads and pressing for action on the part of the UK Government to cut the cost of motoring, particularly just now when people are suffering due to the cost of living crisis. However, we also all have a big responsibility to ensure that we make the transition to net zero, which means decarbonising our transport system. Therefore, local authorities will consult on a range of issues. It is important that those responsibilities are kept in our minds, but also that the views of the wider public are taken fully into account.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

So, the First Minister wants to support people who use our roads, and her answer is this: tax them more. The Scottish National Party Government brought in the workplace parking tax and the SNP group in the City of Edinburgh Council has charged ahead with plans to introduce it—plans that would hit anyone who needs their car to get into work in the city. Now, in its manifesto for the local election, the SNP has included proposals to charge vehicles just to come into the capital. That is a commuter tax on people all over the country who travel to work in Edinburgh, come to do business, visit family and friends or use vital services. Scottish Conservatives are completely opposed to that proposal, so why is the SNP intent on making driving in our cities unaffordable?

The First Minister

I think, perhaps on many issues, Douglas Ross needs to decide what his position actually is and avoid rendering himself ridiculous by having contradictory and inconsistent positions.

Talking of manifestos, let me first quote the Tory local government manifesto from 2017, which says this:

“We need to empower councils and give them a renewed sense of meaning and purpose”.

[

Interruption.

]—I can hear Douglas Ross say, “That is not up to date enough”, so let me cite the Conservative manifesto from the Scottish Parliament election just this time last year. Again, I am quoting. It said:

“Councils should lead post-COVID reviews of changed travel patterns in their area and be encouraged to create more low traffic neighbourhoods”.

[

Interruption

.]—So, on the one hand, Douglas Ross wants to empower local councils, but then he stands up and says that I should rule out the local councils having the ability to decide on things that could help us with that transition to net zero, while, of course, supporting travel patterns across the country. Not for the first time, Presiding Officer, and I suspect not for the last time, Douglas Ross’s position is completely inconsistent and bordering on being ridiculous.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

“Bordering on being ridiculous” is the dismal answer. The two things that are bordering on being ridiculous are the fact that SNP back benchers think that that was a good answer, and the complete deflection from the SNP proposals. There was nothing from the leader of the SNP—the First Minister—about the specific question that I asked. Her pre-prepared answers about what I might or might not have said do not really sit well—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Colleagues—[

Interruption

.] Colleagues—thank you.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Her

pre-prepared answers on what I might or might not have come to the chamber to say—[

Interruption

.]

I do not know what it is difficult for the SNP to understand. The First Minister—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Excuse me, Mr Ross. Can we please hear Mr Ross? Thank you.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister is trying to predict what I will say at First Minister’s question time and has a script ready that has nothing to do with the issue that we are raising, which is about the SNP raising the cost of driving cars in cities, which people rely on to get to work, to visit friends and family, and to use vital services.

In response to the news of that commuter tax, this morning, the Federation of Small Businesses urged councils to avoid additional cost for business. It made it clear that a commuter tax would hit tradespeople coming from the Lothians, the Borders, Fife and further afield.

It is not just those areas that would be hit with extra charges from SNP councillors. Anyone who is working in Glasgow also faces the prospect of extra charges for driving into their city. Glasgow City Council’s SNP leader Susan Aitken has suggested capping traffic on the M8, and she is considering introducing road tolls. A previous SNP Government scrapped those charges. Will the First Minister give the categorical answer that she will not bring them back in again?

The First Minister

Douglas Ross might want to reflect on the fact that members in the chamber were not laughing with him a few moments ago.

I was quoting from Conservative manifestos that put the finger on the really important issue here. Everybody across the country and everybody in the chamber knows that all of us—not only in Scotland but across the world—will face some really difficult, tough and challenging decisions in the years to come about how we heat our homes and how we travel around the country, so that we can meet our climate change obligations and make the transition to net zero, but also have a transport system that still supports our economy and the travelling public.

It is easy for the Scottish Conservatives to reduce those challenging decisions in the simplistic way that they have, but the rest of us know that those decisions have to be faced. This is about empowering local councils to consult on the decisions, consider the options and arrive at decisions. That is what we are doing and what the Conservatives used to, but clearly now do not, support.

As a Government, we continue to support the transport system across the country. Since this Government took office, we have invested in excess of £9.5 billion in managing, maintaining and improving Scotland’s trunk roads and our motorway network. We are also investing more than £500 million for bus priority measures to support people getting out of car use. We will continue to take the tough decisions, to consult the public, to come to sensible decisions and back those decisions with investments. That is serious government as opposed to ridiculous opposition.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

There have been three questions so far to the First Minister, but zero answers. The last one was very straightforward: will the First Minister rule out re-introduction of road tolls in Scotland? She was silent—she did not even attempt to answer the question.

Across the chamber, all parties agree on the need to do more to meet our climate change targets—[

Interruption

.]

SNP members laugh about that, but in many industries, and across rural areas especially, people still need their cars. Right now, there could not be a worse time for a further hike in the cost of driving. We are in the middle of a cost of living crisis and petrol prices are rising globally, yet Nicola Sturgeon wants to tax people off the road by hammering anyone who owns a car. The people who will be hit the hardest are not the wealthiest people, but ordinary working people who need their cars and who are already struggling with the cost of living.

If the First Minister carries on down that road, Nicola Sturgeon and her SNP councillors will force Scotland’s economy into the slow lane. The commuter tax should be abandoned, toll charges should be ruled out and her workplace parking tax should be ditched. Will the First Minister drop that triple whammy of anti-driver taxes?

The First Minister

I do not support road tolls, but I do support local councils being empowered to consider the tough issues that they face, to consult the public and to take sensible decisions—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Excuse me, First Minister.

We will hear the First Minister. Thank you.

The First Minister

I will say two more things. Yes, people continue to need their cars, in particular in rural and remote parts of our country, which is why this Government has invested so heavily in maintaining and improving our trunk road and motorway network. We have delivered improvements right across the country to meet the needs of all the population—they include the Queensferry crossing, the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvements—and we will continue to do so.

I will make one final point, which I know Douglas Ross will not want to face up to. What is hammering people—including motorists—across the country right now is the Tory-created cost of living crisis, which an out-of-touch Prime Minister and an out-of-touch Chancellor of the Exchequer have refused to do enough about. Perhaps we should focus on the immediate problems that are being faced by people and the solutions that need to come from Douglas Ross’s colleagues at Westminster.

Scottish Government Spending

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. I join others in wishing Her Majesty the Queen a very happy 96th birthday and in this, her platinum jubilee year, I thank her again for her service.

Before Easter, I highlighted the £2 million that the Government wasted on a turnaround manager at Ferguson Marine, who left the yard in a worse state than he found it. The First Minister supported paying him more than £3,000 a day while Scots faced a cost of living crisis. However, that is not the only waste of public money that the First Minister has supported. Can she tell members in the chamber how much money her Government has wasted since 2007 because of delays, loan write-offs or avoidable spending?

The First Minister

I do not have that figure to hand, but I am happy to look at that. I suspect that I would not agree entirely with the way that Anas Sarwar is characterising it, but I am more than happy to look at the detail of his question and write to him with the information in due course.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

T

he answer is over £3 billion. That is the cost of Scottish National Party failure—the loss of public money due to SNP incompetence.

The list is endless: £152 million on a failed ferry contract at Ferguson’s; £146 million on fixing the Government’s mistakes at the Edinburgh sick kids hospital and the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Glasgow; £40 million—and rising—on the malicious prosecution of Rangers; almost £200 million on failed industrial interventions and loan write-offs; nearly £1 billion for agency workers in the health service because Nicola Sturgeon cut training places when she was Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing; and more than £1 billion on delayed discharge because of her failure to fix the social care crisis.

The total is £3 billion—that is the equivalent of a £1,200 bill for every household in Scotland. Every penny of that wasted money could have been more cash for the national health service, more cash for our schools or more cash to tackle the cost of living crisis. Rather than helping people with the cost of living crisis, why is this Government instead making them pay for the cost of SNP failure?

The First Minister

I said that I suspected that Anas Sarwar’s characterisation would be an utter mischaracterisation—it turns out that I was absolutely right on that.

Before I come on to the detail, some of which is ridiculous—I did not think that the Opposition would be exceeded in being ridiculous in their questioning today—

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Which one is wrong?

The First Minister

I

will come on to that in a second.

What Anas Sarwar failed to mention is that this Government has had 15 years of unqualified accounts. That is the reality in terms of our stewardship of the public finances—[

Interruption

.]

Obviously some members do not understand that point, but it is rather important.

I come on to the detail. I will take two of the examples that Anas Sarwar talked about. One was prosecution. Prosecution decisions are, of course, a matter for the independent Crown Office. Is Anas Sarwar seriously saying that I, as First Minister, or any minister of this Government, should have interfered in the independent prosecution decisions of the Crown Office? Perhaps he should clarify that.

The second example that I will use is one where he is downright wrong, and that is the £146 million of additional costs in relation to hospitals. I have looked at that figure closely because I have heard Labour use it before, and the majority of it relates to planned costs that were in no way new, unexpected or avoidable. For example, £80 million of it related to preparatory works that were separate to the main contract but were budgeted costs that were included in the business case. Another £33 million related to the annual service payment, which is also part of the original business case.

There is therefore a lot of nonsense in the question that Anas Sarwar has just asked. Perhaps he should reflect on that.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I asked about wasted money, but that was a waste of an answer from the First Minister right there.

For the first time ever in Scottish history, £40 million was spent on a malicious prosecution. Perhaps the Government should reflect on that. The bill for Edinburgh sick kids hospital, which failed to open—perhaps the Government should reflect on that. The failures at Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth hospital—perhaps the Government should reflect on those.

Right around the country, we are seeing the cost of SNP failure. At the same time, energy bills are up, petrol prices are up, and the weekly shop is more expensive than ever. Right now in Scotland, mums are skipping meals so that they can feed their kids. People are knocking back items at food banks because they cannot afford to cook them. In the face of the biggest drop in living standards since the second world war, both our Governments are not doing enough. Instead of wasting billions of pounds in paying for SNP failures, we should be supporting families through the cost of living crisis.

The £111 million loan write-offs could have been used to top up the Scottish welfare fund. The £152 million that was misspent on mismanaging Ferguson’s could have been used to halve rail fares for three months, not three weeks, and to cap bus fares. The £1 billion spent on delayed discharges could have been used to give our care workers the pay rise that they deserve.

While families are being forced to account for every single penny of their spending, why does the First Minister think that it is acceptable for them to pay the £3.2 billion-and-rising cost of SNP failure?

The First Minister

There are some really serious issues in there and I hope that, if not during this meeting then after it, Anas Sarwar will clarify at least two of his points. First, there is a serious constitutional question. He has twice referred to the Rangers prosecution and the cost of settling that. If he thinks that that is something that I could have influenced, is he saying that ministers should have been involved in or should have influenced independent prosecution decisions, or intervened in any way in that case? If he is going to suggest, as he has, that that money was wasted by the SNP, he really must answer that fundamental question. Does he think that I should have interfered in the prosecution decisions of the Crown Office?

The second point goes back to the £146 million in relation to hospitals. Is Anas Sarwar saying that £80 million should not have been spent on essential preparation work? That is the logical conclusion of what he is saying.

The spin and soundbites might sound good when Anas Sarwar is rehearsing these questions, but he should pay a bit more attention to the detail.

The Presiding Officer

First Minister, if I may interrupt. A lot of contributions are being made in the background at the moment. I would be grateful if they ceased and we could hear the First Minister.

The First Minister

The important part of the question is about the cost of living crisis. Anas Sarwar referred to rising petrol costs and energy costs. I remind Anas Sarwar that powers over energy and the cost of petrol are still reserved to Westminster. If he wants to change that, he should argue for those powers to come here.

On the wider cost of living, we have increased the benefits for which this Government is responsible. We have doubled the child payment. If we are to be able to do more, Anas Sarwar needs to support us in calling for greater welfare powers to come to the Parliament.

Cost of Living (Free Childcare)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

As the cost of living soars and thousands of families across the country are already feeling the crush of grossly inflated energy bills, can the First Minister give an update on the number of families that are benefiting from free childcare? How much money is it saving them at such a critical time?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

More than 111,000 children were accessing funded early learning and childcare in January of this year, and the families of 87 per cent of those children have taken up the full entitlement. Families who take up the full entitlement can save up to £4,900 each year for each child. Ours is the most generous early learning and childcare offer anywhere in the United Kingdom, and it will, of course, also deliver better social and educational outcomes for Scotland’s children.

Long Covid

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

It is estimated that 132,000 people in Scotland are suffering from long Covid, 59,000 of whom have experienced symptoms for more than a year. We face a ticking time bomb, and yet the Scottish National Party Government is merely sticking its head in the sand, having dropped the proposed debate on long Covid from this afternoon’s schedule, thereby preventing the Parliament from having an opportunity to discuss the issue. When will we have specialist long Covid clinics in Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We are currently implementing the commitments in the long Covid approach paper, which is all about improving care and support for people in Scotland with long Covid. Long Covid clinics are one model that health boards can consider, but we have always recognised—rightly, I believe—that no single approach will fit all areas and circumstances, so health boards must look at a range of approaches.

As far as the issue of a debate on long Covid is concerned, we have made it clear and given a commitment that we will have such a debate in the next few weeks. At that time, we will provide a full update on progress. The intention is that we will provide Parliament with a detailed update on the outcome of the planning process that is currently being undertaken with national health service boards to determine the first allocations of the long Covid support fund, which is what MSPs have called for.

Abortion Services

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

The anti-abortion lobby now sees Scotland as an easy target, with campaigners following the Texas playbook. Last September, I raised concerns with the First Minister and highlighted the urgent need for protest-free buffer zones at abortion services. Does she regret the fact that swift action has not been taken in that respect? Can she also tell us when telemedicine for early abortion will be made permanent, as Scotland now trails behind England and Wales on that important healthcare matter?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

On behalf of the Scottish Government, but also as First Minister and personally, I say that we are committed to ensuring that all women are able to access timely abortions without judgment. I condemn in the strongest possible terms any attempts to intimidate women as they choose to access abortion services. Of course, people have a right to protest against abortion, but they should do so outside Parliament, where the laws are made, and not outside a hospital where women are undergoing abortions, in the course of which they often experience extreme distress.

The buffer zones working group has been meeting, and it is looking at ways of preventing any patients from feeling harassed or intimidated when they access healthcare. There are complex legal issues involved here—there is no way of avoiding saying that. We must make sure that the approach that we choose is consistent with the law. I know that the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport is committed to seeing whether that work can be accelerated—I think that she might have said as much to Parliament earlier today. We will keep Parliament updated on that work.

I say again to those who take a different view on abortion from the one that I and many people in this chamber take: by all means protest—you have a democratic right to do that—but come and protest at Parliament. Do not intimidate women who seek access to abortion at hospitals.

Bank Branch Closures

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The proposed closure of 19 Bank of Scotland branches will mark the loss of the last bank in town in Dunblane and many other communities. As a result, vulnerable people in Dunblane who do not have access to digital banking would need to make a 12-mile round trip to the nearest branch.

Does the First Minister agree that the proposed move is clearly out of step with our ambition to build 20-minute neighbourhoods, regenerate our high streets and connect communities to lifeline services?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I share those concerns and those sentiments. We all understand that the way in which people access banking services has changed—in some respects, quite fundamentally—and that banks must respond to that and make sure that the services that they provide are reflective of that.

However, the physical presence of banks and other facilities can be very important in sustaining access and the life of local communities, so it is really important that banks try to find the right balance. I personally and the Government generally have communicated those views to the banking sector and will continue to do so.

Flood Prevention Schemes (Airth)

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Communities such as Airth, in Falkirk district, are being left behind by the Scottish National Party Government’s cuts in funding for flood prevention. We need only ask the people of Airth. They are caught up in a game of piggy in the middle between the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Falkirk Council, which are engaged in the worst kind of buck passing. How can people in villages such as Airth have confidence that Nicola Sturgeon will deliver flood prevention schemes, given her woeful track record of cuts to local schemes?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We have provided significant and sustained funding for local flood prevention schemes. Decisions on individual schemes and the ranking of schemes are matters for local authorities. I am happy to come back to the member with any more detail that I am able to provide about the Airth scheme, but it is right that local authorities consult SEPA and local communities in taking forward those schemes and that the Scottish Government continues to provide funding, where appropriate.

Homelessness (Glasgow)

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The Homeless Project Scotland in Glasgow has today said that it is seeing high numbers of families attending its soup kitchen. This morning, Shelter told the Social Justice and Social Security Committee that the equivalent of a whole classroom full of children will be homeless by the end of today and every day.

What more will the Government do to support the project in Glasgow, including helping it find a building in which it can bring people together, instead of having to do that outside? Moreover, what will the Government do to pick up the pace of building new homes in Glasgow?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am happy to engage with the Homeless Project to see whether there is more that we, as a Government, can do to help it find a building. The work that it does is extremely important. We all wish that it was not necessary, but I pay tribute to the project for its work.

Over and above that, the Scottish Government will continue to do all that it can to help people with the cost of living, which is heaping misery upon people who, in many cases, were already living in poverty. I have already referred to the increase in benefits, the doubling of the Scottish child payment and support for the welfare fund. All those policies will continue. Glasgow City Council, working with its partners, has a very good record in delivering affordable housing. We will see what happens in a couple of weeks, but I know that the current administration has plans to build on that progress.

It is incumbent on all of us with any influence and power to do everything that we can to help people suffering the cost of living crisis. However, for us to be able to do as much as we would want to would necessitate more power over those crucial issues lying in the hands of this Parliament and not in the hands of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak at Westminster.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

3. On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I echo the good wishes that have been expressed to Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her 96th birthday.

To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. (S6F-00987)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Tuesday.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

In January, the Scottish Government announced that it had sold the lion’s share of Scotland’s sea bed for £700 million. Huge wind farms will be built on it. What ministers did not tell Parliament that day was that the Scottish Government and the Crown Estate Scotland had explicitly stopped companies paying a vast amount more. There was a cap of £100,000 per square kilometre on bids despite the fact that, in England and Wales, where there was no cap, a similar sale achieved four times that amount in initial deposits alone.

We know that wind farm jobs are going overseas—it happened again last week in Moray. The First Minister cannot tell Parliament that this is about employment. Scotland’s sea bed can be sold only once, and the sale price matters because the cash flows straight into the Scottish Government’s budget for schools and hospitals.

The Scottish Government has sold those national assets on the cheap and has thrown away a fortune. When the auction south of the border netted four times as much, why was the First Minister still determined to limit how much companies in Scotland should pay?

The First Minister

First, the process used by the Crown Estate in making those decisions was fully transparent—rightly and properly so. Secondly, we must be careful in making comparisons between the Scottish auction round and similar rounds elsewhere. There are differences in the complexity of the projects in Scotland, which is partly to do with the depth of the water that the projects are taking place in.

Although Alex Cole-Hamilton’s points about the £700 million are correct, that is not the only income from those projects. There will be annual rental costs as well, and, if we do this correctly—which we are determined to do—there will be a very significant economic benefit.

I remind members of the vast potential of this. We went into the auction round with a planning assumption of 10GW of offshore wind power and we have come out of it with potentially 25GW of offshore wind power. It is a massive opportunity for Scotland that all of us should be extremely positive about.

Channel 4 (Impact of Privatisation)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

4. To ask the First Minister what assurances the Scottish Government has had from the United Kingdom Government that the reported privatisation of Channel 4 will not negatively impact the development of the creative sector across Scotland and the growth of new Scottish talent. (S6F-01005)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Scottish Government strongly opposes the privatisation of Channel 4. In its present form, Channel 4 makes a significant contribution to the creative sector in Scotland. It has invested over £200 million in Scotland-based productions since 2007 and, of course, it opened a creative hub in Glasgow in 2019. Since the UK Government’s announcement of its privatisation plans on Twitter, no further information has been forthcoming from the UK Government. As soon as it provides clarity, we will seek assurances about how it will ensure that there is no negative impact on the creative sector in Scotland.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Does the First Minister share my concern that Channel 4 is currently under threat from a Tory Government that appears to be doing all that it can to undermine the principles of public service broadcasting for its own narrow political interest?

The First Minister

Yes, I do. I think that that is absolutely what is happening. The proposals represent cultural vandalism, but they also represent an attempt by the UK Government to undermine public service broadcasting. I cannot see any reason whatsoever why Channel 4 should be privatised—especially at the very time when it has shown resilience in weathering the pandemic and has strengthened its content spend and investment in Scotland. The current model is a good and successful one that upholds the principles of public service broadcasting. We should all get behind that and seek to see off these misguided Conservative proposals.

Attainment Gap (Libraries)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the First Minister whether she can provide an update on the Scottish Government’s strategy to include libraries in the policy to address the attainment gap. (S6F-00989)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Libraries deliver a range of benefits. They provide vital access to learning materials and resources, helping to improve literacy and tackle the attainment gap.

Although local libraries are the responsibility of local government, the Scottish Government is committed to supporting libraries directly. As part of our programme for government, we launched a £1.25 million public library Covid relief fund to support 30 projects across Scotland to remain open and tackle the attainment gap. That is over and above the money invested since 2017 through the school library improvement fund and the continued annual public library improvement fund, which supports new projects in libraries. As part of the £1 billion Scottish attainment challenge, the framework for recovery and accelerating progress encourages collaboration across local authority services, including education and local libraries.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister set great store by the national strategy for school libraries, which was launched in 2018. However, the Scottish Library and Information Council and the Scottish Parliament information centre have told me that the advisory group met on four occasions in 2018 but there are no records of any recent meetings and no updates on progress made—

particularly regarding how effectively the school library fund is being spent. I am also told that a large number of primary schools remain without a library or—just as important—without a librarian.

The strategy was supposed to be a key component in schools addressing the attainment gap, but we know that the curriculum for excellence achievement levels in primary 1 to primary 7 literacy declined between 2018 and 2021. Why has there been no formal parliamentary update on the strategy, and why are primary school literacy levels going backwards, not forwards?

The First Minister

We are seeing improvements in attainment in Scotland’s schools, although all of us understand the impact of Covid over the past couple of years. That has made it all the more important that we focus on initiatives to improve attainment.

I will write to Liz Smith, or I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to do so, with more details on the work around school libraries. However, in my first answer, I talked about the investment that we are making through the school library improvement fund. That demonstrates the Government’s commitment to supporting libraries in schools and local community libraries as well.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

It is absolutely right to highlight the importance of libraries in closing the huge attainment gap that we have in Scotland. What does the First Minister have to say to the young people of Kirkton in Dundee—an area of deep deprivation in which the level of attainment is among the lowest in Scotland—whose attainment funding the Scottish National Party Government is cutting by 79 per cent while

the SNP-led council is closing the library?

The First Minister

The decisions that we have taken on attainment funding are in recognition of the fact that there is deprivation in all parts of the country. Those changes to the allocation of the attainment fund were fully supported by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, including the member’s colleagues on it.

As I said in my earlier answers, we support school libraries through the school library improvement fund, and we will continue to do so.

Private Rental Costs

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to bring down the cost to tenants of private rent in the coming year. (S6F-01011)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We are all aware of the significant pressures that are faced by private renters, which is why our commitment to introducing rent controls is so important. Of course, that means doing detailed work to ensure that we implement an effective system of rent controls that is right for Scotland, is robust against challenge and will stand the test of time. Our housing bill will begin that process and will strengthen existing rights by ensuring that anyone who believes that their rent increase is unfair can apply for adjudication without fear of their rent being put up.

We are also providing immediate financial support for people who might be struggling. That includes doubling the Scottish child payment from the start of this month, as I have already referenced, and investing up to £86 million this year in discretionary housing payments.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Although the Scottish Government’s commitment to introducing rent controls is welcome, rents are rising right now, so tenants cannot afford to wait for three or more years for action. Rightly, the First Minister has called for more action from the United Kingdom Government to help to tackle the cost of living crisis, but this Parliament has powers to address one of the biggest pressures that is faced by people in Scotland right now: rising rent costs. Already, some councils have taken the positive step of introducing rent freezes for social tenants. Will the First Minister commit today to exploring the implementation of an emergency rent freeze to support all renters in Scotland?

The First Minister

As a matter of good faith, I will undertake to explore any suggestion that is made in the chamber. We all want to do everything that we can to help. The member will understand that to legislate, particularly on a complex matter such as this, takes time. That was recognised by her colleague Mark Griffin in the debate before Christmas, when he said

“We certainly do not expect legislation to come into force in year 2 of this parliamentary session, but we would look for details of the framework for the rules”.—[

Official Report

, 21 December 2021; c 45.]

We will continue to look at how we can, if possible, accelerate progress on the bill, but in the meantime take further action. We have already strengthened tenants’ rights in recent years, and it is not the case that we are not providing help in the meantime. We have the £10 million tenant grant fund, which is focused on helping private and social tenants who are struggling financially; we are providing £86 million in housing support this year; and we provided £39 million of additional funding to avoid evictions as a result of the pandemic. We will continue to make support available but we will also continue to look closely at any suggestions for further action that might be made.

The Presiding Officer

We return to general and constituency supplementary questions.

Asylum Seekers

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I am proud of the record of Glasgow, and of Glasgow Kelvin in particular, of supporting asylum seekers. What is the First Minister’s reaction to the sending of asylum seekers who arrive in the United Kingdom to a detention facility in Rwanda for processing?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

That decision is utterly abhorrent—morally and ethically. It is a total abdication of the UK’s moral and international responsibilities to asylum seekers and refugees, and will make it more challenging and prolonged for people to seek safety from war and persecution.

In that decision, the UK Government is ignoring the welfare of extremely vulnerable people.

For all those reasons, that policy has, rightly, been condemned by many. Given that we have heard Theresa May—who as Home Secretary sent “go home” vans around Glasgow—describe that policy in the House of Commons as morally, ethically and practically wrong, all of us have to realise how far the UK Government is going from any moral course on this issue.

A75

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

A recent review by Sir Peter Hendy for the United Kingdom Government found that the A75 is the road most in need of an upgrade anywhere in the country. Will the First Minister admit that the failure to upgrade that dangerous road—often referred to as “the goat track”—represents a broken promise by the Scottish National Party to the people of the south-west of Scotland and the haulage and ferry companies that depend on the route to move goods to and from Northern Ireland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

No, I do not accept that. The second strategic transport projects review recommends, of course, that safety, resilience and reliability improvements are made on the A75 corridor to support access to Stranraer and to the port at Cairnryan. We will continue to take decisions that support that access, which all of us accept and agree is extremely important.

ScotRail Ticket Prices

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Given the rising cost of living, does the First Minister welcome the announcement yesterday that the newly publicly owned ScotRail will be slashing off-peak ticket prices in half for the month of May?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I absolutely welcome the half-price fare offer that the newly publicly owned ScotRail announced yesterday. It was postponed due to omicron, but people are now able to book discounted tickets between 9 and 15 May for outward travel between 9 and 31 May, with return travel to be completed by 30 June. The ScotRail “kid for a quid” discount will be able to be used in conjunction with the offer, which means that up to four children can travel for £1 return each, with each adult.

We want people to return to travelling by rail, but we know that we need to make it affordable for it to be a truly attractive alternative to using the car. Public ownership of ScotRail means delivering a service that listens and responds to passenger needs. We will continue to develop further initiatives that make rail a better choice, as we work towards our ambitious net zero target.

South Lanarkshire College (Governance)

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The Auditor General said today:

“Independent audit was unable to conclude that governance at South Lanarkshire College”

In East Kilbride

“was satisfactory over the last year.”

There have been serious issues at the college. Whistleblowers have made a number of allegations, with reported claims of fraud, theft and general malfeasance. The principal, Aileen McKechnie, ordered an audit report that the college is refusing to publish. She and the interim clerk to the board were then suspended; I suspect that she was ruffling feathers.

The college has now published an action plan that says that procedures should be changed in areas such as procurement, preventing bribery and carrying out supplier due diligence. A light needs to be shone on what has been happening at the college. Will the First Minister order an investigation and commit to making its findings public?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have some sympathy with the sentiments of that question. I know that significant issues have been raised. Colleges, of course, are self-governing institutions, but the Scottish Funding Council has an important role and, if the Scottish Funding Council considers it appropriate for there to be further inquiry or investigation, of course it is able to carry that out.

I am happy to consider whether there is any further action or procedure that the Scottish Government can initiate and I will come back to the member in writing if I conclude that that is the case.

Parole Licence Conditions (Breaches)

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

T

he Parole Board has issued warning letters to 25 life-sentence prisoners who have been accused of breaching their licence conditions. Does the First Minister seriously think that murderers and rapists will care about a warning letter, or will she back our plans to recall lifers who breach parole and block their future early release?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

It is right that we have a robust system of parole. If, on any occasion, it is concluded that that system needs reform, that should happen. As we have covered in exchanges in this Parliament before, it is right that people who commit heinous crimes are properly punished, not only for the sake of punishment but to keep the public safe. We have a justice system that supports rehabilitation as well, because that is in the wider public interest. We will continue to ensure that the parole system is fit for purpose.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time.

Ferry Services (Public Ownership)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I ask members of the public who are leaving the gallery to do so quickly and quietly, please. Thank you.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-02902, in the name of Katy Clark, on keeping CalMac public, and publicly owned ferry services. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the view that lifeline ferry services should be in the public sector; is alarmed by the Scottish Government’s reported contract with Ernst & Young to review governance of Scotland’s public ferry contracts, including Clyde and Hebrides Ferry Services (CHFS); understands that the current operator, CalMac Ferries, the entire fleet and the majority of harbours on the CHFS network are publicly owned, employing 1,600 people; considers that unbundling of CHFS routes would mean privatisation; is concerned at reports that the Scottish Government has reneged on the commitment it gave the RMT in 2017 to build the case for permanent in-house operation of the CHFS contract; agrees with the reported view of the RMT that the CHFS network lacks resilience and capacity due to vessel procurement failures and not due to the public ownership model; understands that the contract with the public sector operator, CalMac Ferries, ends in October 2024; further understands that CalMac staff have helped carry over 47 million passengers and 12 million cars in the last decade and that the Road Equivalent Tariff fares subsidy drove a 20% increase in passengers, pre-COVID-19 pandemic, and notes the calls on the Scottish Government to categorically rule out extending private ferry operations or privatisation of any routes in the CHFS contract and to commit to keeping CalMac Ferries public and expanding ferry capacity and resilience in the public sector.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I am grateful to the members who signed the motion to enable the debate to take place in the chamber today; to islanders, including members of the Arran Ferry Action Group; and to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, with which I have worked on this issue.

The contract with public sector operator CalMac comes to an end in October 2024, and Parliament needs to debate what will happen at the end of the contract. Ferry services are currently in crisis. Yesterday, for example, all 10 ferry services on the Ardrossan-Brodick route were cancelled due to the withdrawal of the MV Caledonian Isles from service, which is causing havoc to islanders and, indeed, to the economy.

CalMac operates a fleet of 33 vessels across a network of 49 routes. Most industry experts agree that the average life expectancy of a ferry is about 25 years, but half of the working state-owned ferries are older than that. For example, the Caledonian Isles is 29 years old.

Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd owns and procures vessels, and ports are owned by a mix of trusts, private companies and public bodies, under a model that is the result of an obsession with privatisation over many decades. Some will try to blame the problems with the ferry service on public ownership but, in reality, the problems are a result of a failure to invest in new fleet for many years, the fragmentation of the service, a series of poor appointments of key decision makers, appalling management and political failures.

The motion argues that our ferries should remain in the public sector, and polling has repeatedly shown that Scots overwhelmingly support that model of ownership.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Is the member saying that she does not want any change to the current failed structure?

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I am not saying that at all. If the member listens to the rest of my contribution, that will become self-evident.

In 2017, the Scottish Government’s procurement policy review stated that it was the Scottish Government’s intention to

“build a case for making a direct award to an in-house operator for the Clyde and Hebrides services”.

Last year, I asked the previous transport minister to confirm that that was still the Scottish Government’s policy, but he failed to give that undertaking. I hope that the current transport minister will confirm today that she is committed to a public sector model.

Despite the Scottish Government’s commitment in 2017, it commissioned the private accounting firm Ernst & Young to review the structure. It has paid the firm more than half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money since 2015. Documents that were leaked to the media from the project Neptune review revealed that ministers explicitly asked Ernst & Young to consider the unbundling of routes and privatisation as an option. Despite journalists having written articles quoting sections of the report weeks ago, the report has still not been published. Can the minister confirm today that it will be published?

We need a long-term plan for a publicly owned ferry service, and we need to learn from the mistakes of the past by having a structure that involves communities—particularly island communities—and the workforce in decision making.

We also need to address the problems that have been caused by the fragmentation of the structure. For example, vessels 801 and 802, which were debated yesterday, would not have been commissioned if the Scottish Government had been required to involve the Arran community in decision making and had listened to the representations that were made at that time. The delay of more than four years to the regeneration of Ardrossan harbour would not have happened if the harbour had still been in public ownership, rather than in the ownership of Peel Ports.

There is a widespread view that we need standardisation of the fleet, with smaller vessels. That will cut maintenance costs and ensure that ferries can operate across routes. Can the minister confirm that the Scottish Government is actively looking at that?

Today’s debate follows on from yesterday’s debate on the procurement of vessels 801 and 802, which are being built at Ferguson Marine. They are projected to cost £240 million. They are two and a half times over budget, they are four years late, and they have been described as “a catastrophic failure” by a Scottish Parliament inquiry. Audit Scotland’s report said that ministers chose not to restart the process after CMAL expressed concerns. The First Minister raced to Port Glasgow to launch the 801 all the way back in 2016. The Scottish Government continues to hold responsibility for a catalogue of bad decisions, poor appointments and eye-watering sums being wasted on executives. No minister—and definitely not the First Minister—has been willing to take responsibility.

We need the Scottish Government to come forward with a plan for a ferry service that will deliver for islanders and support the community. We know that the current structure is not working and that change is required, but we will get the best service only if we involve islanders and the workforce in a publicly owned service. I ask the minister to respond in detail to the points that I have made and to the other points that will be made in the debate. I look forward to hearing members’ speeches. I hope that the Government will commit to developing a publicly owned model with a structure that will deliver for communities.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Stuart McMillan, who joins us remotely.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I congratulate Katy Clark on securing this members’ business debate. I remind the Parliament at the outset that my wife works part time for CalMac. I have always felt that it is important to acknowledge that when I take part in debates about CalMac, even though I am not obligated to do so. I would certainly have thought that Katy Clark would have considered it appropriate to do likewise, bearing in mind her links to the TSSA trade union, which has members who work at CalMac.

It is all well and good to challenge the Tories on their transparency or lack of it, but the Labour Party must do likewise.

It is sad to say that this is really a non-debate. I would be the first in line to challenge my Government if I believed for one minute that CalMac was to be sold off or that the network was to be broken up. If either were to happen, that would have a negative impact on Gourock, in my Greenock and Inverclyde constituency. Gourock is the home and headquarters of CalMac, which is a hugely important local employer in my constituency. I would not want to see any adverse effects in my constituency. If CalMac were to be broken up or privatised, as has been purported by Katy Clark, that would present serious economic challenges in my constituency—challenges that we have faced since the early 1980s due to failed United Kingdom Government policies. Neither will happen and, although it is always important for parliamentarians to raise legitimate issues, scaremongering and causing alarm to CalMac staff and the local community is nothing short of shameful.

At First Minister’s question time on 3 February, the First Minister stated:

“I will be very clear in that commitment: we have no plans whatsoever to privatise public service ferries and, contrary to concerns that have been expressed in recent press reports, we have no plans whatsoever to split up the CalMac Ferries network. Those ferry services are delivered through public contracts”.

She went on:

“However, to come back to the thrust of the question, I did not seem to rule out privatisation—I ruled it out. I will say it again: we have no plans whatsoever for that—we will not privatise our public service ferries and, equally, we have no plans to split up the CalMac network. That is the Scottish Government’s position, and we will continue to invest in our ferry network to give people on our islands the service that they have every right to expect.”—[

Official Report

, 3 February 2022; c 23-24.]

During the ferries debate yesterday, Graham Simpson’s comments towards the end of his contribution were enlightening. He seemed to suggest that the network should be opened up to allow other companies to bid for routes. On the one hand, I can see why that might appear to be beneficial. However, breaking up the network would surely lead to the HQ being either shut or reduced in scale. Either way, that would lead to jobs in my constituency being lost and futures being wrecked. If that is what the Scottish Tories are offering my constituents, I sincerely hope that the population in my constituency give a clear message to the Tories in May.

Ultimately, ferries will be a political issue, irrespective of the Government of the day in Scotland. That is quite right. However, Labour scaremongering about the future of the network and the Conservatives appearing to advocate dismantling the network highlight that neither Labour nor the Tories are fit to govern any time soon.

CalMac needs to continue its improvement programme, and I warmly welcome that. Years of lack of investment and drive in the business have led to the business needing a major internal overhaul to make it fit for the present day. Ultimately, CalMac has a brand recognition that is second to none, but it needs new ferries to help it to turn into the business that we all want it to be.

Finally, I want to make members in the chamber aware that I have invited members of the CMAL team to come to the Parliament, which they will be doing in a few weeks’ time. I invite everyone to talk to them and ask them questions. Members will have questions, and CMAL will provide answers to colleagues from across the chamber.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that Stuart McMillan would not have been able to take an intervention as he made his contribution remotely, but he criticised me directly for failing to declare an interest. I would like to take your guidance on how to correct that and put that on the record. I do not believe that I was required to declare an interest. However, at the beginning of my speech, I said very clearly that I have worked on these issues with the RMT and TSSA trade unions and with islanders, including members of the Arran Ferry Action Group.

I am not sure whether that is a point of order, Presiding Officer, but I am grateful for the chamber’s time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I thank the member for her contribution, but I do not believe that that is a point of order. There are mechanisms to correct the record. The Presiding Officer is not responsible for members’ substantive comments when they make their contributions. I am sure that the member is well aware of the rules on the declaration of interests and of when those rules are engaged and are not engaged. I trust that that is helpful.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I congratulate Katy Clark on bringing the debate to the chamber.

I spoke in yesterday’s ferries debate on a number of overlapping issues: procurement, transparency and sustainability. One key ask was that the withheld project Neptune report be released. That is vital to ensure that communities served by the Clyde and Hebridean routes are not left in the dark but are partners in deciding the service’s future.

There can be little doubt of the importance of our ferry connections—the lifeline routes that serve to connect often remote places across our country. They support not only travel but bringing food to shops and produce to market, the delivery of essential public services and much more. I have long called for a proper, fully considered strategy for the future sustainability of Scotland’s ferry networks. Never has the absence of one been more keenly felt than now.

Thinking strategically, we must balance quality, sustainability, fairness to the taxpayer, working conditions and, perhaps most important, the views of the communities themselves. Solutions should not be imposed. Communities will not, and should not, accept a loss of local influence.

On Monday night, I travelled down from Orkney on a NorthLink ferry. The northern isles contract has a quite different history from the Clyde and Hebridean network. Although it covers long distances, it is less extensive and does not include interisland transport.

Interisland ferries are one aspect of the publicly owned network that is not mentioned in the motion. They remain the responsibility of local councils in Orkney and Shetland and retain a financial disadvantage, being only partly funded by grants from central Government. The Scottish Government has long held out the prospect of local control being exchanged for fair funding. That would be a terrible deal for islanders, because one size certainly does not fit all.

Back in 2018, the RMT was aggressively pursuing a nationalise NorthLink campaign that sought to apply the position on CalMac to the northern isles service. That ran contrary to the views not only of the local councils but of elected representatives, local stakeholders and local people. There was—and I believe there still is—a wide body of support for tendering.

I simply will not accept that privately operated ferry networks are a bad thing. The motion calls on the Government

“to categorically rule out extending private ferry operations”.

Does that mean that a private operator who wishes to expand and provide a new service should be prevented from doing so? That would be putting political ideology ahead of the needs of island communities.

We can see small, independent operators working well and delivering good services for communities across Scotland. Pentland Ferries, for example, is a family-run business that provides a valued and unsubsidised link between Orkney and Caithness. Unlike CalMac, it has managed to procure not one but two new ferries at reasonable costs. The MV Alfred, which I sailed on only a few weeks ago, was built on time and on budget and has already won an award for its environmental standards.

That is not to say, of course, that the current tendering model is the right one either. As Audit Scotland reported, the two companies tendering for the Clyde and Hebridean contract submitted more than 800 queries during the process. Significant weaknesses and confusion were identified. Arguably, short contract periods fail to give operators a chance to make significant change.

All those elements are significant points for discussion. However, that discussion needs to be held beyond the politics of the chamber. It needs to respect the communities involved and treat those of us who use our ferries regularly—those who rely on our ferry network—as the key stakeholders that we are. The people in our island and remote communities must have the greatest say, not the ministers and mandarins of the Scottish Government, who have become too used to dictating from afar with increasingly disastrous consequences.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Will Jamie Halcro Johnston give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member has concluded his speech.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Scotland’s islands need lifeline ferry services. The key word is “lifeline”. As well as meaning a rope thrown into the water to save someone from drowning, “lifeline” is defined as something that someone depends on to lead their life in a satisfactory way. That includes not only food, fuel, building materials and medical provision, but the economic benefits of being able to travel to and from work or in search of work. It also means the wellbeing that is promoted by being able to easily meet friends and family, especially in times of celebration or when people come together for comfort in times of grief.

For islanders, “lifeline” mostly means ferries. My inbox is constantly brimming over with emails about ferries. If we get any two islanders from anywhere in Scotland together, their conversation will inevitably turn to ferries. For us islanders, ferries shape our lives.

I live on an island where the ferries not only connect people but directly connect a multimillion-pound industry—whisky—to the world market. I can see that shipping whisky to the mainland might be viewed as an attractive investment for an ambitious company and its shareholders. I am sure that, in its hands, the Islay ferry could be very profitable, especially if we add the benefits of the island’s farming, seafood and tourism industries.

The Scottish National Party is a party for all of Scotland, however, and I do not believe that we should deprive island communities of lifeline services simply because they do not make the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s eyes light up.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Is the member suggesting that, if CalMac was at full capacity and the vital trade that her constituents rely on could not get on and off the island, and if another operator came along and offered that service, she would say no to it?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am not suggesting that; I am merely pointing out the importance of lifeline services to islands.

There are 23 inhabited islands in my constituency and also peninsulas that have important ferry links. Portavadie to Tarbert, for example, is a key link for school children, businesses and tourists. I want people whose homes are in the remote or island areas of Argyll and Bute to be able to live their lives without being judged as a profit or loss. My constituents are people, not a balance sheet. If an island or peninsula community is struggling, cutting back on its unprofitable ferry services can only hasten that area’s decline.

Next week, I will visit the island of Jura—an island off an island, where the service is provided by Argyll and Bute Council. Jura’s population is growing, the school is at bursting point and new businesses are being set up but they are worried that an unreliable transport network could impede their growth. In an economy that is increasingly driven by renewable energy and with the ability to work from home, a decent and reliable ferry service may allow such areas to turn their fortunes around and reverse decline. Communities should be listened to when structures and ferries are being reviewed.

It is not just people who live on islands or peninsulas who rely on lifeline services. The definition of a rope being thrown into the water does not exactly apply to our railways, but the definition of something that we depend on to lead our life in a satisfactory way does define Scotland’s rail services for hundreds of thousands of Scots who rely on them for work, family obligations and leisure.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is bringing her remarks to a close.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I think I am in my last 30 seconds.

This month, the Scottish Government took our train services back under public control after years of disastrous privatisation. Let us not inflict Mrs Thatcher’s train-crash privatisation policy on islanders. Let us keep the island public’s ferry services where they belong—in public ownership.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I begin by reminding members of my entry in the register of members’ interests and by thanking Katy Clark, whose distinguished record on raising these issues is second to none.

We are often accused by Government ministers of applying the benefit of hindsight, but, as far back as 2010, the late Bob Crow, referring to the CalMac fleet, had the foresight to warn:

“many of these ships are thirty years old and the Fleet needs renewing ... there will be a lead time of around ten years before new ships come into service.”

It is a pity that his warning was not heeded. He also called for

“a unified service which is publicly owned and publicly accountable”.

He is greatly missed.

We note the First Minister’s undertaking to the Parliament to stop short of unbundling Clyde and Hebrides ferry services, but it is a matter of record that Transport Scotland and CalMac are currently carrying out what they call a “market assessment” of each route. What about a social assessment, an equality assessment or a community assessment? After all, people do not live in markets; they live in communities.

Let me set out the reasons why I think that the public ownership of CalMac is critical. First, the ferry links are, for the most part, monopoly services. They are natural monopolies and they should not be run as private monopolies. Secondly, they are lifeline services, so they must be run in the public interest for the public good, not according to the fiduciary duties of private capital to beneficial shareholders. Thirdly, this is one public service that works most efficiently when organised on a larger scale. This is not just the largest ferry operator in Scotland; it is the largest ferry operator in the whole of the UK, and such a concentration of power must remain in public, not private, hands.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I will not. To the Tories, I say that the real choice is not between monopoly and competition. That is a fiction.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

The real choice is between monopoly capitalism and socialised public ownership—that is the choice.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

As a democratic socialist, I do not believe just in ownership of our ferry services by the state; I believe in democratic, socialised public ownership of our ferry services, which is why we demand change.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, Mr Leonard—could you resume your seat for a second? It is up to each individual member to decide, and it appears to me that the member is not taking interventions. Therefore, there is no point in standing about, Mr Halcro Johnston. The member has, I think, indicated that he is not taking an intervention.

Mr Leonard, please resume.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

We demand change. We demand participatory democracy whereby islanders, passengers and seafarers—the workers and their trade unions—really share power and are not merely consultees, because what these ferry services provide is not only an economic lifeline but a social service, and one that, in my view, not only should be obtainable by payment but should be available as of right.

We need a developmental state where Government intervention is not simply defensive but is positive, radical and visionary. That means the implementation of a regional policy to iron out the social, environmental and economic imbalances within Scotland, to which ferries are an essential part of the solution. That means a planned economy—not economic planning that is piecemeal or expedient, but planning that is comprehensive and strategic, so that the programme of replacement CalMac vessels is back on time, is based on local labour and is properly planned and invested in.

My message to the Government is this: rule out privatisation, expand ferry capacity, deal with the backlog of fleet investment, invest in the workforce, put passengers before profit and let us truly secure at last a people’s CalMac.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I thank Katy Clark for bringing the debate to the chamber.

We can all agree that ferry services provide an essential lifeline to island and remote rural communities and their economies. We have heard from members who live on those islands, and I am aware how important the services are to the communities that they serve and what they mean to the economy and general wellbeing of such communities. We also have to acknowledge that technical issues have caused much frustration to islanders, not just in the past few weeks but in the past few months. It is also, as a balance, worth acknowledging that more than £2 billion has been spent on service contracts, new vessels and infrastructure since 2007, and that in the current five-year period a further £580 million has been committed.

The Scottish Government commitment to publish the islands connectivity plan by the end of 2022 is welcome. As we know, that will replace the current ferries plan. It will look at aviation, ferries and fixed links, and it will invest in more sustainable ferries. The islands connectivity plan will also be taken forward through the national transport strategy and the strategic transport projects review, which will enable us to consider other potentially viable options for connecting the islands.

Engagement and consultation on the islands connectivity plan, which, as I said, will replace the ferries plan by the end of 2022, will enable substantial public and community input. That is key as we move towards options in 2024. The island communities must be part of any solution.

Project Neptune’s remit is to review the legal structures and governance arrangements that exist between Transport Scotland, CMAL and CalMac, and to look at whether those “remain fit for purpose” to deliver an “effective, efficient, and economic” ferry service . That project has just started and it will deliver a final report later in the year.

The Scottish Government is also developing a revised ferries stakeholder engagement strategy and, again, there will be community input into that.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I will if I have time.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the member think the current ferries network is fit for purpose, and, after 15 years, does he think that the current Scottish Government has any responsibility for the state that the Scottish ferry network is in?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Of course the

Scottish Government has an input in the matter. I previously mentioned the £2 billion and £580 million investments to which the Government has committed, and we are talking about how we will take them forward.

I come back to the ferry stakeholder engagement strategy, which will set out an approach to engagement on three matters—operational issues, which have been mentioned, strategy and policy.

The infrastructure investment plan for Scotland from 2021 to 2026 will produce and maintain a long-term plan for new ferries and development at ports to improve resilience, reliability, capacity and accessibility, and to reduce emissions, to meet the needs of island communities, including in relation to freight fares, which are an important part of the islands connectivity plan.

I move on to public ownership. Transport Scotland has said that

“Scottish ministers have already ruled out privatisation and have no plans to split up the CalMac Ferries network. The independent review of governance arrangements for Scottish Government lifeline ferry services will present a framework consisting of a range of options to the overarching objective of effective, efficient, and economic delivery of lifeline ferry services, to enhance passenger experience and support local island economies ... We will then engage with all key stakeholders to ensure the most efficient and best value arrangement to deliver our key lifeline ferry services.”

The First Minister has insisted that

“there are no plans to privatise lifeline ferry services to Scotland’s island communities”

and made a commitment to keep ferry services in public ownership. She said:

“ensuring ferry services are delivered through public contracts gave them ‘control over service levels, timetables and fares’ on the routes operated by CalMac on the Clyde and Hebrides routes”

and:

“Let me say it again. We have no plans whatsoever, we will not privatise our public service ferries and equally we have no plans to split up the CalMac network. That is the position of the Scottish Government.”

It could not be any clearer.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I congratulate Katy Clark on bringing the motion to Parliament. However, her speech left me completely baffled by what she was attempting to say. When I intervened and asked her what she would change in the current system, she promised to tell us later in her speech, but she did not. Had I been able to intervene on Richard Leonard, I would have asked him exactly the same question, but

I

did not get to do so.

I think that Katy Clark is trying to intervene from a sedentary position—if I am right, I will give way.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I took an intervention from the member, so I am very grateful to his returning the favour.

To be absolutely clear, I am arguing against the fragmentation of the current structure. I am arguing that the ferries, CalMac, CMAL and the ports should be in public ownership, which would then enable better decision making. In my speech, I used some examples of the poor decision making that occurred as a result of the failure to have a model of that nature and to involve islanders and the workforce in that decision making.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It sounds like Katy Clark wants business as usual on the ferries, apart from the ports, which, it would appear, she wants to nationalise. Scottish Labour needs to put a cost on that if that is what it is suggesting.

Katy Clark’s motion says that

“lifeline ferry services should be in the public sector”.

Conservative members support lifeline ferry services but we do not come to that point with the ideology with which Labour approaches it. We want ferry services that work for the islanders, who are the most important people in relation to this issue.

Katy Clark was not a member at the time, so she might not be aware that the former Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee conducted an exhaustive inquiry into ferries, the Ferguson debacle and how to run ferry services.

One of the committee’s recommendations was that the Government should commission a review into how to procure and run ferry services, which led to the Government’s appointment of Ernst & Young to carry out the project Neptune review. The Government cannot be criticised for having done that after a cross-party committee of the Parliament asked it to.

It is entirely right that we explore options for a system that is clearly failing. The problem is that although Ernst & Young has completed its review and produced the project Neptune report, that report has simply been sitting with Transport Scotland. The minister has the report, but despite promising to issue it to Parliament, she has not yet done so, so we simply do not know what it recommends.

However, it is right to look at the governance and at questions such as whether we should unbundle the west coast services. That does not have to mean privatisation. The whole thing could still be run and paid for—subsidised—by the Government; it might just introduce other operators. For example, there is Western Ferries, which runs a very good service already, or Pentland Ferries—it probably would not be interested because of where it is based, but other operators like it could come in.

To be frank, if Labour listened to people such as those on the Mull & Iona Ferry Committee, it would know that that is exactly what they are calling for. At the end of the day, we need to put islanders first, and we need to be open to new ideas and get rid of the dogma in which Labour is bogged down.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Given the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Katy Clark to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[

Katy Clark

]

Motion agreed to.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, congratulate Katy Clark on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to my predecessor as Green MSP for the Highlands and Islands, John Finnie, for his attempts to see the NorthLink ferry service to Orkney and Shetland nationalised. Ferries should be run in the interests of islanders, not in the interests of Serco’s global shareholders.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am from Orkney, and I use that service all the time, as I highlighted in my speech. I am yet to meet any more than a handful of people who want a nationalised northern isles contract. How many people has the member spoken to? Does she agree with me that people in the northern isles just want reliable ferries, and not an Orkney and Shetland version of CalMac?

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the member for his intervention—

I will continue my speech and unfold my argument. We are looking for a joined-up, reliable approach.

Scottish Greens believe that public ownership of Scotland’s ferries is critical to reversing depopulation, supporting community regeneration and delivering a fairer and greener transport mix for our islands. The next 10 years are vital for the future of our planet, and public ownership enables an approach to procurement that centres on environmental impact and community wellbeing instead of shareholder profit.

I have been contacted by an island constituent who, as a result of ferry cancellations, had to fly to the mainland to assist her elderly parent with hospital visits. Other constituents have been unable to get things such as animal feed or, more importantly, to attend funerals.

In the draft STPR2, we have committed to moving towards reliable zero-carbon ferries so that constituents like those whom I have mentioned are not forced to fly or to flit. We must work to ensure that there are always islanders on the boards and staff teams of CalMac and CMAL. With a public ownership model, we can achieve that.

I will work with my colleagues in Government to ensure that lifeline ferries are viable and reliable, and that they are publicly funded where essential connectivity cannot be met by the market. [

Interruption

.] I am sorry—I will not take an intervention, as I need to get on.

If ferry operators enjoyed the certainty of much longer contracts, they could seek investment on the back of future ticket sales to procure vessels without the need for substantial public investment. That would also allow operators to develop a strategic, cost-effective, long-term plan to upgrade and decarbonise the fleet. Perhaps that could be considered as part of the Bute house agreement commitment, in the “Scottish Government and Scottish Green Party Shared Policy Programme”, to

“assess the model of”

ferry services delivery

“to ensure ... our approach delivers good outcomes for communities, value for money, accountability and transparency.”

We also want to see interisland ferries categorised as publicly owned Scottish national infrastructure, in line with requests from local authorities. Such council owned and operated ferries must be sufficiently funded to allow island councils to operate them effectively.

The Scottish Green Party believes that we should extend the policy of free bus travel for under-22s to ferries, bringing parity between islands and the mainland in Scotland’s public transport offer.

A lack of interconnectedness between rail and ferry routes renders islands inaccessible for many travellers who wheel and potentially unsafe for lone travellers. The train to Thurso is frequently late, which makes connecting with the ferry to Stromness from Scrabster challenging and can leave people unexpectedly stranded.

A more joined-up approach between ScotRail, the Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership, NorthLink Ferries and Pentland Ferries could resolve such issues. The fact that ScotRail is now also in public ownership—thanks to the Scottish Government and the Greens—paves the way for new, exciting ways of collaborating and working towards a more fully integrated public transport network. The Scottish Green Party believes that islands should not be an afterthought but should be at the forefront of Scotland’s journey towards net zero.

The public ownership of ferry services, especially when supported by publicly operated rail and bus networks, has the potential to reverse rural depopulation trends, revitalise communities and make islands more accessible for those who walk, wheel and cycle.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

it is baffling to me that we are debating this motion. As others have noted, Katy Clark asked the First Minister directly to commit to keeping ferry services in public ownership only two months ago. As is clear in the quote that Paul McLennan read out earlier, the First Minister provided that assurance in no uncertain terms. I do not understand why I am looking at a motion that suggests otherwise. It is shameless—and frankly, reckless—that, after receiving the First Minister’s personal, unambiguous commitment that ferries are not being privatised, the member decided to bring a motion for debate that references calls on the Scottish Government to categorically rule out privatisation. The Government has already ruled out privatisation.

Sitting here listening to Richard Leonard talk as if privatisation has not been ruled out and there is no such thing as a PSO has been a waste of time. It is no surprise that he would not take an intervention on that point.

There are plenty of issues worth debating in relation to ferries and other transport services in Scotland. Personally, due to a health condition that has, so far, prevented me from driving, I rely solely on public transport and the goodwill of pals with cars. That is not easy in the Highlands and Islands. The Minister of Transport—and anyone else who will listen—hears from me and my office regularly on matters of trains, ferries, buses, bikes and more.

I care deeply about improving our ferry services. I am a regular user of CalMac and NorthLink services. I am very familiar with CalMac-and-cheese dinners and being rudely woken up when docking in Kirkwall en route to Aberdeen. I care about our ferry service and I will engage in debates about procurement, timetabling and privatisation, but this debate is a waste of time and a failed opportunity to talk about something that actually matters.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The motion is very clear that the CalMac contract comes to an end in 2024. I have been raising the issue over the past year and asking what model of contract we will move to. It is clear that the current model does not work for the reasons that I outlined in my speech and that others will no doubt cover. Does the member not think that we should be debating that? Surely, we should.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

As I said earlier, there are discussions to be had and it is confusing to me that Katy Clark’s motion says that it is a matter for alarm that there will be public consultation on the future governance of ferry contracts and on project Neptune. Her party constantly claims that ferry contracts in Scotland are not up to scratch and her leader has been heavily critical of ferry contracts, so Labour should welcome the opportunity to debate the finer points and involve constituents in conversations. Submitting a motion outlining the dangers of a privatisation that is not happening is as legitimate as submitting a motion expressing concern about the potential loss of tourism caused by Nessie coming out as a republican.

Pressing over and over for a commitment that has already been given—clearly, unambiguously and repeatedly—by the First Minister is not one of those many worthy issues that we could be discussing today. The motion is purely political and deliberately misleading. The Labour Party should be ashamed that it has wasted a parliamentary debate slot on making a point that serves only to provoke anxiety for ferry users and ferry workers who have nothing to be concerned about because privatisation is not on the table.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I do not know how to follow a speech that says that talking about ferries in the Scottish Parliament is a waste of time. My goodness, that really sums up the state of the debate about Scottish ferries.

The

Official Report

shows us that in 2007 members made fewer than 100 contributions in the chamber that included the word “ferry”. This year to date, and we are only in April, there have been more than double that number of contributions. Does that not say something about the state of Scotland’s ferries? Not a day goes by when the media is not filled with stories of the utter fiasco that people in our island communities face. Today, the Arran ferry is again out of action because of engine problems.

Again and again islanders are scunnered, and they are scunnered of listening to contributions that say we are wasting our time by criticising the Government on the issue. It is absolutely right that we criticise the Government on it, because each and every one of us has the responsibility to stand up for island communities and tell the Government that the current scenario and status quo is simply not working, which is why I thank Katy Clark for bringing another debate on the subject to the chamber. We have brought many debates on the issue to the chamber—I brought one when I was shadow transport minister—and every time we are told that we are politicising the issue.

However, here is where I find fault with Labour’s proposal. It is a slightly odd debate, because Scottish Labour is attacking the Conservatives for proposing the privatisation of everything that moves, but that is simply not true, and I want to make that clear. A statement was made in the chamber yesterday that we want to privatise CMAL. You can check that in the

Official Report

. It is simply not true and I put that on the record.

This is an important point and it is a shame that we are not acknowledging it: there are private operators out there doing good work, including Pentland Ferries, NorthLink Ferries and Western Ferries, which services the Gourock to Dunoon route. Some of them are in receipt of public subsidy and some are not, and good on the ones that are not. If they are able to run an effective service that operates between mainland and islands or mainland and mainland, good on them.

I say to Richard Leonard that that is what matters to islanders. It is all very well grandstanding on the soapbox about the ideology of public versus private, but what islanders really want is a service that runs. They could not give two hoots about who owns it or what the ownership structures are. They do not have such a service at the moment and that is what they are asking us to debate.

The other points that I want to make are about the contract, which is the substance of the motion, which I find interesting. I agree with a lot of the motion, such as the concept of permanent in-house operation of the contract that Labour wants to see, which is fine, but the problem is that the contract is flawed, Ms Clark, and everybody knows it. We have ferries that do not operate in the ports that they are designed for, ports that do not fit the ferries that run, ferries that are not interoperable between ports and routes, and we have onerous contracts that only CalMac could bid for anyway, to be honest, and we knew that from the last contract. I am all for tenders because it keeps people on their toes and brings out the best in the operator. CalMac won the last tender, and rightly so, but the contract is onerous. The people of Arran do not want a cruise liner with beds, bunks and bars; they want a ferry that runs on time. I do not care who operates or owns it.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is concluding shortly.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I do not have time. The other problem that I have is the idea of ruling out any form of private ferry operator. I ask Scottish Labour, who will meet the capacity? Who on earth will get the whisky off of the islands? Who on earth will get the grain and cattle? If someone could come along and do night-time routes, freight routes, winter routes and cover all the pinch points in the current services, I say bring it on. The ideological position of ruling operators out simply because of politics is narrow minded.

If we listen to islanders, that is not what they want—everybody knows that—and that should be lying at the heart of this debate. What do islanders want and are we doing enough to meet those requirements? Let us park the politics for once in this debate and actually deliver ferries for our islands now.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Paul Sweeney will be the last speaker before I ask the minister to respond to the debate.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I thank my colleague Katy Clark for lodging the motion. However, I have been disappointed by the paucity of analysis, particularly from members on the Government benches, of what is a critical issue for Scotland’s general prosperity and wellbeing.

CalMac has essentially been in some form of public ownership since 1948, when the railway companies were nationalised. It took its current corporate form in 1990. There has long been a settled recognition that ferry services are a lifeline for Scotland’s island communities and that the best way to future proof and operate them is to ensure that they are publicly controlled and not subject to market forces. However, to meet the requirements of a European Union guideline on state aid to maritime transport, Caledonian MacBrayne was split into two separate companies in 2006. Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd—CMAL—retained ownership of CalMac vessels and infrastructure, including harbours, while CalMac Ferries Ltd submitted tenders every so often to be the ferry operator. The fundamental bone of contention is that it is clear that that neoliberal experiment in corporate Chinese walls has utterly failed, just as it failed with regard to rail franchising. That failure is most spectacularly evident when we look at the procurement of vessels 801 and 802, which represents a tragedy for Scotland’s industrial base and ends any possibility of that model being seen as a success.

For far too long, vital lifeline services in Scotland have declined under this form of quasi-privatisation and absurd market simulation. Look at ScotRail under Abellio: services cut, prices rising and a constant battle of attrition between unions and management, as well as buck-passing among Network Rail, privatised rolling stock operating companies and train operating companies. The same failed model plays out in relation to the ferry system and it needs to end.

Look at bus services in Glasgow: routes and services cut due to a lack of profitability, drivers demoralised and leaving in droves due to poor pay and conditions and, ultimately, a dramatically reduced service for commuters. It is a common story of failure.

We cannot let Scotland’s ferry services continue on the same path and that is why they must remain in public control, fundamentally, and be fully reintegrated under one team—one owner of assets, one operator and, indeed, arguably, one shipbuilder. The expiry of the ferry contract structure in October 2024 gives us an opportunity to make that happen and today we seek an assurance from the Government that it will happen.

We need a conversation about why it is beneficial for the ferry service to be publicly owned—I think that there is general agreement across the chamber on that matter. Public ownership would provide a solid, stable foundation for management that improves standards, increases investment and harnesses the power of the state to provide for Scotland’s economy and common prosperity. If we use that model, we must reinforce it with a national shipbuilding strategy that focuses on the workforce, on a stable pipeline of work and on developing Scotland’s shipbuilding assets. As I have said before—Katy Clark also mentioned this earlier—there are 33 vessels in the CalMac fleet, each of them with a 25-year lifespan on average. That is a drum beat of one vessel every nine months for our Scottish shipbuilding industry. Why are we not ensuring that Scottish yards have that guaranteed permanent shipbuilding programme that would secure jobs and give shipyards the confidence to invest in the process, which would create a virtuous cycle, rather than drip feeding a free market feast-and-famine order cycle of the sort that has plagued Scotland’s industrial base for so long?

We need to change that landscape and have an assured long-term shipbuilding strategy. Babcock has just delivered a world-class new shipbuilding facility in Rosyth because it has an assured naval programme. We should be doing the same thing on the commercial side. Inchgreen dry dock is an example of an asset that should be in public hands but is instead being hoarded by its owners, Peel Ports, for no reason other than to give its Cammel Laird shipyard on the Mersey a competitive advantage. CalMac vessels are sailing south to Merseyside for refits while Clyde dry docks from Govan to Greenock lie derelict.

Ambition is what is needed from this Government for Scotland’s ferry services, not quasi-privatisation and weird market simulations that have not worked and have introduced chaos.

Ultimately, we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of our ferries is. They are not a commercial business; they are there to provide a fundamental public service. It is not good enough for the Government to attempt to wash its hands of the fundamental structural problem that it has created and left the taxpayer liable for. Scotland’s island communities, seafarers and shipbuilders deserve much better.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I start by thanking Katy Clark for securing time for this really important debate on the future of Scotland’s ferries and every member who has contributed to this afternoon’s debate, which I have found to be largely helpful and pretty informative.

We are all here because we share the desire for a more reliable and affordable service that meets the needs of our island and remote communities. As I think that Jamie Halcro Johnston pointed out, this discussion needs to go beyond the politics of the chamber. Indeed, that has been a fairly common theme in members’ speeches this afternoon.

The motion alludes to the fact that CalMac has carried

“over 47 million passengers and 12 million cars in the last decade”

alone, which is to be lauded. However, as we have also heard, CalMac is facing many challenges in its ability to deliver an efficient service. In saying that, I will respond to some of the points that have been raised in the debate.

Katy Clark opened by talking about a publicly owned ferry company—I think that she referred to a twin structure—that works for and listens to communities. That issue has been highlighted to me in my three months in office, and it is something that I have made a commitment to look at. Indeed, I have started conversations with officials on how we might be able to do that, say, through the board structure, which is a suggestion that was also highlighted to me by Alasdair Allan in the debate that we had just recently.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I am grateful to the minister for seeming to be sympathetic to the idea of islanders on boards, but is she sympathetic to the idea of workplace and trade union representatives on boards, too?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Broadly, yes. I would like to come back to the member in more detail on that, as I do not want to make up policy on the hoof in a members’ business debate, but I think that it is important that we have boards that are representative and which listen to our trade unions as well as our island communities.

Ms Clark also mentioned standardising vessels in order to cut costs. One of the issues that we face is our relatively old port infrastructure, which raises challenges when it comes to standardising all vessels in any future procurement. However, I am happy to take the issue up directly with CMAL.

The member also asked for a plan. As Mr McLennan has pointed out, the islands connectivity plan will be published later this year. I ask all members, if they can, to contribute to its formation, because communities must be listened to. I think that the plan represents a way forward and an opportunity to do things better and differently and, ultimately, to improve the services that islanders are currently receiving.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

This is my second session as a member in this Parliament. In my first session, I sat on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, so I know that we asked the Government for a ferries action plan six years ago. We said back then that 12 vessels were needed. Again, that was six years ago—they could have been delivered by now. The question is: where is the plan, and where are the vessels?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I do not think that Mr Greene’s characterisation of what has been delivered is fair or accurate. For example, we have recently seen the procurement of the two Islay vessels, so it is inaccurate to say that no vessels have been delivered in that time period. I say to him, though, that the islands plan offers a way forward, and I ask that all members, including Mr Greene, take part and collaborate in that process, because it is essential that we get this right.

Mr Halcro Johnston and a few other members highlighted issues with regard to project Neptune. I work closely with Mr Simpson as the Conservative transport representative, and I have been very up front with him about wanting to publish the report. However, we are not yet at that stage. Of course, we are now in purdah, and the cabinet secretary has advised that, as a result, we are not able to do that at this moment in time. I am more than happy to publish the report after the local government elections.

The other thing that we must take cognisance of, though, is the need to engage trade unions and staff in the process and to speak to island communities rather than rush the publication of a document that could ultimately have impacts on them and the future viability of the service.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It seems that we are making some progress on publishing the project Neptune report, but can the minister put a date on that? Will it be in May?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I apologise, but I cannot give Mr Simpson a date today. However, I will speak to officials about doing it as quickly as possible. I recognise the need for transparency on this, and, indeed, we have previously discussed that matter.

As members have pointed out and as the First Minister made clear in answer to a question from Ms Clark, this Government has no plans to privatise or unbundle.

To date, that has ensured control over service levels, timetables, fares and contracts, but I am acutely aware of the need to deliver a service

for our island communities that works, and I am not clear that that is what is currently being delivered.

Over the recess, I had the privilege of visiting the Western Isles to meet communities in Barra, Uist and Harris and the Western Isles Council, and I had the opportunity to listen to their views and hear about some of the challenges they are facing. It was made very clear to me in those conversations that, for these communities, ferries are a lifeline, and their operations continue to affect day-to-day life. I have apologised to those communities, both in person during the recess and here in the chamber, and I do so unreservedly again today.

I am absolutely clear that communities are not getting the service that they need and deserve. Although the recent period of disruption has been particularly acute because of weather and Covid—indeed, in January and February alone, 92.75 per cent of all cancellations were due to either weather or Covid-19—it is clear that, as some members have pointed out, the ageing fleet and some of the infrastructure are having an impact, too.

There is also a challenge to CalMac in relation to communication with islanders. That was a fairly common theme in my meetings with islanders during the recess. Timely communication with island communities is essential to allaying fears and anxieties about service cancellations.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

It may be that the minister is coming on to this point, but is she going to address the issue of ownership of ports? She will be aware, for example, that in Ardrossan, the ownership of the land and the harbour rights by Peel Ports has caused massive problems, with more than four years of delay. Is she also sympathetic to looking at how we bring ports back into public ownership, because that will make decision making easier in the public sector?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I am sympathetic to that. The member will know that Ardrossan is not in public ownership—I think as a direct result of UK Government privatisation back in the early 1990s. If Ardrossan was in public ownership now, we would have been able to move more quickly on the improvements that are required there. I am sympathetic to that point and I would be happy to meet Ms Clark to discuss that in more detail and to provide her with some reassurance that that is something that we are amenable to.

Ms Minto made the point that ferries connect not only people but the multimillion-pound whisky industry in her constituency. I recognise that, for her, having 23 islands in her constituency—the most that any MSP in the chamber has in their constituency, I think—that will not be without challenge. The wider issue that she alludes to of population growth and decline is very important and I can give her an assurance by saying that I have held initial meetings with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands to discuss that in more detail to ensure that our officials are working together on how we can better support that work.

Richard Leonard mentioned market assessment. I will just clarify that that is a requirement for any public provision, but it is also combined with a community needs assessment. He asked about that community assessment and the point about language is important. I agree that they should be in public ownership and run for the public good, as he alludes to. He also asked about participatory democracy. Again, I am not against that. If he had listened to the debate that we had at the end of last term, he would have known that I gave an undertaking to Alasdair Allan to look at how we get greater representation for islanders on island boards, for example.

Paul McLennan pointed to the importance of the islands connectivity plan, which I think I previously mentioned. Mr Simpson spoke about ferry services that work for islanders; we all want that to happen. Ariane Burgess mentioned some of the issues around the under-22s scheme. Beatrice Wishart and a number of others have raised that point with me and it is something that we are considering as a result of the fair fares review, which will look at the modal challenges across the public transport network and how we can better connect the train network to our ferry network, for example, to give some resolution to some of the issues that she discussed.

Jamie Greene mentioned some of the issues in Arran. I will touch on that very briefly, Presiding Officer. Officials met the Arran ferry committee this morning and I will meet it tomorrow morning. I give an undertaking that I am prioritising this as a matter of absolute urgency. I know that the boat itself is in Troon at the moment for repair and it is being looked at today. I expect an update on the timescales tomorrow.

I am conscious of the time, so I will move to my concluding remarks. I think that I have touched on most members’ points, but we have had very wide-ranging contributions from members, so if any member feels that there are any issues that I have not addressed in these remarks, I would be more than happy to write to them directly on that.

From my perspective as transport minister, there are things that we need to improve and the next round of CHFS3 gives us an opportunity to do that. We have heard contributions from different members today on how we can best do that and I give an undertaking to all members that I am keen to work with every political party in the Parliament to ensure that we deliver a service that best meets the needs of our island communities.

13:48 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—

Education and Skills

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is portfolio question time, and the portfolio this afternoon is education and skills. As ever, if a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or place an R in the chat function during the relevant question. I make the usual plea for brevity in questions and answers, so that we can get through as many as possible.

Question 1, from Alex Rowley, has been withdrawn.

Universities and Colleges (Industrial Action)

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what communication it has had with Scottish universities and the University and College Union Scotland about the four fights and Universities Superannuation Scheme pensions disputes, in light of the recent reballoting for industrial action by staff. (S6O-00975)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I have regularly met university leaders and trade unions, including UCU Scotland, to discuss the on-going disputes on pay, working conditions and pensions.

Although our universities are autonomous bodies and, as such, have responsibility for making their own decisions on pay, working conditions and pensions, I will continue to urge both sides to continue to engage in constructive and meaningful dialogue in order to resolve the dispute, and the underlying issues, without the need for further industrial action.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

The minister will be aware of the deep dissatisfaction among staff and students in higher education. In addition to the UCU reballoting, the University of Dundee’s Unison workers are out on strike, as we speak.

Does the minister agree that university principals need to account for the almost £80 million of Scottish public money that they are planning to use to meet a deficit in the USS, even though the USS has stated that the deficit no longer exists because it was a result of Covid? Could Scottish ministers offer to work with Scottish principals to make the case that a revaluation of the scheme and a reduction in the £80 million spending is necessary?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Maggie Chapman mentioned the situation at the University of Dundee, so I also make it clear that I have engaged with the university and unions to discuss the issue.

In respect of the wider issues around the USS, we should remind ourselves that it is not a Scotland-specific scheme; it applies UK-wide. It is also not a Government-funded pension scheme, so it does not fall within the devolved responsibilities of Scottish ministers. I would, therefore, not be able to determine whether there should be a revaluation. However, as I said earlier, I will continue to engage with university leaders and unions to discuss the matter and will press them to resolve the issues without the need for further recourse to industrial dispute.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

A survey of university staff by the UCU highlighted that up to two thirds are seriously thinking about leaving the sector during the next five years. Their pay has fallen by 25 per cent in real terms during the past decade, and changes to USS pensions are set to leave staff up to £240,000 worse off. The minister must recognise the harm that is being done to university staff by year-on-year real-terms pay cuts and cuts to pensions. Can the minister share with us what action the Scottish Government is taking to encourage university principals to address staff concerns seriously?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

As I have said a number of times today, this is a matter on which I continue to engage in dialogue with unions and university management. I actively discuss issues with them; the subject that Ms Villalba has asked about will be one of them.

However, when push comes to shove, I cannot resolve the dispute. It is for university management and unions to come together to discuss the issues. I urge them to do so along the lines of the fair work framework under which we operate, by ensuring that there is proper and meaningful dialogue and that workers’ voices are listened to. Ultimately, I hope that they can resolve the matter together.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

The minister speaks the language of dialogue and discourse, but does he not recognise that 13 years of flat cash and no increase in the unit of resource that goes to universities is leading to the challenges and creating the conflict between management and workers and the tough decisions that have to be made? If the matter is going to be resolved, the Government will have to make sure that it resources higher education properly.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

We are resourcing higher education properly. This year, we will again provide more than £1 billion of public expenditure to our universities to support their continued financial sustainability. I would have thought that that would be recognised as a fairly substantial investment. In recognition of some of the challenges that have been experienced over the pandemic period, we have invested more than £190 million in direct additional funding to support universities through the difficult circumstances.

We are stepping up to the mark and investing in higher education, and we will continue to do so.

Education (Support for Young People at Risk of Exclusion)

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to help young people at risk from exclusion from mainstream education. (S6O-00976)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Our publication “Included, Engaged and Involved Part 2: A Positive Approach to Preventing and Managing School Exclusions” provides national guidance on school exclusion. It makes it clear that exclusion from school

should be “the last resort” and should be used in the context of prevention, early intervention and support for positive relationships, learning and behaviour; that it should be

“a proportionate response where there is no appropriate alternative”;

and that it must be

“for as short a period as possible with the aim of improving outcomes for the child or young person.”

The guidance also sets out schools’ and education authorities’ responsibilities in line with their power to make decisions to exclude.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Such situations are often complicated and complex, so we need to make sure that appropriate support is in place for vulnerable and disadvantaged children. Scottish Conservatives support the establishment of family hubs that bring together health, education and social care services.

Would the cabinet secretary agree to a pilot project in Scotland to establish how that model could be developed and rolled out across the country?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

There is a substantial amount of policy on education and health services working together to help some of the most vulnerable people in society. One example of that is the whole family wellbeing fund, which is being funded for the current financial year and the rest of the parliamentary session, as we seek to establish full support for all families for a range of issues, not just those surrounding exclusion.

In the spirit in which Miles Briggs asked his question, I would be happy to hear more about the suggestion. I have mentioned some of the plans that we already have in place, but I am always more than happy to hear about another party’s alternatives, should he wish to provide me with further details.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Sadly, the percentage of excluded pupils with additional support needs is increasing, while the percentage of children in schools who are identified as having such needs is rising astronomically. Given that we have 600 fewer specialist teachers with ASN qualifications than we did in 2012, what is the Scottish Government doing not only to encourage more people to come into the profession and more teachers to stay in the profession but, specifically, to attract teachers who want to specialise in ASN, which will keep such children in mainstream education?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

All teachers provide teaching and support to pupils with additional support needs. I am sure that Martin Whitfield will be well aware of the Bute house agreement that we have with the Scottish Greens, in which we have agreed to work together to ensure that we work with the profession to ensure that more teachers are available to support pupils who have additional support needs, and that their career progression can be supported.

I would be happy for Martin Whitfield to provide positive reinforcement of our policies with the Scottish Greens, and to hear more suggestions about how we can improve in this respect.

Refugees from Ukraine (Home Fee Status)

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what plans it has to offer home fee status to Ukrainian refugees in Scotland, or those displaced following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (S6O-00977)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On Thursday 14 April, I announced that displaced Ukrainian nationals settling in Scotland who have submitted an application to the homes for Ukraine scheme, the Ukraine family scheme or the Ukraine extension scheme will be eligible for home fee status and living cost support from the 2022-23 academic year.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank the minister for that news, which is most welcome.

Will that provision include the considerable number of other nationals who have been displaced by the conflict in Ukraine?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

It will cover all the nationals whom I mentioned. I must concede that I do not quite follow the precise nature of the question. The nationals to whom the member referred are encompassed within the provision that I outlined in my initial answer. If there is a specific cohort that she would like to write to me about, I would be happy to respond to her in writing.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

What support is the Scottish Government providing to international students studying in Scotland who find themselves in financial hardship?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That question is not directly related to the conflict in Ukraine.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The question is directly related to the conflict in Ukraine, in that, on 14 April, we announced a newly created £1 million international students emergency fund, which will support Ukrainian nationals who are already studying here, and other international students who face financial hardship as a result of significant changes in their circumstances. Eligible students will be able to apply for immediate financial assistance through their college or university.

Review of Foundation Apprenticeship Provision

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to the findings of the HM inspectors of education review of foundation apprenticeship provision. (S6O-00978)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Since their launch in 2016, more than 11,000 pupils have taken up the opportunity of foundation apprenticeships.

Given the significant increase in foundation apprenticeships, and to ensure the continued best outcomes for young people, the Scottish Government commissioned in 2020 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education to undertake a review of the delivery of FA programmes. We acknowledge the review’s findings and will use them as the basis for driving improvement. We have also established a stakeholder group to support that engagement and will set out further steps following that process.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am on record as being an enthusiast for foundation apprenticeships, but the HMIE review must give us all cause for concern. The review noted real weaknesses in the ability to access foundation apprenticeships across Scotland’s schools and in the promotion of apprenticeships to young learners and noted confusion among schools and providers about how the frameworks operate. It also acknowledged that

“In many schools, withdrawal rates are very high, ranging between 50% and 100% of young people leaving their programme early.”

I recognise the issues caused by the pandemic, but the minister must acknowledge that serious alarm bells are being rung about the policy and that many of those alarms predate Covid. Foundation apprenticeships have the potential to make a real difference. What will the minister do to ensure that those opportunities are not squandered due to a lack of support from Government?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On that last point, there is no lack of Government support for foundation apprenticeships. I again make the point that more than 11,000 young people have now undertaken them. There were 346 young people who started foundation apprenticeships in cohort 1; by cohort 5, we had 4,240, as a result of Scottish Government support.

Let me be clear: I recognise that the report has identified inherent issues. We commissioned that report so that we could hear what the issues might be. We are committed to listening, to learning from those issues and to implementing a programme of improvement, in line with our continued commitment not only to the concept of foundation apprenticeships but to their delivery as life-changing opportunities for our young people.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

We cannot just say that foundation apprenticeships are a good thing; we must be clear about why they are a good thing. They can give young people a head start in a career by providing the qualifications and experiences that employers are looking for.

Will the minister commit to ensuring that foundation apprenticeships remain a vital and central part of our skills and training system?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I absolutely guarantee that, and I again emphasise our support for them. We are committed to responding to the report in order to drive further improvement and to continuing the delivery of foundation apprenticeships in 2022-23. We will continue to deliver, to learn and to ensure that young people get a meaningful experience that does precisely what Bob Doris says by getting them ready for the world of work.

School Curriculum

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the school curriculum should be free from party political bias. (S6O-00979)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

It is important that our pupils understand the democratic process in Scotland, the UK and further afield. Learning and teaching should be conducted on a non-partisan and non-party-political basis. Individual schools develop their own curricula at school level, and Scottish ministers have no direct control of or influence on those curricula.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The Scottish Government agency Education Scotland has told school children that the Loch Ness monster can help them form a view on an independence referendum. One education campaigner has described that as nationalist “propaganda” and an attempt to

“brainwash pupils into believing that Scotland is the victim of a wicked conspiracy”.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Scottish National Party’s exploitation of our beloved Nessie is wrong, and will she commit to the removal of such embarrassing and ridiculous propaganda from the curriculum?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The resource in question was, of course, developed by two primary school teachers in conjunction with Professor David Martin-Jones at the University of Glasgow. Professor Martin-Jones is very well respected in his academic area, and the material was based on his research.

I make it very clear that that resource, which was not developed in-house by Education Scotland and certainly not by the Scottish Government, is part of a resource for teachers.

There is no fixed national curriculum in Scotland, and we have no direct control or influence over the curriculum. I trust our teachers to deliver that curriculum—it is a shame that the Scottish Conservatives do not.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Teachers throughout Scotland do a fantastic job educating our children about political literacy in an impartial and responsible manner. Will the cabinet secretary recommit to empowering our teachers, through the curriculum for excellence—which the Tories want to tear up—to equip our young people with the knowledge, skills and understanding that they need to succeed in life?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Kaukab Stewart is quite right. As I alluded to in my original answer, we absolutely remain fully committed to the empowerment of our school leaders, staff, parents and pupils, including on decisions that affect learning and teaching. It is absolutely correct that we should empower our school leaders and teachers. They know their children best, and it is quite right that the Scottish Government and our agencies provide them with the support and resources to allow them to do that.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

Does the Scottish Government agree that the school curriculum should contain education on racism and colonialism and that such reforms are not party political, but are sensible and reflective measures on our common history?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Foysol Choudhury raises an exceptionally important point that I hope that we absolutely agree on. A great deal of on-going work is being done on race equality education, and a lot of work is being done by the race equality and anti-racism in education programme, which I am sure Foysol Choudhury is aware of. The Government is committed to looking at the issue very seriously, to empowering our stakeholders to take it very seriously and to taking action on it. I look forward to the work that those stakeholders are taking forward as part of REAREP. As I have said, it is a very important issue that we need to tackle across the chamber.

Higher Education (Letter from Academics)

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the joint letter reportedly signed by 111 University of Edinburgh academics expressing deep concern about the future of higher education in Scotland. (S6O-00980)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I

have received a copy of the letter that Richard Leonard has referred to, and I have responded.

As I have said in answer to other questions, I meet university leaders and trade union leaders on a regular basis, and I have met them on a regular basis in recent months to discuss many of the matters that are raised in that letter. Although universities are autonomous bodies, central to our fair work approach is the expectation that employers, workers and trade unions should work together to reach the right decisions and ensure that workers are treated fairly.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

The letter, which is signed by more than 100 academics, is damning. Let me quote it. It says:

“Staff morale is lower than ever, eroded by job insecurity, gendered and racial disparities in pay and unsustainable workloads ... Meanwhile, university leaders fixate on driving through”

massive

“unjustified pension cuts”.

I raised the University and College Union pay and pension dispute with the minister last month. He told Parliament then:

“meaningful dialogue should take place on the basis and according to the principles of our fair work approach.”—[

Official Report

, 17 March 2022; c 49.]

Does the minister have any shred of evidence that that is what has happened? What is he doing to resolve the long-running dispute in higher education, which, just this week, has been joined by a new dispute in further education? He is the minister for higher and further education. When is he going to act?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I can assure Richard Leonard that I act day in, day out to try to ensure that those who work in our university and college environments have the best possible experience of the world of work and, indeed, that our students have the best possible experience of higher and further education. However, I am afraid to say that there is no escaping the fact that there is no direct role for the Scottish Government in resolving those matters.

What I will do, what I am committed to doing and what I have laid out in previous answers to Mr Leonard’s questions and in various answers today, is that I will continue to engage with all parties to ensure that they speak to one another in a culture of mutual respect to try to resolve matters amicably. That is what I want to see, and I am sure that that is what Mr Leonard wants to see, too.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There are a couple of supplementary questions. The first is from Jackson Carlaw, who joins us remotely. No—his is question 8.

There is a supplementary question from Michael Marra.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Anybody working in the college or university sector across Scotland will be dismayed at the standard of the minister’s answers today to the various questions about the situation faced by our colleges and universities across Scotland and the real, tough and worsening conditions that our staff are working under. What does he have to say about the fact that research funding capture has declined in the past eight years from a 10 per cent lead over the rest of the United Kingdom to parity now? He talks about the great funding package that he believes he has put forward for our universities, but this is an active role that he is taking and a decision that is being made by him and his Government colleagues—they have frozen the unit of resource for 13 years in a row. What can he do about that?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I come back to my earlier point, although what I did not mention is that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has made it very clear that, this financial year, we are operating against a backdrop of a 5.2 per cent cut in real terms to the Scottish Government’s budget across the entirety of Scottish Government expenditure. In our higher education sector, we are maintaining expenditure worth more than £1.8 billion. Again, I would have thought that Michael Marra would welcome that.

Again, I make the point that there is no direct role for the Scottish Government in resolving that dispute in higher education. Universities are and should be, as I think everyone agrees, autonomous from the Scottish Government. It is my responsibility to engage with all parties and encourage them to resolve this matter.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I just put on record that further and higher education will always welcome more resources. Can the minister tell us whether the Labour Party has, at any point, identified how much more resource it would give or where the money would come from—or is this just hollow and empty rhetoric in the chamber?