Chamber and committees

The report stipulates that, by 2030, all 3,800 buses that were manufactured prior to 2015 must have been scrapped or repowered if we are to meet the 2030 targets. I press the minister further on a clear commitment to link the opportunities with Scotland’s manufacturing industries, so that we reap the benefits. Just two years ago, the Caley railway works in Springburn closed, while the Scottish Government stood by, glaikitly doing nothing. Can the minister now commit to building all those buses in Scotland and restarting train building, in the way that the Welsh Labour Government has done in Wales?

It is encouraging to hear that 12 to 15-year-olds across mainland Scotland will be permitted to attend vaccination clinics as of tomorrow to receive their first jag. However, other parts of the UK are promoting vaccinations in schools themselves, which appears to be a sensible method of getting most young people rapidly vaccinated. Will the First Minister consider consulting health boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to see whether it is practical to introduce vaccinations in schools in a similar way to BCG and HPV vaccination programmes?

Climate change is the biggest threat that we face as a society. As we all know, the COP26 climate conference will come to Glasgow in just six weeks’ time. It will, I hope, act as the catalyst for a new climate agreement, for bolder and more ambitious carbon reduction targets, and for the ratification of our transition to a future in which renewables are at the heart of our energy supply mix.

That being said, although we should be heralding a new dawn of renewable technologies with the benefits that they bring, I fear that we have missed the greatest opportunity to be presented to us in generations, because of the loss of the skills and industrial base that are required to capitalise on our natural assets. For years, we have watched wind farms appear on the horizon while jobs disappear into the sunset. We see examples of that across the board, with offshore behemoths such as the Neart na Gaoithe wind farm off the coast of Fife having been manufactured largely in Indonesia, while the Harland and Wolff yard in Methil—just 10 miles away—receives a subcontract for just 15 per cent of the steel jacket foundations that are needed. The 54 highly complex Siemens Gamesa turbines will be manufactured entirely abroad.

There has been a failure of public planning and a tacit acceptance that market forces will continue to dictate our renewables future. There is a mentality that is hard-wired into the civil service and all levels of government, which is why there is no fit-for-purpose industrial strategy. There is no plan to combine decarbonisation with opportunity, energy security with financial certainty, or untapped potential with economic prosperity. It is tragic to watch skilled workers broken in the face of that. I witnessed it at the Caley railway works in Springburn just two years ago, and now Scotland—once the world’s largest manufacturer of locomotives—has no domestic capability to build and maintain its own trains.

Until we reach a point at which we can say to everyone in this country that they will genuinely benefit from our transition to a green economy, we will fail to take them with us. That is why we need the state-owned energy company that the Government promised before scrapping it, and it is why we need to stop offshoring industrial manufacturing and technology contracts for renewables projects in Scotland. That should have been done years ago, but inaction, lack of imagination, and absence of ambition have led us to where we are today.

It is a lack of imagination that sees Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government about to blindly spend hundreds of millions of pounds on reconstructing concrete M8 viaducts that have scarred central Glasgow for 50 years at the expense of new active travel routes in the city. Just think of the message that that sends to the world in the year of COP26: the largest infrastructure spend in the city in decades will be the propping up and repairing of a defunct motorway. Why not spend that money on greener alternatives, especially when no new railway lines have been constructed in Glasgow during the past 15 years of this Government? We are now at the absurd point at which ScotRail is cutting 300 services a day from its timetable, and the cabinet secretary is scratching his head and wondering why more people are using their cars.

We need a Government with ambition that matches the scale of the challenges that we face, that is willing to face down global market forces and say, “Enough,” and that commits to an industrial strategy with workers and communities at its heart. We need a Government that provides everyone with the opportunity to benefit from our transition to renewables. Is this Government up to that challenge?

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

The cabinet secretary notes the significant pressures that the health service faces in the current situation. He may have noticed the particular case of Brian Sneddon in today’s Daily Record. The case relates to ambulance services. Brian suffered a stroke last week but was left in his house for more than two hours. His son and his son’s cousin eventually had to drive Mr Sneddon to the hospital. Because he did not get treatment within four hours of suffering a stroke, he now faces a far more complex journey to rehabilitation, which in turn creates further long-term costs and pressures for the NHS.

I urge the cabinet secretary specifically to examine ambulance responses to urgent cases such as those of stroke victims. I do not think that there is much that he can say to assuage the suffering of Brian and his family as a result of the complexities that he now faces, but the situation is particularly problematic and we must get on top of it quickly.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks to all colleagues across the chamber who supported the motion for debate today. I declare an interest as a member of Unite and GMB Scotland, both of which are fighting relentlessly to protect as many jobs as they can.

The struggle that is faced by the workers at McVitie’s in the east end of Glasgow echoes the struggle of so many skilled industrial workers in Scotland over the past 50 years. From Michelin Tyres in Dundee to the Caley railway works in Glasgow, it is a grimly familiar story of an overseas owner asset stripping Scotland’s industrial base. However, as in so many other cases, closure is far from inevitable, and this Parliament, founded in the face of such struggles, has a duty to prevent it going the same way as so many other proud Scottish industries and brands.

The workforce is highly dedicated, talented and loyal. They are a workforce rooted in their local community who are incredibly proud of the work and the history, which extends back through generations of families to the foundation of MacFarlane Lang’s bakery in the Gallowgate two centuries ago, building a brand that is famous the world over. They are a credit to their community, and they should be extremely proud of their conduct throughout this period of distressing uncertainty.

We saw what the plant and its employment meant to the local community in the immediate aftermath of Pladis’s closure announcement in May. They sprang into action and, to date, their petition to save nearly 500 jobs has amassed more than 75,000 signatures.

To be fair, the Scottish Government is to be commended for at least setting up the action group that has developed the counter proposal with Scottish Enterprise and the Interpath consultancy as an alternative to the end of McVitie’s production in Scotland. It engaged with the relevant trade unions and agencies and put together a viable and credible alternative.

The blame for the closure lies squarely with Turkish-owned multinational Pladis, which took control of McVitie’s and the wider United Biscuits group in 2014. However, the Scottish Government is far from having exhausted all options at its disposal.

Pladis and its parent company, Yildiz Holdings, are classic examples of the unacceptable face of capitalism, loading their acquired companies with debt while extracting profits and running their assets down in a programme of managed decline.

I have long argued that Scotland, and Britain as a whole, must have an industrial strategy that protects home-grown brands from takeovers by asset-stripping overseas predators, and the situation at McVitie’s in Glasgow is just the latest example that proves exactly why that must now be a priority.

As far as I am concerned, Pladis’s conduct amounts to industrial vandalism, which will inflict misery on a working-class community that simply cannot afford it. The east end of Glasgow already has an unemployment rate that is almost double the national average. The latest available figures show that more than 5,000 people in the area claim unemployment benefits. We now face the prospect of another 500 being added to that figure, and it is not just 500 workers in isolation but 500 families who now face uncertainty. It is absolutely shameful.

While the executives at Pladis were planning to wield the axe at the Tollcross plant, forcing hundreds on to the dole, they enjoyed a record turnover of £2 billion with profits amounting to £154 million. Is anyone really going to argue that any of that would have been possible without the dedicated and skilled workforce that they are now abandoning?

The counter proposal robustly addresses the company’s justification for closing Tollcross—a high cost per tonne and low volume relative to production capacity across the United Kingdom. The proposal centres around a purpose-built, state-of-the-art 250,000 square foot factory on Government-owned land at nearby Gartcosh, giving Pladis a blueprint to develop a new, highly efficient factory system in the future to replace what is admittedly an aged portfolio of seven production sites acquired by United Biscuits over the years.

The problem is who is going to pay for it. That is where my praise for the Scottish Government is not quite so forthcoming. Last month, the company rejected the counter proposal, meaning that we are now essentially in a stand-off situation. The company wants to know who will pay for the proposal, while the Scottish Government wants to know that Pladis is committed to maintaining a presence in Scotland before it will commit to detailed financing arrangements. For as long as that boardroom stand-off continues, 500 families are left in the lurch.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the company is not going to budge, which is why I implore the Scottish Government to put its cards on the table and take a lead. Do I think that the counter proposal is credible? Yes, I do. Do I think that the Scottish Government genuinely wants to save these jobs? Yes, I do. Do I think that it has exhausted all the options available? No, I do not.

Last night, the Scottish Government claimed that Pladis had given no indication that financial assistance and state aid would change its approach. In response, I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy a simple question: has the Scottish Government, in negotiations, explicitly said to Pladis that it would provide the capital funding to build the new factory? If not, why not?

Pladis operates sale-and-lease-back arrangements for a number of its sites in Chiswick, High Wycombe and Carlisle. The assertion that it is not open to that financing structure is unconvincing and does not stand up to scrutiny. Frankly, we need more from the Scottish Government. Today, therefore, I once more ask it to commit to funding the counter proposal. Let us save those jobs and not add McVitie’s to the growing list of brands lost because of Scotland’s lack of an industrial strategy.

I thank Angela Constance for her statement today. She announced some constructive measures, particularly around benzodiazepines, which, as we know, have been a key driver in the tragic increase in deaths. What approaches is the minister considering, particularly around policing? In different parts of the UK, in particular in the Thames Valley and the West Midlands, the police and crime commissioners have led good innovations to adopt more enlightened methods of policing. With political leadership from the justice secretary and others in the Government, we should force Police Scotland to look at that approach more seriously, because, in England, police and crime commissioners have shown the way, including—as the minister mentioned—around drug testing. In Bristol, that has progressed with the Loop project, which has been really successful on the ground. Will the minister consider looking at those benchmarking opportunities and perhaps leading more active delegations, including MSPs, to those places of innovation, so that we can learn from them?

I rise to speak to amendment 11. Following amendment 26, which I spoke to yesterday, I am disappointed in what the Government has presented at stage 3. I took the Government’s commitments in good faith, so it is not good enough that trade unions and bus operator reform are not even mentioned in the bill.

The way in which the proposed legislation has been brought forward in the past week, before summer recess, has been extremely rushed. That has made scrutiny and the chance of effecting meaningful change near impossible.

We have opportunities to harness the allocation of vast state support for the private sector as a means of achieving better social and economic outcomes, yet, shamefully, it seems as though the Government is willing to miss out on those opportunities. Private bus companies in Scotland receive an average of £314 million every year in public subsidy, which is 45 per cent of their annual revenues, and the Scottish Government has given private bus companies an additional £200 million of grants in the past year alone. That is an obscene amount of cash from the public sector in return for a disproportionately priced and inadequate service.

Amendment 11 meets with the established mission of the Parliament.

If only that was always the case—it is not the experience in Glasgow. We would certainly be able to level up—to quote a phrase—if we had proper franchising measures in place.

It is fair to say that amendment 11 matches this Parliament’s established mission in relation to both Government policy and legislation that is already on the statute book. There is no ground for ministers to reject it on that basis. In 2018, the then transport minister, Humza Yousaf, said:

“This Government will not stand by as bus passenger numbers decline.”

In that case, why has the number of bus journeys in Scotland decreased by 12 per cent over the past five years and why did bus passengers experience a 9 per cent increase in fares over and above inflation between 2015 and 2019?

Greater Manchester’s new approach means that fares, timetables and routes will be set by the regional transport authority instead of by private companies, but private operators may still be able to continue running services under a franchising system.

I recognise that it is important not to make the perfect the enemy of the good and to benchmark against best-practice regions such as Greater Manchester. In the spirit of maximising the chance for us to move forward in this area, I have therefore adjusted my amendment from yesterday to simply require ministers to consult private bus companies and local authorities on the potential of regional franchising as a condition of future financial support from the state.

Scotland has the powers to follow that example. We secured amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill in 2019 in order to allow that. However, on 2 June this year, a Scottish Government answer to a freedom of information request clarified that no discussion or communication had taken place between Transport Scotland and local authorities in relation to funding for franchising. The minister was reported as saying:

“I can confirm no discussion or communication has taken place between Transport Scotland and local authorities in relation to funding for franchising, public ownership or BSIPs”

—that is, bus service improvement partnerships.

Instead of giving no-strings grant-based funds to private bus providers and facilitating a bus service that is ever more overpriced and fragmented, the Government has an opportunity through my amendment to use the massive allocations of public subsidies to drive forward what the Parliament agreed and legislated for in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2009, and deliver a franchising system in every region of Scotland that will underpin a public bus service that is fit for purpose.

Amendment 11 would allow us to take that basic step forward. Surely there is no reasonable basis on which to reject the initiating of consultation with local authorities, bus companies and regional transport authorities in order to prepare the ground on this important issue, especially with such vast sums of public money being pumped into private bus companies. We cannot continue to socialise losses and privatise profits.

On the point that has been raised about trade unions, I note that the First Minister said in her speech to the Scottish Trades Union Congress in 2019:

“The Scottish Government recognises the value of everything the trade union movement does for Scotland. You are fundamental to the fairer Scotland that we all want to see ... Increasing collective bargaining in Scotland is not just a trade union objective. It is a national objective.”

If the Scottish Government holds workers’ rights and the role of trade unions in such high regard, it is surely a commonsense step for it to support my amendment, which would require it to consult businesses that receive support from the state on increasing trade union recognition. The Labour Government in Wales is already taking that step and it is not unreasonable to ask the Scottish Government to do it, too. Even the Pope has said that efforts to rebuild economies after Covid-19 must aim at a future with

“decent and dignified working conditions”

by giving workers the right to organise in trade unions. On pain of excommunication, perhaps, members might consider supporting the proposal in the chamber today.

In summation, my point is that, instead of allocating funds on an ad hoc basis, we should consider how we can condition the support to achieve better social and economic outcomes, not just over the next six months under the pandemic but in the long term. We have taken that approach before in the face of national crises, when we have used it as an opportunity to underpin major reform.

Will the member give way?