Ferries
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02421, in the name of Elaine Murray, on ferries.
09:15
The island of South Uist in the Western Isles has a population of 1,950 people, with Lochboisdale being the main settlement. The port is served by CalMac ferries from Oban and Castlebay on the Isle of Barra. A ferry service calling at Mallaig, Lochboisdale and Castlebay operated from 1967 to 1974, from 1988 to 1990, and again from 1994 to 2001. The intermittency of the route seems to have been due to a combination of factors, including the upgrading of harbours, the development of new routes and ferries being withdrawn from service due to age and safety regulations. There has been no vehicular service on the route for over 10 years.
The current journey time for the vehicular ferry between Oban and Lochboisdale is approximately five hours and 10 minutes, which extends to six hours and 40 minutes if the journey is via Castlebay. I could drive from Dumfries to the south coast of England in a similar time. In addition, the timing of the Sunday service is such that it is impossible for people from South Uist who work or study on the mainland to get home for a weekend to attend a family occasion, for example. The length of the vehicular crossing also restricts opportunities to expand tourism on the island.
A direct crossing from Mallaig to Lochboisdale, which is the request, would take about three hours and 20 minutes. Western Isles Council had discussions back in 2006 with Tavish Scott regarding the introduction of such a service, in which the previous member of the Scottish Parliament, Alasdair Morrison, was also involved. I understand that the discussions were extremely encouraging, but elections intervened the following spring and Tavish Scott was no longer in a position to take things forward.
In 2008, transport minister Stewart Stevenson also seemed positive about the idea. He invited Stòras Uibhist to submit a proposal for the introduction of a service and, at that time, an offer of £1 million seemed to be on the table to support such a service. Stòras Uibhist submitted a proposal, but unfortunately it was disappointed: the proposal was rejected because the proposed vessel, the Claymore, which belonged to Pentland Ferries but was surplus to its requirements, was considered unsuitable as it was 30 years old. Arguably, it could have been suitable, at least for piloting the reintroduction of a service on the route and finding out what demand existed.
Also in 2008, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee undertook an inquiry into ferry services in Scotland. Two members, Charlie Gordon and Alison McInnes, visited Mallaig on behalf of the committee for two days in March that year. The notes of their visit state:
“All attendees expressed a desire to see an increase in the use of Mallaig Harbour”
and that there was a
“strong desire to see a reinstatement of the route from Mallaig to Lochboisdale”,
although the committee did not make any specific recommendation in its report about that or indeed any other route.
On 5 December 2008, Scottish Government officials wrote to Stòras Uibhist stating that a standalone ferry service between Mallaig and Lochboisdale would be considered
“in the context of the ferries review”.
However, the campaign did not stop with that assurance. In July last year, Huw Francis, the chief executive of Stòras Uibhist, lodged petition PE1394 in the Scottish Parliament, which was duly considered by the Public Petitions Committee and the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. By that time, the Fionnlagan had been introduced on the Islay to Kennacraig route, relieving the Isle of Arran on that service. That offered another opportunity at least to pilot a Mallaig to Lochboisdale service. However, Transport Scotland set its face against the suggestion, arguing that the Isle of Arran was required as a relief vessel and that, at 27, it was too old to undertake the proposed service. Graham Laidlaw of Transport Scotland did, however, provide an assurance in his letter to the Public Petitions Committee of 4 October last year that a Mallaig to Lochboisdale ferry service was
“being actively considered as part of the Scottish Ferries Review”.
That was reiterated in a further letter dated 15 December, which refused to consider trialling a service.
Only a few days later, on 21 December last year, the document “Scottish Ferry Services: Draft Plan for Consultation” was published. We can imagine the anticipation of the people of South Uist as they turned to chapter 4 to find out what the Scottish Government was saying about consideration of the vital Mallaig to Lochboisdale service link. Paragraphs 38 and 39 discuss the routes between Uist and Benbecula, but the ferry campaigners were to be sadly disappointed. Paragraph 149 states:
“we have no specific proposals for the Uists and Benbecula”
and paragraph 150 says:
“We have considered whether a Mallaig to Lochboisdale service could become the principal route for the Uists and Benbecula”.
However, that was rejected in favour of the status quo. The document goes on to assert:
“Our household survey showed that while 42 per cent of residents in South Uist were not satisfied with Oban as their mainland port, 52 per cent were satisfied and 6 per cent”
do not care. The review was published only six days after assurances were contained in the letter from Transport Scotland to the Public Petitions Committee.
Huw Francis wrote again to David Stewart MSP, convener of that committee, advising that statistics in the review document were, at the very least, misleading. In the previous March, 200 people attended a meeting arranged by Western Isles Council and only one person preferred Oban to Mallaig as a destination. Moreover, further analysis of the ferries review household survey painted a very different picture and showed that 83 per cent of the population wanted a shorter crossing time, 51 per cent wanted different harbour locations, and 72 per cent wanted an increase in the number of days that the ferry runs.
Last year, a staggering 1,500 people signed Stòras Uibhist’s petition—the population of South Uist is only 1,950—calling on the services to be reintroduced. That support replicated a petition that was organised during the previous parliamentary session by my colleagues Rhoda Grant, David Stewart and Peter Peacock, which achieved 1,260 signatures. Such a massive response begs the question: why does the draft ferries plan not seek the views of the community on the route? Perhaps it is because the answer would not be the one that the Government wants.
I am aware that concerns have been expressed about the introduction of the service having a deleterious effect on the Barra to Oban service. However, Stòras Uibhist’s proposal is for an additional service that need not affect the service to Barra. Indeed, it has been put to me that a direct service from Lochboisdale to Mallaig could provide an opportunity to improve the timetabling of the Barra service thus benefiting that community. I understand that visitors to Barra have to return to the mainland on a Saturday, with the return sailing the next day, meaning that income from the Saturday night is lost to tourism businesses. So the proposal could assist the economy of Barra as well as that of South Uist.
The failure to include consideration of the service in the ferries review has added impetus to the campaign. Four community councils—Benbecula, Bornish, Lochboisdale and Eriskay—have joined Stòras Uibhist to form the Lochboisdale-Mallaig Ferry Group, describing the non-existent service as the “missing link”. Members of the group were outside Parliament this morning trying to lobby MSPs on their way in. A public meeting held on 24 February and attended by the constituency and regional MSPs attracted more than 200 local residents.
There did appear to be strong support for the campaign from local SNP politicians. Last July, the local MP, Angus Brendan MacNeil, stated:
“The need and case for a Mallaig to Lochboisdale ferry gets stronger each year”,
and as recently as 27 February, Angus Brendan MacNeil and constituency MSP Alasdair Allan issued a joint press release calling for a trial run to test out a new ferry route, suggesting that it could be funded from within CalMac’s marketing budget.
When the missing link campaign took its case to the SNP conference earlier this month, it reported on its website that most of those that it had spoken to, including the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Michael Russell, said that they fully supported the campaign. Consequently, I was hopeful that SNP members would agree with their conference delegates, and with Mr Russell, and fully support our motion today.
Therefore, I am disappointed—but nothing like as disappointed as the missing link campaigners in the gallery must be—by the anodyne and rather self-congratulatory amendment in Mr Neil’s name. At least 12 proposals for service improvements are up for consultation in the ferries plan, but they do not include the Lochboisdale to Mallaig route. That route is being treated differently from other routes. It is not even being considered for the next tender, while other routes are.
I know that Stòras Uibhist wants to meet Mr Brown, or possibly Mr Neil, and I hope that one of the ministers will accept the meeting and be prepared to discuss the proposed route in future. It would have many benefits, not just the benefit of cost to the traveller, which is significant, but benefits for carbon emissions, because journeys would be shorter and people coming south would have to drive less. The proposal would also free up about 31 hours of ferry time, which could be used to improve other island services.
I am disappointed that the proposal does not seem to be under consideration, although perhaps we will see a change when the final ferries plan comes out. In the meantime, I beg members of the other parties to consider supporting our motion on allowing the ferry service to go forward.
I move,
That the Parliament is disappointed that the draft ferries plan does not include a new Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service; recognises the social and economic need for such a service; notes the overwhelming support in the Western Isles and Mallaig for such a service, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure its inclusion in the ferries plan and to commence the new service as soon as practically possible.
09:25
We welcome the opportunity to discuss our draft ferries plan and, in particular, the proposals for a Mallaig to Lochboisdale ferry service. The plan has always been about the issues that matter most to our island and remote communities. We should not forget that the Mallaig to Lochboisdale ferry service was terminated by the previous Labour-led Scottish Executive in 2001. If Elaine Murray is going to quote paragraph 150 of the draft plan, she should at least be honest and quote what we say at the end of it. I will quote it exactly—it states:
“We will further consider the economic viability of this proposed service in the context of other planned improvements to services to, and within, the Western Isles.”
If Elaine Murray is going to argue the case, she should at least give credit where it is due and quote exactly what is said in the document.
We want to improve Scotland’s ferry services, which are key to the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of our remote and island communities. That is why this Government has been the first ever to carry out a thorough review of all ferry services in Scotland, focusing on the things that matter most to communities—fares, what services are in place, the level of services and who should be responsible for providing them.
There has been wide engagement, with opportunities for everyone who has an interest to engage in discussions on our ferry services. During a consultation period, it is not the normal practice for ministers to meet people who are lobbying for a particular point of view, but I have always made it absolutely clear that, once the consultation is finished at the end of this month, I will be happy to meet anyone from South Uist, Barra, Lochboisdale, Mallaig or any other community to discuss their concerns.
About 600 individuals, groups and organisations replied to the initial consultation in 2010 and, with more than a week to go, we have already received 1,100 responses to the draft ferries plan consultation. I can give members an assurance that we will listen very carefully indeed to what people say in response to the genuine consultation that we are carrying out.
I thank the cabinet secretary for clarifying the position on the Mallaig to Armadale route and for guaranteeing its future. I look forward to a visit by him and the Minister for Housing and Transport—or one of them—to west Ardnamurchan and the small isles to speak directly to local communities. In principle, I support a Mallaig to Lochboisdale ferry route—
This is an intervention, not a speech. Will you just get to the point?
Given the current financial constraints, will the cabinet secretary consider reconfiguration of existing services to allow the new service to be introduced?
Based on some of the responses that we have had, we are already working on that possibility. We are more than willing to consider any viable proposition that is put to us.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
This is not the first time that the issue has been studied. In 2005, the previous Labour-Liberal Executive produced a report on the reinstatement of the service that it scrapped in 2001. The report is dated May 2005. What did that Executive do between May 2005 and May 2007? Nothing—it did nothing. Did Elaine Murray mention that report in her opening remarks? No, she did not. The reason is that, as usual, the Labour-Liberal Executive commissioned a report but took no action whatsoever. [Interruption.]
Ms Murray, please stop shouting.
Then, the Labour Party has the cheek to come to the chamber with a motion criticising us when we are contemplating the options.
Let me give members the facts and explain the issues that we have to grapple with. The report showed that the annual cost of providing the service as a standalone service would have been between £3.5 million and £4 million and that the cost of introducing a new vessel would have been around £26 million—those are 2005 costs. By any standard, and given that the total ferry budget is just over £100 million a year, those are substantial figures. If Elaine Murray is going to be honest, she must tell us where the money would come from. Does she want the £26 million to be spent on a new ferry between Lochboisdale and Mallaig instead of on upgrading the A75, which she said should be a top priority for transport in Scotland?
The Scottish Government is consulting on 12 different routes for upgrading, including the Ardrossan to Brodick service to Arran, as part of the new tender. Why is the route between Lochboisdale and Mallaig not being considered in the same way as those 12 routes?
We have explained exactly why: because we have to consider what resources are available to us and how we can make best use of them. If the Labour Party wants the service—which it abolished in 2001—to be reinstated, the onus is on Labour members to tell us where the £26 million and the £4 million a year are going to come from. Are they going to come from other ferry services, from other transport services, from childcare services or from other services? If Labour is serious about it, as opposed to playing games, it must tell us how it would fund the service.
As Dave Thompson has made clear, we are considering a number of options that are being put to us and we would like the maximum number of ferry services for all our island communities. We recognise the special needs of the island communities, but we have to operate within the very limited resources that are given to us by Westminster under Labour and Tory Governments. If we spend money on this ferry service, we will spend less on something else—that is the language of priorities. We will listen to the people, not to Labour politicians, who are guilty of removing the service in the first place.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Nor will we listen to Liberal politicians. The transport ministers between May 2005 and May 2007 were Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott, but what did the Liberals do about the ferry service? The same as the Labour Party—nothing.
Cabinet secretary, you need to wind up.
We will listen to the people, not to those who speak a double language, telling one story here and another story elsewhere.
I move amendment S4M-02421.1, to leave out from “is disappointed” to end and insert:
“welcomes the Scottish Ferry Services: Draft Plan for consultation; in particular the focus of the Scottish Ferries Review and the draft plan on the issues that matter most to island and remote communities and their central theme of further improving Scotland’s ferry services; welcomes the wide engagement and consultation that has taken place throughout the Scottish Ferries Review; notes the Scottish Government’s commitment to fully consider the consultation responses from communities representing their local interests, including those advocating the introduction of a service between Lochboisdale and Mallaig, and looks forward to the publication of the final ferries plan in 2012.”
09:33
I thank the Labour Party for securing the debate. There is no doubt that a new Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service is a popular option for people in the Uists as well as for businesses and tourists. I am delighted to learn that the cabinet secretary is contemplating the options.
The motion states that the draft ferries plan does not include a new Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service, but it is worth restating that there is still an opportunity for people to respond to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the plan, the closing date for which is 31 March. The case for a new Lochboisdale to Mallaig service is fully supported by the local MSP and Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages, Alasdair Allan. He has stated:
“I made a strong case for the retention and development of Lochboisdale as a ferry port and continue to argue that the trialling of a service between Lochboisdale and Mallaig is an option”
that the Government “should consider” and contemplate.
There would be many advantages to the new ferry service. For a start, local people have suggested that it could be operated with a more fuel-efficient and smaller boat than some of the existing Caledonian MacBrayne ferries, which can use up to 1,500 litres of fuel per hour.
Most deliveries to the Uists come from the mainland—the central belt in particular—via Inverness and Skye, through the Uig to Lochmaddy service. That results in considerable traffic pressure on the A9 and the A82. A new ferry service would alleviate that traffic and reduce travel times. I am also told that, at the height of the tourism season, it can be difficult for fish producers to get their product on the Lochmaddy to Uig ferry.
As the Fort William to Mallaig road has been significantly improved in recent years, it would provide improved journey times from the central belt to Mallaig for onward transport and provide a quicker route for many travellers to and from the Western Isles.
As other members have said, the sea journey from Oban to Lochboisdale is 74 miles, compared with a 48-mile sea trip from Mallaig to Lochboisdale. As Elaine Murray said, a normal journey from Lochboisdale to Oban can take more than six hours.
The road infrastructure on Skye has deteriorated in recent years as a result of the high volume of heavy goods vehicles that use it.
I put all those points in a letter to the previous transport minister, Stewart Stevenson, who responded:
“Given the wide ranging nature of the draft ferries review—it will include consideration of a possible Mallaig-Lochboisdale service”.
That takes me to paragraph 150 of the draft ferries plan, which says:
“We have considered whether a Mallaig to Lochboisdale service could become the principal route for the Uists and Benbecula”,
instead of the Lochmaddy to Uig route. That is where the problem is. As far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that the Mallaig to Lochboisdale route should replace the Uig to Lochmaddy service. The community—and, I understand, the Labour motion—asks for an additional, new service between Mallaig and Lochboisdale. I appreciate what the cabinet secretary said, but paragraph 150 begins as I quoted it.
Will the member give way?
I am still discussing paragraph 150. In quoting the draft ferries plan, I am being absolutely reasonable with the cabinet secretary.
As always.
The Government says that it
“will further consider the economic viability of this proposed service”.
Economic viability is critical. I received a response to a parliamentary question last week that confirmed that no ferry routes in Scotland make a profit, so none is economically viable other than those that have no taxpayer subsidy and which provide an excellent service at competitive prices—the Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd and Pentland Ferries routes.
Is the logic of the member’s argument that, if no routes make a profit and—she argues—they are not economically viable, we should run none of the services? Surely the whole point is the economic viability of the islands.
Paragraph 150 says:
“We will further consider the economic viability of this proposed service”.
My point is that the answer to my written question last week said that every service needs to be subsidised, except the Western Ferries and Pentland Ferries services, which run at lower prices for passengers. Why does the Government not consider carrying out a trial, as Alasdair Allan suggested, and asking a private operator to see how it works out?
We move to the open debate. I remind members that they have a strict four minutes.
09:38
There can be no doubt about the crucial importance of the ferries issue to the people of South Uist in my constituency. If I had not known that much already, it would have been pretty obvious to me from the meeting that I attended in Daliburgh recently—it has been referred to—which more than 200 people attended and at which they made their views plain.
With that in mind, as local MSP I have responded—I sense from the tone from some quarters that I am criticised for it—along with many others in the Western Isles to both consultations associated with the ferries review and I have specifically mentioned the Mallaig to Lochboisdale issue.
As I said in my response to the initial consultation, if the resources can be found, we need to look seriously at having a Mallaig to Lochboisdale link. Any solution would obviously have to respect the needs and wishes of all communities in the islands, but there is a very strong case to be made for a shorter sea crossing from Lochboisdale. As local MSP, I support that case, and it was good to get a chance to speak to people from Uist at the door today who are making that argument, too. I am glad to say that I believe that they have joined us in the public gallery.
I welcome the specific recognition in the Government’s amendment of the importance of listening to communities before a final ferries plan is produced and of giving consideration to the issues that are being raised in Uist. I appreciate why the Government’s stance is to recognise the existence of the consultation process and not prejudice it.
I am concerned about what Alasdair Allan is saying about the Government not prejudicing the consultation. If I understood Dave Thompson correctly, the Government has already given him reassurances about things that were in the draft ferries plan and told him that things will change. Why is the member not able to get the same reassurances for the people of Uist?
As I understand it, the Government has said clearly that a consultation is under way and that it will consider representations, including those on the Mallaig to Lochboisdale question. I do not think that there is any need to obfuscate that point any further than the member has just done.
As the local member, I readily see the benefits that would come to South Uist if there were a shorter sea crossing to the mainland, not to mention a more frequent one—all of us can agree that there is little point in viewing three ferry sailings a week in winter as a frequent service. That argument is certainly made frequently in the constituency that I represent. I understand the need for there to be improvements to the service, the impact of which would be felt in areas of economic activity as varied as tourism, crofting and fisheries. However, as the minister said, the debate about ferry routes cannot be isolated from a discussion of the issues around procuring new vessels, which is a discussion that we certainly have to have.
The phrase, “fragile island economy”, is often used but is less often fully appreciated. South Uist certainly qualifies as a fragile local economy. Apart from the geography, it does not enjoy anything like the highest incomes in Scotland and it faces a continual battle with the elements and with the ever-present threat of depopulation. With those factors in mind, it is right that we explore every possible means of improving connectivity, whether that be through improved broadband or improved transport links, and ensure that the solutions that we come up with are the product of a genuine conversation in the community.
I hope that we will see further progress of that kind in Uist, with more detailed discussion around the various options and costings for a shorter sea crossing, and I welcome the willingness of the minister to engage in that debate.
The member needs to wind up.
In that case, by way of conclusion, let me say that there is a surprising amount of agreement across the chamber on this issue, even if perhaps not everyone in South Uist will agree with the assertion of Elaine Murray that Lochboisdale is the primary settlement in South Uist.
09:43
There are not many ferry services in my Central Scotland region, but the ferries review has been topical in the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, which is why I am happy to speak in the debate.
At the last election, Scottish Labour made a commitment to turn the road equivalent tariff from a pilot into a permanent measure in the Western Isles, and we promised to extend the scheme to the Clyde coast and Argyll. We were also clear about our ambition to bring back a passenger service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge, in order to connect Scotland with Europe. We also reminded people that, under the Labour-led Scottish Executive, older and disabled people became entitled to two free return ferry trips anywhere in Scotland.
Let me make it clear: even Glasgow-born central-belt Labour MSPs are committed to good ferry services and reliable infrastructure for coastal and island communities. That is because we need a joined-up transport network across Scotland in order to make every part of our country as accessible possible, if we are to meet the social and economic needs of all our communities. The Labour motion makes it clear that we believe that there are real social and economic benefits to be realised from securing a ferry service between Mallaig and South Uist.
Given Margaret McCulloch’s concerns about that route, can she tell me why the Labour Party abolished the service in 2001?
We did not abolish it. If Kenneth Gibson will let me go on, I will explain why we should have that ferry service.
A well-serviced daily and direct route would not only reduce journey times between South Uist and the mainland but would help to reinvigorate the local economy. Faster and better connections to the mainland would make it easier for residents to trade, to commute and to access public services. It would bring more visitors to the area, thereby supporting local businesses and giving tourism in the Western Isles a welcome boost. We know from elsewhere that when the economic prospects of island communities improve, they can begin to tackle the problems of depopulation and of retaining and creating wealth locally.
Campaigners have also argued that a new ferry route would reduce the cost of transporting goods to the island, which members will know is a pertinent issue at this time because of the 50 per cent increase in fares that will soon come about because the RET is being withdrawn from commercial vehicles. Modern transport, especially in the Highlands and Islands, can be expensive. The rise in oil prices has increased pressure on motorists and hauliers and that pressure is often reflected in the prices that are passed on to consumers. The RET has made it more affordable to do business in and with the Western Isles; all the evidence suggests that withdrawing the RET from commercial vehicles will drive up costs and make investment by businesses in much of the Western Isles uneconomical.
The Outer Hebrides transport group offered members of the Scottish Parliament the example of a lorry on the Oban-Lochboisdale-Castlebay route that would face an 80 per cent fare increase under the plans that were originally proposed by the Scottish Government. A shorter route would be more affordable but would still be subject to higher fares. I therefore call on the Scottish Government to reflect on the impact that changes to the RET will have on the islands, and to think again.
The case for an affordable and accessible service between Mallaig and South Uist is clear. It would reduce journey times, boost tourism and support the local economy. The very least the minister could do for those communities is commit without further delay to a trial service.
09:47
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate because, as an islander, I know how important ferry services are and how emotive the issue can be. I welcome the Labour Party motion, but I think that the Labour Party has already forgotten that it was Labour’s own Gordon Brown who was first mate and then captain at the helm of the United Kingdom ship of state when it crashed on the rocks and threw us into economic turmoil. It is cold comfort indeed that that economic shipwreck catapulted Gordon out of the cockpit only to make space for messrs Cameron and Clegg.
Will the member give way?
No. I have only four minutes, at most.
In the face of this economic storm and the most savage of cuts to our budget, the Scottish Government is due great credit for sticking to its promised plans for the most wholesale improvements to our ferry network in living memory.
It is entirely right that the ferries review should start with proper consultation, so it is interesting that it appears that there have been many more responses in the last round of consultation, as people realised that we really are consulting and that we really are listening. It is not a sham consultation of the kind that we were used to prior to 2007. What a pity, in that case, that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats can think of no more constructive response than to stir up one community against another: Barra against South Uist; Lochboisdale against Lochmaddy; and Oban against Lochboisdale. Lib Dem MEP George Lyon’s recent attempt to instigate a European Union inquiry and to halt the whole process of rolling out the RET was truly lamentable, and was potentially damaging for our economically fragile island communities. Tavish Scott’s recent proposals for the separation of Shetland are reminiscent of that Ealing comedy “Passport to Pimlico”.
Mr MacKenzie, could you just keep to the motion?
Those actions are all much more about petty political posturing than about a genuine attempt to help our islands. I am delighted that cooler heads prevail in Scotland these days, that the ferries review represents a fair, methodical and consistent approach to improving ferry services for all our islanders, that the Scottish Government has given a commitment to listen to all our communities and all the consultation responses, and that it recognises and will carefully consider the wishes of the people in South Uist on a ferry service between Lochboisdale and Mallaig.
However, if for any reason that is not immediately possible, and blame must be cast, the wise and pragmatic folk whom I know on our islands will know to look to the south—to the dead hand of Westminster and successive economic mismanagement by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. For many years, they have failed to invest in our ferries, piers and harbours and have left us with a legacy of underinvestment, which will, in these difficult times, take some time to correct.
I am pleased to support the cabinet secretary’s amendment to the motion.
09:51
I am pleased that the issue is being debated today, and I welcome to the public gallery the representatives from the long-running missing link ferry campaign. It makes economic sense to have a ferry from Lochboisdale to Mallaig, if one compares a three and a half hour crossing—both the time spent at sea and the cost—with a six and a half hour crossing. A ferry is especially needed now, following the withdrawal of the RET from commercial vehicles. That policy will have a detrimental effect on all the islands, but especially on those that have the longest ferry crossings. The Government appears to have no concept of the disadvantages that can be caused by geography.
I stress that we are seeking not a rerouting of any ferry that currently serves Barra or the rest of the Uists, but a new route that runs from Lochboisdale to Mallaig. That would allow the Barra to Oban service to concentrate on that route and provide a better timetable, which would have an immediate positive economic impact on Barra and the other islands. I recently spoke to a hotelier who told me that the ferries to the islands are full, but the hotels are only half full.
We need more routes for economic development of the whole area. The Scottish Government appeared to support the instigation of such a service a few years ago and earmarked £1 million for it. Unfortunately, however, that money was not forthcoming because the Government could not find a ferry. By the time the community—being as resourceful as ever—found one, the money was gone.
My colleagues and I have campaigned alongside the community for the route for many years, and we have 1,200 supporters signed up to our campaign. Stòras Uibhist, which is the community land owner, petitioned the Parliament with 1,500 supporters, but to no avail. It is interesting that the minister says that he is listening to the people, because nearly 3,000 people have put their names to those campaigns and he appears not to be listening to what they are asking for. It is, given that level of support, hugely disappointing that the draft ferries plan has not identified any public support for the route. The Government did not ask the community what its preferred option is.
I must correct Rhoda Grant on that. We specifically said in the plan that the survey—there was a survey—showed that views were divided on the importance of the service. It is not true to say that we did not survey people and that we did not put the results of the survey into the consultation.
People were not, as part of the survey, asked whether they wanted a Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service. If they had been asked that, they would overwhelmingly have said that they supported such a service. That is what was missing. The minister’s civil servants wrote to my colleague David Stewart and said that it would have been a leading question, so it did not appear in the ferries review questionnaire.
Although I was previously aware of the level of support for the link, I recently attended—along with Alasdair Allan—a packed public meeting at which there was unanimous support. There was also real anger, because people felt that they had been let down by the Government and by their representatives, and especially by their local Scottish National Party councillor, Donald Manford. Stewart Stevenson expressed his surprise that Donald Manford was so against the development of the route when he met representatives of Stòras Uibhist—
Will Rhoda Grant give way?
Mr Finnie—first, you do not have your card in and, secondly, the member does not have time to take your intervention. Just sit down.
Mr Manford urged Stewart Stevenson not to allow the ferry route to go ahead before he had spoken to him. Local representatives need to stand up for their communities, so that behaviour is unacceptable.
I am pleased to support the Labour motion. I very much hope that the Government will listen to the many people who wish for the route to be reinstated.
09:55
When the RET was first rolled out in the Western Isles, the Labour Party in North Ayrshire, where I am an MSP, denounced the SNP Government for subsidising the Western Isles with the taxes of the people of North Ayrshire. In Edinburgh recently, leaflets have been sent out that talk about the SNP subsidising Glasgow, to Edinburgh’s detriment.
This is another opportunistic debate from the Labour Party. We still have no answers on how it would fund the services. Despite what Margaret McCulloch said, it should show joined-up thinking on how it will address the issue.
Ferry services and the implications of the ferries review are important to my constituents in Arran and Cumbrae.
Will Kenneth Gibson give way?
I will let Elaine Murray in once I have made some progress.
The RET will be rolled out to the Clyde islands and there will be £14.5 million of investment in the Brodick services. The proposed Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service was not prioritised in the draft—I emphasise the word “draft”—ferries review because the Lochmaddy to Uig service is even shorter than Elaine Murray’s suggested service. That shorter and more easily accessible service is the principal one that islanders use. The survey of Uist households that has been referred to demonstrates that there is demand for a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service. However, although 42 per cent of Uist residents were not satisfied with having Oban as their mainland port, 52 per cent were satisfied and around 6 per cent claimed that the mainland destination port was of no concern to them.
Will Kenneth Gibson give way?
I will let Elaine Murray in because she asked first. Perhaps she can explain where Labour would find the £4 million a year that would be needed to run the Lochboisdale to Mallaig service and the cost of the new ferry if such a service were to be introduced.
How will the Government pay for upgrading the Ardrossan to Brodick service?
That service is already funded through the capital infrastructure plan. Elaine Murray’s suggestion is that we take money from existing projects and transfer it. I will be glad to tell my constituents in Arran that the Labour Party does not want the £14.5 million investment to go ahead. I am sure that they will be delighted to know that.
As the December 2011 ferry services plan explains:
“The larger communities in the Northern and Western Isles do not show a personal dependency as a key dependency”
for an improved ferry service to the islands. As the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change said in 2007, the Scottish transport appraisal guidance appraisal of 2005
“noted that a large proportion of the increase in economic activities in South Uist and Mallaig would be the result of displacement from communities served by existing ferry services ... while there would be some demand for such a service the vast majority of demand would be displaced from existing services with little net increase”.—[Official Report, Written Answers, 3 December 2007; S3W-06718.]
Will Kenneth Gibson give way?
I am really sorry, but I do not have time to take another intervention in a four-minute speech.
If that displacement were to happen, we would have to switch resources from other islands that, perhaps, have only one route, which may be a lifeline service.
In many parts of Scotland, the draft plan will have a tremendously positive impact. In Arran and Cumbrae, we will have earlier and later services, which will have a great impact on the economy of the Clyde islands. It has also been suggested that the existing Ardrossan to Brodick vessel may be replaced with two, more fuel-efficient vessels, which would decrease running costs and allow people to come for business travel and personal reasons, and would allow folk to commute to the islands. That would help to bring about a renaissance on Arran and Cumbrae.
I fully understand the concerns that members have about the Western Isles, but the Scottish Government must consider ferry services in the round. If we suggest additional services from one part of Scotland to another, it is important that we consider the impact on the rest of the network and how people would be affected.
I have 20 seconds. Can I take an intervention from Jamie McGrigor, Presiding Officer?
No.
I am sorry. I did not realise that I had rattled through, as I have.
I add my support for the amendment. The SNP Government is doing a great job on ferries. Long may it continue.
09:59
According to the Government’s draft plan for consultation,
“We all know that ferries are an essential part of Scotland’s transport network.”
The consultation should have been published in the summer of 2010 when communities and civil servants were crying out for the Government to make clear its position on Scotland’s ferry services. In an e-mail, a Transport Scotland official said:
“Our intention was to issue the draft plan last summer but Ministers were clear this should not happen before the election.”
In other words, it was a blatant exercise in electioneering.
The motion is concerned with the introduction of a new Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service. The missing link ferry campaign, which has been driven by the four community councils on South Uist, is to be congratulated for its campaigning work and for making quite an impression at the recent SNP conference.
The strong feeling on South Uist is that Mallaig should be the main destination port. A journey time of three hours and 20 minutes to the mainland is clearly attractive and would give the islands an economic boost. Indeed, one Uist businessman lost out on two work contracts totalling £120,000 because of the lack of sailing opportunities. However, the statement in the draft plan that
“we have no specific proposals for the Uists”
will be a hammer blow to lobbyists. The SNP’s Angus MacNeil and Alasdair Allan have both called for a trial service, saying that it would be
“fantastic to see a ferry between Mallaig and Lochboisdale”.
The Government should produce proposals for a trial service and a thorough analysis of the route’s success, and it should consider any unintended consequences to pre-existing routes.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry. I do not have much time.
There has been £35 million spent on the ferry infrastructure on islands including Eigg, but the consultation proposes reducing that car-ferry service from five crossings a week to one. It also proposes reducing the car ferry service between Mull and Ardnamurchan to a passenger-only service, even though it is used by more than 5,000 vehicles a year. On the one hand, the Government’s baffling choices in distributing money from the bus service operators grant will obviously damage urban areas and, on the other, its proposals for the shake-up of vital ferry services could undo 25 years of hard work by local communities and the Highland Council.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take a very short intervention.
Will Mr Hume confirm that in 2006 Tavish Scott, the then Minister for Transport in the Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive, discussed with Alasdair Morrison proposals to introduce the service in question?
Elaine Murray is absolutely correct.
So what happened?
Unfortunately, what happened was that the SNP Government got in in 2007.
The Government also asserts that the above-inflation hike in fares is down to the increase in fuel prices. However, when there was a previous increase in fuel prices—pre-election—the Government managed to cap fare increases at the level of inflation.
The way in which the Government has chosen to extend the RET scheme is unacceptable, so it should, in the interests of fairness, think again. My colleague George Lyon MEP, who was mentioned by Mike MacKenzie, was right to ask the EU competition authorities to investigate implementation of that extension. I note that the European transport commissioner will investigate the matter.
The fare increase for commercial vehicles might be even more devastating and could mean increases of up to 172 per cent for heavy goods vehicles on some routes. How are businesses supposed to absorb such costs?
Will the member give way?
I apologise that I cannot, as I have only 17 seconds left.
In conclusion, that massive increase will have a knock-on effect on the cost of living in our remote communities. When we have businessmen coming together to form the Outer Hebrides transport group in order to highlight the impact of such decisions, it is time for the minister to wake up and smell the coffee.
10:03
I declare that my wife works part-time for Caledonian MacBrayne, but is permanently based in Gourock.
Scotland’s ferry network has been used as a political football for many years; indeed, we can trace all this right back to the long-running saga of the Gourock to Dunoon route, which predated the Parliament’s establishment. Now we have the debate over the Lochboisdale to Mallaig route which, as we have heard, was abolished in 2001 by the Labour-Lib Dem Scottish Executive.
Although I am greatly interested in the economic arguments that have been made this morning, I believe that Scotland needs to get to grips with its ferry network once and for all. I am not going to stand here and propose the perfect solution for our network or, more particularly, speak to the lack of a Lochboisdale to Mallaig route that is highlighted in the Labour motion. However, Scotland needs a sustainable, robust and affordable network—which does not necessarily mean that there should be no subsidy—and I am confident in the approach that was taken by the Scottish Government in the ferries review in 2009 and that the draft plan, which was published in December and is still out for consultation, is correct and should continue.
I agree whole-heartedly that MSPs—constituency and regional—have a right to campaign on behalf of their constituents—after all, that is why we are here. It is imperative, particularly during a consultation period, that we lobby on behalf of constituents and communities and that we put forward a strong and balanced case.
The motion mentions the “economic need” for a new Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service. I do not doubt the ability of MSPs from all sides of the chamber to progress economic arguments for many things, nor do I doubt the ability of outside bodies to do the same, but I know from experience—I am sure that others do, too—that the economic argument can be the hardest part of a case to make, regardless of what the issue is. For rural and smaller communities, the economic argument can be that bit harder to make. When it comes down to a business decision, the numbers need to stack up.
We all have projects that we think, for a number of reasons, it is vital to progress, but ensuring that the numbers work is key to getting to the next stage. I stress that I do not for one minute dispute the economic argument that has been pursued this morning but, as we know, our belts have been tightened as a result of budget cuts from Westminster. Those cuts have put added responsibility on ministers and the Scottish Government to ensure that they get the best economic returns for their expenditure.
I am sure that, across the chamber, we all wish that we had more money to spend on projects. I know that the demands that have come from some quarters in the recent past would require more than £1 billion of extra expenditure, but no indication has been given of where that money would come from. The Government and Parliament need to deal with the reality that less money is coming to us.
I am sure that the Labour Party or individual Labour MSPs will have contributed to the consultation exercises that have been held so far. If they have not, they still have time to contribute to the consultation on the draft ferries plan before it closes at the end of next week. I am sure that they, along with others, wish for a comprehensive ferries strategy that covers the country.
From a West Scotland perspective, I hope that more shipbuilding work will come to Port Glasgow, and I will certainly lobby the Government for that to happen. The recent announcement of the £20 million order for the world’s first two hybrid ferries for Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd was excellent news, which will help employment prospects in Inverclyde. The draft ferries plan shows an exciting future for the ferry network, with newer ferries being required to replace older vessels, as well as the prospect of new routes. That opens up further opportunities in Inverclyde which, as we all know, builds first-class vessels of which all Scotland can be proud. After the loss of orders in the past—before 2007—for Scottish fisheries protection vessels and for some CalMac ferries, I am glad that the tide has begun to turn. I am sorry for the pun.
It has been an interesting debate and I commend Labour for bringing it to the chamber, but I support the Scottish Government’s amendment, because we need a robust ferries review and a more robust network around Scotland.
10:08
I am glad that Labour has chosen to debate the subject of the long-awaited Scottish ferries draft plan and I am especially glad that it has focused on a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service.
Ferry services are vital to the people who live on our islands. As other members have done, I urge my constituents in the Highlands and Islands, including supporters of a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service, to ensure that they make their views known to the Scottish Government by the time the consultation closes at the end of next week. It is extremely important that ministers hear loudly and clearly the views and concerns of people and businesses that use the ferries. I agree with members who have talked about the crucial nature of regular, affordable and reliable ferry services for remote and island communities. The viability, sustainability and economic development of those areas are strongly tied to the connectivity that the ferries provide.
I am aware that the Government is emphasising that the proposals in the draft plan are all just suggestions, but it is a matter of regret that quite a number of the details of the plan have caused concern and alarm in parts of my region, and that only the vaguest of references is made to introducing a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service.
As others have said, the Scottish Crofting Federation has described the review as “lamentable” and has said that its general thrust seems to be
“one of withdrawing and diminishing routes in peripheral areas.”
I share the concern of the SCF and of other MSPs about the possible withdrawal of the vehicle ferry between Kilchoan and Tobermory and the review of the popular route between Mull and Lochaline, and I strongly support Mary Scanlon’s comments on the Mallaig to Lochboisdale route. That service would increase choice for local residents and tourists and could be a real plus not just for South Uist but for all of the Western Isles.
I want also to emphasise the importance of the existing services from Oban to the Western Isles. May I make a special plea for my constituents on the Isle of Barra, including Angus Brendan MacNeil MP and Councillor Donald Manford? They might both vote SNP, but should they not have a better service than one that runs on only three days a week?
In addition, I will take this opportunity to speak up for my constituents in Mid Argyll, with reference to Kenneth Gibson’s speech. Many of them are deeply worried about the possible removal of the ferry between Claonaig and Lochranza on Arran. That could hit the economy of both Mid Argyll and Arran and would completely remove connectivity between Argyll and Arran. It would also leave Arran without any ferry services if there were any problems at Brodick.
An additional service that is suggested in the plan can be cautiously welcomed—namely the service between Campbeltown and the Ayrshire coast. That is an idea that I and my colleague Councillor Donald Kelly have backed consistently for some years. It would be a positive move for Kintyre, given that successive Scottish Governments have patently failed to make any progress in re-establishing the Campbeltown to Ballycastle service that existed under the Conservatives. However, local people in Campbeltown and Kintyre are very clear that a route between Campbeltown and, perhaps, Troon should run for five days a week, thereby becoming a popular service. I hope that the ministers can take that idea on board.
In conclusion, today’s short debate has been welcome and useful in allowing members to speak up on behalf of their constituents’ concerns on some very important issues, including the failure to recognise the potential importance of a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service. I urge ferry users and constituents from across my region and elsewhere to take part in the consultation before the end of next week. This consultation seems to have gone on for ever, but I repeat that it closes at the end of next week.
10:12
First, let me place the debate in context as regards, in general terms, two of the big challenges that are faced by people in the island communities and by the Government. The first is the substantial hike in fuel duty, with a 3p hike confirmed in the budget yesterday for August, which will have a devastating impact on the island communities throughout Scotland. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats have a lot to answer for in supporting that. Secondly, the 33 per cent reduction in our capital allocation has had a direct impact on our ability to invest in new ferry services in different parts of Scotland at the speed and on the scale that we would like. Those are the challenges that we face as a Government. They are not self-made challenges, but the result of policies that were introduced by Alistair Darling and supported by George Osborne and Nick Clegg.
I want to make it absolutely clear—I hope that people will read my lips—that, as we said in the draft ferries review, we will listen to what people say in all their submissions, including on the possibility of reintroducing a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service. However, there is no escaping the reality of the cost of reintroducing that service as a dedicated service. The capital cost is at least £26 million and the annual resource cost is between £3.5 million and £4 million. If we were to make a decision to allocate money to that service, we would need to take it from elsewhere. None of the Opposition parties has in any way begun to address the cost or from where we would reallocate the funding.
The report that was produced in May 2005—an independent report by Halcrow—stated the dilemma about the crossing very clearly. Let me quote the executive summary:
“It is also clear however that the vast majority of the demand for the new service is abstracted from existing services, i.e. the Lochmaddy - Uig and Castlebay - Oban routes. Only a small proportion of traffic is generated traffic”
and therefore the impact on other services could be quite dramatic.
Will the minister give way?
I do not have much time, unfortunately.
We have to take what Halcrow said into consideration, because our responsibility is to consider the totality of the ferry services. I do not want to take action in one area that will have a damaging impact on other areas. The survey work that we did in the run-up to the publication of the draft ferries review showed clearly that the majority of people are satisfied with the existing service and 10 per cent fewer people want it to be replaced by the proposed service, as Kenny Gibson said.
Rhoda Grant rose—
Jamie McGrigor rose—
I do not have time for interventions.
I will give you time, if you want it, minister.
Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. You are extremely generous.
I will give way to Sir Jamie McGrigor in a minute. I am always deferential to Scotland’s aristocracy—and I am worried about Sir Jamie, because he might lose his housing benefit if he is living in an underoccupied castle.
Perhaps you should stick to the subject of the debate, minister.
The Labour Party proposes a trial. I can see the merit of having a trial service. However, we must decide whether it would be a trial of a dedicated service, with a dedicated ferry that would run only on that route, or a trial rerouting of existing services. There is a debate to be had on that, but members should not underestimate the capital costs and resource costs or, more important, the implications for people in the islands. The rerouting of existing services, albeit well intentioned, might do more damage than good.
I give way to Sir Jamie.
I thank the minister for his compliment.
An enormous amount of money has been spent on the road from Fort William to Mallaig. Is it not a shame that it cannot be connected to the islands by a ferry?
It connects to the small isles and to Skye. I recognise the importance of the totality of the infrastructure. Decisions on ferry services cannot be made in isolation. Access to piers and harbours on the mainland and on the islands is important. If I had a bottomless pit of money I would invest much more—
Not if we had independence.
We will have more money when we are independent, and we will be able to do much more. After yesterday’s budget, many people in Scotland will be a lot worse off. I am not talking about the millionaires on the Tory benches. Every granny in Scotland who saved for her company pension will be a lot worse off.
The reality is that we must be responsible. Any changes that are made must be properly planned and thought out. I have made it clear and I repeat that we are listening carefully to what the campaigners from South Uist and elsewhere are saying about the reintroduction of a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service and the possibility of a trial service. We will engage with them after the consultation period, on the pros and cons—because there are cons as well as pros, not least the capital costs and resource costs of reintroducing a dedicated service, which need to be addressed.
The Labour Party should at least conduct the debate in an honest way. I know from Mr Russell, who was misquoted by Elaine Murray earlier, and from other people, that the people of South Uist are pretty fed up with their comments being manipulated by the press and politicians. We need an honest debate about how we take matters forward.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I am happy to give way to Mr Stewart, if the Presiding Officer permits me to do so.
I permit you, but please be brief, Mr Stewart.
Thank you. Does the cabinet secretary accept that Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd has the ability to lease vessels on the international market, and that it is important that the Scottish Government considers better utilisation of vessels, so that we can exploit new opportunities for routes?
I absolutely agree, which is precisely why, when we publish the results of our ferries review, we will simultaneously publish a long-term ferries investment plan. That has not been done by any previous Government.
We are at one with everyone in the community in South Uist and elsewhere on improving the ferry service. We will look seriously at campaigners’ proposals for a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service. We will talk to them about the pros and cons and we will reach a decision based on the needs of all the islanders on the west coast of Scotland.
10:20
This is the second time that we have returned to the issue of ferry services in Labour business in the past few weeks. Once more, it has yielded a good debate on an important issue.
We have returned to the subject to highlight an improvement that we and many others wish to see in our ferry services. These are lifeline services for our island communities, which is why we oppose the removal of the RET for hauliers because, in effect, it will be a tax on island households. It is why we propose today that a new additional ferry service be established between Lochboisdale and Mallaig. Disappointingly, the cabinet secretary talked down that proposal throughout his speech.
More important than our proposal for the establishment of that route is the overwhelming support that it has locally. It is not just us saying this; it is people who have come to Parliament today from the missing link campaign. As Elaine Murray said in her excellent opening speech, four community councils—Benbecula, Bornish, Lochboisdale and Eriskay—have joined Stòras Uibhist to form the Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry group, and 1,500 people have signed a petition calling for the service to be reintroduced. As Elaine Murray said, the population of South Uist is only 1,950, so that is a phenomenal level of support. It may even dwarf the percentage of the population that is likely to respond to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the referendum.
The member will be aware that when Huw Francis gave evidence to the Public Petitions Committee he made the strong point that piloting the route on a temporary basis was an excellent way of assessing the real demand, rather than the demand that is picked up in some abstract economic report.
Absolutely, and of course that point has been supported previously by SNP members. I will come to that later.
We believe that the ferry group makes a powerful case. It argues that
“Eriskay, Benbecula and South Uist are some of the most remote and economically fragile areas of Scotland”
and that
“it is unacceptable that the only direct ferry service from South Uist to the mainland of Scotland operates only four days a week and can take up to 7.5 hours to reach Oban—the worst provision of any lifeline ferry service in Scotland.”
It also makes a strong case about the benefits that a new service would bring, saying that it would
“support the local economy and boost the committed efforts of an island community that has been working towards its own economic regeneration by taking ownership of the South Uist estate in 2006.”—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 6 September 2011; c 70.]
Will the member take an intervention?
Unlike the cabinet secretary, I will happily take an intervention.
When Labour was in power for eight years in this Parliament, why did it not do any of these things?
The fact is that the ferry broke down and we tried to replace it. The cabinet secretary’s Government has not bothered. I will return to that later. [Interruption.]
Order.
Again and again, the cabinet secretary has misrepresented the history of the route.
We believe that the Scottish Government needs to support the local economy and boost the efforts of an island community that has done so much for its own economy.
Poor transport links continue to constrain the benefits that investment has brought to the islands. As an example, the group referred to the constraints and capacity of the current services, which deter potential ferry users from travelling to the Western Isles at all because desired sailings are fully booked. Hotel operators regularly report bookings being cancelled because potential guests cannot book a ferry to reach the islands. It is clear that the demand is there. With a frequent daily ferry service to Lochboisdale, the constraints on the tourism sector would be significantly reduced, particularly on the important Saturday changeover day. If the status quo remains, those constraints on the local economy will remain in place, too.
A new service would not only benefit island residents but boost the area economically. A Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service would significantly cut travel times for business users, tourist visitors and residents on all the major routes to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Inverness. It would encourage more people in Scotland to visit a beautiful part of our country and increase the impact of the significant investment that has already been made in the area.
Since the community purchase of the island estate, Stòras Uibhist, in partnership with Western Isles Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Government, has directly secured more than £20 million of investment from the public and private sectors. The new service would provide a further, much-needed economic boost, and the Scottish Government would capitalise on its investment if it played a role in securing the new service for the area. The new service would also be important to the local fishing and fish farming industries in providing more routes to market.
We agree with the Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry group that the benefits of the new service are clear. That is why we are bewildered that it is not referred to in the ferry services draft plan, which refers to many other potential changes to ferry services, and that the case for the new route has not found favour with the Scottish ministers, particularly in light of statements by the SNP’s Angus Brendan MacNeil. Once again, in a ferries debate, I find myself quoting what he said, which is against the Scottish Government’s position:
“The need and case for a Mallaig to Lochboisdale ferry gets stronger each year”.
Dr Allan has participated in the debate to refer to the case that many of his constituents have made for the establishment of the service, but the amendment that he supports makes no commitment on that; it does not even provide for the establishment of a trial, for which Dr Allan and Mr MacNeil have previously announced their support. The SNP has a track record of warm words about a new service and failing to deliver.
Under the previous Scottish Executive, Alasdair Morrison and Tavish Scott held talks on the proposal. In the incoming SNP Government, Stewart Stevenson, as the responsible minister, indicated after dialogue with Peter Peacock that £1 million was available for a new service and invited a submission from Stòras Uibhist on the new route. The SNP then rafted back. It argued that a ferry was not available and then, as Rhoda Grant said, the £1 million disappeared when the community identified a vessel that could be used. The Scottish Government’s position is therefore extremely weak.
Whatever the Scottish Government’s amendment says about welcoming views on a new service, the draft ferry services plan makes it clear that it does not feature, despite there being many proposals for changes in ferry services elsewhere. Indeed, as Elaine Murray and Mary Scanlon have pointed out, paragraph 150 of the draft plan goes out of its way to state:
“We have considered whether a Mallaig to Lochboisdale service could become the principal route for the Uists and Benbecula.”
It goes on to rule that out in favour of the status quo. However, we are not calling for a replacement of the status quo; we are calling for a new, additional service.
The tack that the minister has taken ignores the fact that 83 per cent of residents in South Uist want shorter journey times, as the campaigners remind us. That response is despite the call for a new route being backed by representatives of all parties. We understood that Mike Russell supported the campaign as well, but he seems to have changed his mind. He seems to have been given to doing that recently.
Will the member give way?
No. There are things that Mr Russell needs to hear. I will continue.
We believe that it is very much worth the Scottish Government’s making a commitment to a Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service. [Interruption.]
Please allow the member to be heard.
It would be good if Mike Russell gained some consistency in his approach to politics for once.
If the Scottish Government is serious about ensuring that there is a clear focus on economic growth in our rural areas—we hope that it is, and Mike Russell should be serious about that—the initiative that we are discussing is exactly the kind of initiative that should be supported. It has the backing of the local authority and local residents. They have not simply given their voices to the campaign; they have delivered investment in their area, and through the community purchase of the island, Stòras Uibhist has shown its commitment to the welfare and future of its community. The Scottish Government should share that commitment. It is clear that there is widespread support for the service, and the opportunity is too important to be passed by for communities that need our support.
Earlier, Alex Neil said, “read my lips”. Members should remember what happened to the politician who said, “Read my lips”. If members are genuine about supporting a new ferry service, there is only one course of action. It is perfectly clear that they should vote for the Labour motion and a vital ferry service.