Chamber and committees

I thank Stephen Kerr for securing this debate about roads in my constituency and other areas of Falkirk. I welcome his agreement with the ambition that is set out in the Scottish Government’s programme for government to make a move towards national 20mph limits where appropriate.

First, I would like to put on the record my condolences to the friends and family of the, as yet, unnamed victim in a road traffic accident in Grandsable Road, which is also in my constituency.

We should bear in mind that the motion speaks to only two areas within a network of nearly 1,000km of carriageways and over 1,700km of footpaths, cycleways and other structures. All of those are the responsibility of Falkirk Council, while our national Parliament is responsible for national strategy. I am sure that we will hear more on that from the minister in due course. I also note that local councils already have powers to make decisions on speed limits, acknowledging local circumstances.

I will make a few remarks about the local issues contained in the motion. I am grateful to Councillor Laura Murtagh, a well-kent face in Airth and an extremely hardworking councillor, for all her efforts over a sustained period. Likewise, I am grateful to Councillor Gordon Hughes for his efforts in the Upper Braes over many years. They and other Scottish National Party councillors have been at the forefront of activities to ensure that community needs are listened to and addressed.

In the case of Airth and the A905, it is a matter of public record that Falkirk Council has undertaken numerous investigations into issues that have been reported about speed and other road-related concerns raised by local residents. Those issues have been assessed in line with advice and guidance on road safety. The investigations are publicly available and I will happily share them with my constituents and with Stephen Kerr, to ensure that he, too, is up to speed.

Alas, the available evidence does not support the introduction of a 20mph zone along that stretch of road in Airth—it is recommended neither by Police Scotland policy nor by the national guidance. Although a 20mph zone might initially appear as a natural bonus to road safety, if it is unenforceable and in an inappropriate place without the corresponding road architecture to support it, drivers might be unlikely to observe it, which could ironically increase the danger to pedestrians.

The character of the road at Airth introduces an additional consideration, in that it runs adjacent to a stone wall and only one side of the road has a pavement. The passing of larger vehicles thus gives a feeling of being hemmed in. [Interruption.] The member should try to visit Airth sometime.

Local SNP councillors have led on exploring options for alternative pedestrian routes through the adjacent housing estate, and on securing agreement with some local heavy goods vehicles companies to limit their speed to 20mph when passing through the village. It was also local SNP councillors who helped to implement a spaces for people entirely closed road space in Airth.

Mr Kerr quoted a letter from the council that references Shieldhill Road. In summary, the letter notes that police records suggest that, of the three accidents that have occurred on Shieldhill Road in the past 10 years, confidence that vehicle speed was a contributory factor was noted as no more than possible in only one. That leads me to a key point. Although it is not my responsibility to act but that of Falkirk Council, it will act based on gathered evidence.

Everyone wants measures that will improve road safety. I understand that Falkirk Council roads officers are preparing a report under instruction from Councillor Paul Garner, Falkirk Council’s spokesperson for the environment. The purpose of that report is to consider the approach towards implementing a 20mph speed limit in some towns and villages in the Falkirk Council area.

The recommendations will be evidence based and consider increasing road safety for pedestrians and drivers, through local knowledge, in order to improve the lives of people, promote active and sustainable travel, climate change mitigation and place making.

It is difficult to imagine that any rational person with a commitment to Scotland could possibly object to the Government motion. Predictably, we can therefore rely on the opposition of the Tories.

If the introduction by the UK Government of a shared prosperity fund and a so-called levelling up agenda signals anything, it is a recognition of the historic and systemic failure of successive UK Governments’ economic decision making. The funds are to be placed not under the control of the nations of the UK that are directly responsible to the people who elect them but under the control of the very institutions of the UK state that have created the failures in the first place. You could not make it up.

Bringing in funding to deliberately bypass this establishment reveals a political motive. Make no mistake: the aim is to undermine the role of the democratically elected Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, and thereby the rights of the Scottish people. The motive is clear: to undermine Scotland’s democracy.

I think that the member missed the point about the say that our democratically elected Scottish Government had in that.

The levelling up fund will ostensibly be allocated on the basis of need. However, the definition of need that it uses was developed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for England without any consultation with the Scottish Government.

The first stage of prioritisation is based on an index that is made up of three components: productivity, unemployment and skills. However, those weightings take no account of national variations. It is incredible that the same weightings apply to the City of London, my constituency of Falkirk East and even our unique Scottish islands.

The second stage of needs assessment focuses on transport connectivity. One might imagine that transport connectivity would be particularly helpful for Scotland’s island and rural communities, but the assessment uses data only for England. As the Fraser of Allander Institute points out,

“Failure to integrate connectivity data from Scotland has contributed to Orkney, Shetland and the Highlands being placed in the category least likely to benefit from the fund alongside areas such as the City of London.”

How on earth can a so-called levelling up fund that ignores data from Scotland, is based on criteria determined by England’s housing ministry and ignores the economic and other policies enacted by the Scottish Parliament be seen as anything other that a direct attack on the democratic institutions and rights of the Scottish people.

I turn to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Not only did Brexit mark a turning point by taking Scotland out of Europe against our wishes, it also enables direct UK Government action in economic development, infrastructure, cultural activities and sport. Do not just take my word for it, though. The Fraser of Allander Institute notes:

“This approach has been made possible by the Internal Market Act which provides a new means for the UK government to allocate spending in the devolved territories to areas which had previously been thought to be the purview of the devolved governments.”

Without agreement or permission, the UK Government’s power grab enables explicit powers to bypass the Barnett formula and directly spend in areas in which previously EU funding was allocated to projects by our Scottish Government. That is more than a failure of democracy and more than a demonstrable failure that there is no partnership of equals—it is a clear demonstration that power devolved is power retained and that power can and has been removed.

None of the above can be confused with the national strategy, which is the job of this Parliament to determine. I draw the attention of all to the programme for government, which notes that

“all appropriate roads in built-up areas”

should

“have a safer speed limit of 20 mph by 2025”.

I will direct my opening question to Chris Brodie. I was heartened to read the submission from Skills Development Scotland, because it makes clear the differences between skills gaps, skills shortages and labour shortages. In my opinion, such distinctions are vital if we are to understand the people element of supply chains.

We have already started to explore skills gaps and shortages, and other members might want to ask about those issues. I want to talk about labour shortages. In your submission, you note that labour shortages occur due to there being too few bodies, which could be down to issues of demographics, economic inactivity or reduced inward migration.

I want to understand, on an evidential basis, the specific impact that demographics and a lack of inward migration are having, and which issues that can be perceived as structural we need to address. I would like to know where we are right now, and I have another question about where we will be in the future. What is your opinion on where we are now, and on why we are there?

Lastly, I am sure that the B word—Brexit—might come into it, but I want to understand whether, without inward migration, we can have enough bodies in Scotland.

In that case, I will move on to my other area of questioning. I have read the excellent report that Paul Little produced with Audrey Cumberford, and I have a couple of questions about it.

You make a very clear case for focusing on excellence rather than competence and, with regard to WorldSkills, I understand that, as well as being a competition, it develops international standards and therefore enables international benchmarking and increases the competitiveness of the contributing countries. Is that correct? Can you tell us more about the thinking behind the move from competence to excellence that you outline in your report with Audrey Cumberford?

Yes. I want us to be very specific about the difference between skills gaps, skills shortages and labour shortages, and to understand where we are now with structural issues as far as labour shortages are concerned. As a result, it would be helpful to get on the record and in evidence what you are actually seeing in your area.

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Perhaps Richard McClelland can add to what Chris Brodie has said by giving us an industry perspective, particularly with regard to demographics and labour shortages.

My question follows on from the theme of the role of women and was triggered by Chris Brodie talking about economically inactive workers in his opening remarks. Here is another question about numbers: what percentage of the economically inactive population is made up of women? To what extent do all panel members routinely disaggregate the data that they collect so that they understand the particular impacts on women in the labour market?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My application failed. I would have voted yes.