Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Official Report 1027KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

Ferries (Arran)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to ensure optimum ferry capacity to and from Arran, in light of reports that repairs to the MV Caledonian Isles are not expected to conclude before mid-June. (S6T-01818)

The delay involving the MV Caledonian Isles is regrettable, and I recognise the frustration that is felt by communities as a result.

The responsibility for operational decisions about ferry services lies with CalMac Ferries Ltd, as the operator. We expect it to work with advisers to ensure that repair work is progressed at pace. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport spoke yesterday with CalMac’s chief executive to convey her concern, and made it clear that everything must be done to address capacity and provide assurances for the Arran community and others across the network—in particular, as we look towards the Easter break and beyond.

The MV Isle of Arran is operating from Ardrossan, and additional sailings continue via the island’s secondary route between Claonaig and Lochranza. No capacity issues are reported at this time.

The minister is fully aware of the impact on Arran and Ardrossan of numerous cancellations due to weather, mechanical breakdown and fender repairs, together with the permanent closure by Peel Ports of Ardrossan’s Irish berth and the subsequent removal of the MV Alfred by CalMac.

Ardrossan to Brodick is CalMac’s busiest route, yet it is being serviced by the 40-year-old MV Isle of Arran alone. Given that Easter is on the horizon, the loss of the MV Caledonian Isles could not have come at a worse time for Arran’s economy. Right now, islanders need certainty. What reassurance can the minister provide to Arranachs and prospective visitors that the capacity that he said is not a problem at the moment will not be a problem during the Easter holidays?

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has committed to engaging directly with the communities that have been impacted. She met the Isle of Arran ferry committee last week, and she thanks Mr Gibson for his part in organising that event. At that meeting, she agreed to impress on CalMac the need for capacity to be in place for the Easter holidays. She has done so this week, and will continue to do so.

We are pushing CalMac to ensure that it has in place a robust contingency plan to maximise capacity with available vessels, and that it can clearly communicate that the island remains open for business across that period.

The cabinet secretary is currently travelling back from a visit to the Western Isles, where she met local communities and port and ferry staff.

I thank the minister for that answer. Of course, people cannot book until at least 4 March, when the new travel times are in place, because of the situation with the MV Caledonian Isles and the late decision for it to be sent down south for work to be done.

The coming disruption and fleet reshuffling are likely to be the first major test of CalMac’s route prioritisation framework since it was overhauled last October. Can the minister confirm that the appalling service that Arran has endured in recent months will be considered? In addition, can he say whether the increased risk of cancellations and divergence resulting from issues at Ardrossan harbour will be factored into vessel deployment decisions, with ways being found to expedite the MV Glen Sannox entering service on the ferry network at the earliest possible opportunity

As ministers requested following service disruption last year, CalMac has reviewed its route prioritisation matrix for the major vessel fleet, with the support of the ferries community board. Following public consultation, CalMac has made a number of changes to its prioritisation approach, including placing more emphasis on the level of use by island residents and commercial vehicles, along with higher prioritisation for routes with limited capacity on alternative services. I fully expect that to be applied by CalMac when it considers the deployment options.

The plans and the timing for introducing the MV Glen Sannox to service will be kept under review as we progress through the build completion, handover and operation trials process. The trials are required in order to meet Maritime and Coastguard Agency and other requirements and, ultimately, to provide safe and efficient services for our island communities

The minister said that the situation is “regrettable”. That is surely an understatement: it is catastrophic. The island is now being serviced by one vessel that is more than four decades old. If it breaks down, what else is there? The problem is that CalMac will need to take another ferry off another island route, thereby pitting one island against another. That is shambolic.

I ask directly: is the Scottish Government willing to put up its purse and give compensation to businesses that are losing money hand over fist day in and day out, right now? Will it also stand up and apologise to the people of Arran for the absolutely shambolic handling of the entire ferry fiasco over which the minister’s party, and his Government, has presided?

The issues around compensation have, understandably and rightly, been raised with the Government many a time. I have looked into the penalty deductions that are made in relation to failures on the network, and the view is that we should continue to use that money to reinvest in the ferry network. There is a legitimate goal regarding use of those deductions, but the best use of that money is to reinvest it back in the network.

I have previously noted the calls for business support, but any such scheme would need to be carefully considered and would require that stark choices be made about funding priorities, set against efforts to provide resilience in the network.

The cabinet secretary and ministers are due to meet to discuss those wider issues in respect of island business resilience.

The minister will be aware of the appalling implications for Arran resulting from the continuing failure to provide a regular Brodick-Ardrossan service. The MV Caledonian Isles has been out of service since early January and—as has been said—the MV Alfred can no longer be used on the route, so we are reliant on the 40-year-old MV Isle of Arran.

Does the minister accept that that is an inevitable problem of having an ageing fleet as a result of past failure to invest? Indeed, the failure to make progress at Ardrossan harbour is coming home to roost. We need much more robust resilience strategies, and the Scottish Government needs to be centrally involved in that provision.

I do not think that there is any doubt that the Arran community has been impacted. I spoke to businesses this morning and am quite sure that the cabinet secretary is working with them regularly and engaging with them fully. I am hearing from businesses in the community that they are very pleased with the response that they are getting from the cabinet secretary. I am convinced that she will find the solutions that we need in order to move forward.

Unfortunately, withdrawal of the MV Caledonian Isles comes at a crucial time, as we approach the busier summer timetable period. Communities across the network are anxiously awaiting an update on deployment proposals for all CalMac’s other major vessels while the MV Caley Isles is out of action. Can the minister assure my constituents that no island community will be forced to bear the brunt of that disruption in the weeks to come?

As I have already said, the cabinet secretary met CalMac yesterday to convey her concern and to ensure that it has a robust contingency plan in place to maximise capacity with the available vessels, and to ensure continued provision of lifeline services across the network.

At the request of ministers, CalMac has made a number of changes to its prioritisation approach, including placing more emphasis on the level of use by island residents and commercial vehicles, along with higher prioritisation for routes with limited capacity on alternative services. I fully expect that approach to be applied by CalMac when it considers deployment options.

---

Police Scotland (Response to Crime)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Police Scotland’s proportionate response to crime pilot, in which not all reported crimes were investigated, is to be extended across Scotland. (S6T-01830)

At a meeting of the Scottish Police Authority last week, the chief constable stated that the north-east pilot was about ensuring a proportionate approach to policing. Deputy Chief Constable Malcolm Graham outlined preliminary findings, with a full evaluation to be presented to the Scottish Police Authority in the near future. Any decision on whether the pilot will be extended more widely is for Police Scotland, with oversight and scrutiny to be provided by the SPA. Public confidence will be key to that process.

Officers in the north-east will continue to investigate all reported crimes. That means that all reports will be recorded using the THRIVE model, which involves assessing threat, harm, risk, investigative opportunity, vulnerability and engagement. Police Scotland remains focused on keeping communities safe from harm.

The Scottish National Party Government might not want to listen to Opposition members, but it should listen to Scotland’s police officers. The Scottish Police Federation could not be clearer about this surrender to criminals, which its chair says

“is being driven purely by finance and not by basic policing principles”.

Its general secretary revealed that it had not even been consulted on the policy being extended across Scotland. He said:

“The public have been let down.”

He is absolutely right. Will the cabinet secretary disclose how many crimes were not investigated in the pilot and how many more she expects will not be investigated across Scotland?

I do all members and all stakeholders the courtesy of listening to their viewpoints. It is a shame that that is not always replicated, in that the narrative from some misconstrues the pilot, which is regrettable.

I emphasise again what the chief constable said to the board and to observers—that the policy is not about non-investigation. Police Scotland has been clear that it will continue to investigate all crimes that are reported.

Every crime will be subject to an individual assessment. If there are no proportionate lines of inquiry and if there is no risk and no threat, a report will be filed and a crime reference number issued but, unless there is further evidence or information, there will be no further action. It is important to remember that, at the end of the day, the public want quick and proportionate responses, bearing it in mind that the changing demands on our society, changes in crime and the changing demands on our police force necessitate that.

I really do not think that the Scottish Police Federation is misconstruing the terms of the policy—I am surprised to hear the cabinet secretary suggesting that. Police officers and the public have absolutely no idea what crimes will not be investigated. That is exactly what is happening, no matter how it is spun. The pilot scheme’s evaluation report is also being kept secret. Will the cabinet secretary explain what crimes she considers to be sufficiently minor to be in effect decriminalised?

It is Mr Findlay who misconstrues the pilot and deliberately misconstrues my words to the Parliament. I have to be clear with him that public confidence in the pilot and in the decision making about it, which is still to take place, is crucial, and that is why there is a robust evaluation process. If Mr Findlay had listened to the commentary and the contribution of the deputy chief constable at the SPA meeting, he would be aware that the policy is about having a proportionate response to each and every crime. We surely do not expect police officers to pursue a line of inquiry if there is no line of inquiry to pursue. It is a shame that Mr Findlay continues to blister the importance of the approach, as it is about ensuring that we have public confidence, that we respond proportionately to each and every crime and that we work together to keep Scotland safe.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the approach seeks to ensure a proportionate and appropriate response so that, where there are no lines of inquiry, information is recorded but no further action taken, which enables officers to concentrate on more serious crimes where there are opportunities for detection? Does she agree that it is important to reassure the public that, when evidence subsequently comes to light, the matter will be investigated?

To be clear, there are occasions when reported crimes have no associated threat, risk, harm or vulnerability involved, and no proportionate lines of inquiry for police officers to investigate. I repeat that Police Scotland has been very clear that, when reported crimes have proportionate lines of inquiry—including those that arise after a crime has been reported—they will be investigated, as has always been the case. Deputy Chief Constable Malcolm Graham said:

“If there are no lines of inquiry that can be pursued, then we shouldn’t be, in some ways, setting up an expectation of ... things that police can do”

when

“we can’t”.

I note that the preliminary findings that Deputy Chief Constable Graham outlined at the SPA meeting included the point that about 5 per cent of calls taken by Police Scotland fell into that category.

It will be interesting to see whether the pilot approach has public confidence. One essential question is who arbitrates on whether a response is proportionate. How can the cabinet secretary ignore the Police Federation, which said that the policy

“sets a dangerous precedent and we should be very careful”?

Is this a slippery slope? If such crimes are not investigated, how do we know that other crimes will continue to be investigated? How can the cabinet secretary be sure that the policy has public confidence?

That is a very important part of the evaluation process. The measures will be scrutinised robustly and thoroughly by the oversight group that the Scottish Police Authority has set up. The chair of the Scottish Police Authority will chair that group, which will examine many factors, at the core of which will be public confidence.

I repeat: surely we cannot expect police officers to pursue lines of inquiry where no lines of inquiry exist. We will all want to see the full report along with the full evaluation but, as I said in my reply to Audrey Nicoll, the preliminary, summary findings say that less than 5 per cent of calls taken by Police Scotland fell into that category.

Former superintendent Martin Gallagher has described Police Scotland’s decision not to tackle minor crime as “disastrous”. That could include crimes such as vandalism, break-ins and antisocial behaviour in our communities. We often hear that levels of crime are falling, but it is estimated that 60 per cent of crime is unreported. How can the Scottish Government ensure that it is being tough on criminals when it is letting some away without investigation?

To say that the police do not pursue lines of inquiry where they exist is a serious slur against policing in Scotland. We all have a shared endeavour, and I accept the scrutiny and the challenge. I accept that every member in the Parliament has an interest in ensuring that our communities are safe. Police Scotland investigates a massive range of crimes, from those that some of us may consider to be less serious to those that are of the utmost seriousness. We should look carefully at the pilot, but we should look first and foremost at the facts and the evidence.

I thank the cabinet secretary for confirming that Police Scotland has always stated, as the chief constable has confirmed, that officers in the north-east continue to investigate all crimes that are reported, and that the service remains focused on keeping communities safe from harm. Will the cabinet secretary provide an explanation of the THRIVE assessments that were carried out on crime reports?

The THRIVE model is not new. It was rolled out as part of the contact assessment model in 2021 to ensure that all callers receive an appropriate response and that incidents are properly prioritised. Handlers consider the six key factors of threat, harm, risk, investigative opportunity, vulnerability and engagement for each call that is received, and if an immediate or prompt police response is required, the call is passed to the area control room and the most suitably located, skilled and equipped police officers will be dispatched. If the call does not require an immediate response, it will be passed to a specialist team of officers and staff for further assessment. In its 2022 assurance review of Police Scotland’s contact assessment model, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland noted that the THRIVE model was helping to determine the most appropriate response to reported incidents.

The cabinet secretary has referred on many occasions to the importance of public confidence, but it is not clear from her responses to date how public confidence will be assessed. Will she provide more detail on that and on engagement with victims groups, which will have a clear view on the approach’s effectiveness?

That point is important. I expect that the evaluation and the full report will clearly address public confidence and feedback from the communities that we all seek to represent.

That concludes topical questions.