Chamber and committees

In structuring the tendering procedure for phase 2 of the small vessel replacement programme, would the cabinet secretary consider ensuring that there is a minimum social value weighting of at least 10 per cent, in line with procurement practices in other parts of the United Kingdom? If so, would that weighting be likely to include a UK work share in the contract? Will the cabinet secretary also think about whether we can structure shipyards or shipbuilding facilities in Scotland as common user facilities, so that any tenderer, anywhere in the world, can include in their bid an intention to use a UK or Scottish shipyard for the purpose of fulfilling the contract?

I thank the minister for giving way—she has been very generous with her time. I note her point about extending advice to public authorities, which is very welcome. She mentioned removing existing benefits from the list. If a new piece of legislation, even emergency legislation, were to be introduced to counter the extreme destitution—some people have less than £40 a week—a proactive measure by the Home Office or the UK Government would be needed to interdict that, which is unlikely. Will the minister look to test that in the near future?

Will the minister commit to progressing the Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Council project for offshore support vessels and crew transfer vessels, which is a shipbuilding opportunity for Scotland, as well as the Malin and Star Refrigeration B-Neatpump renewables project, which shows great potential for significant maritime manufacturing and shipbuilding in Scotland?

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I commend Ms Chapman, a member for North East Scotland, for lodging the motion for this members’ business debate. It is great to see Beth Watts-Cobbe and Jen Ang in the gallery. I thank them and their colleagues for their excellent research, which informs the public debate in Scotland. We heard about that ably last night at the cross-party group on migration, where the issues were discussed at some length.

This is a multifaceted challenge, and it is one of the biggest public health policy challenges in Scotland today. As has been mentioned by members across the chamber, that is the case largely by design, which is a moral stain on our country that we really need to deal with.

I am familiar with no recourse to public funds, given that, as an MP and MSP, I have represented 95 per cent of the people who are seeking asylum in Scotland in Glasgow, with the balance being distributed to other local authorities in Scotland since 2022, when the dispersal area was expanded. I am sure that, as a member in the city, the minister is aware that it is a major issue in Glasgow, and one that we have to contend with in a number of ways.

One big challenge is the arbitrary nature of adding to no recourse to public funds, which creates a chilling effect. It is not simply about the list of prescribed funds; it is the fact that a culture of prohibition around NRPF has crept in across public authorities. There are many unlawful gatekeepers out there. Many people are acting ultra vires to prevent people from accessing services. We hear it from general practitioners, for example, when they refer patients to social services that are not given to them. That is unlawful. We need to take action across all public services in Scotland to make it clear what the line is on NRPF, where it is and where it is not, and what can be accessed, because there is a lot of confusion out there that is either caused deliberately or purely through ignorance. We need to make guidance much clearer across every level of government in Scotland.

I certainly associate myself with all five of the recommendations, but with the change in the Government, there is an opportunity to look at how we can ameliorate the effects of NRPF. There would be common cause on this side of the chamber, as well as with colleagues in the House of Commons, in trying to remove some of those funds from the NRPF list. Indeed, if new discrete funds were created that would not be countered proactively by the Home Office, it is worth testing that position. There would be a willingness to ally ourselves in that regard.

For example, I know that ministers were concerned that one of the effects of introducing free bus travel for people seeking asylum was the risk of the Home Office interdicting that with NRPF. I do not think that that is a live risk now. I am maybe creating a hostage to fortune in saying so, but there is an opportunity for the Government to introduce that through a statutory instrument, which would allow a more systemic approach to delivering that benefit to people in the asylum system.

I turn to the interface between the asylum system and our housing crisis in Glasgow. As members in the city will be aware, councillors declared a housing emergency in November 2023. We have seen a vast increase in the number of people who have been granted leave to remain presenting as homeless in Glasgow. I believe that there has been a 96 per cent increase in the past couple of years, which has put severe pressure on housing in the city. As of December, the number of homeless applications by refugees in the city stood at 2,753, and the number of refugee households in temporary accommodation was 2,179.

I urge the minister to consider how we can expand housing capacity in Glasgow. We have 2,600 long-term empty homes in Glasgow. We can make a greater effort in that regard and join up the policies. Let us look again at the asylum housing contracts and at how we take money from multinational rent-seekers and push it into housing investment. We can restructure that in a way that is positive and beneficial.

A contractual commitment of around £70 million remains outstanding on the Glasgow subway modernisation project, with the key milestone of achieving unattended train operation due by quarter 3 of 2026. Will the Scottish Government commit to ensuring that all capital works will be fully funded to achieve that milestone?

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s points regarding the provisions of the 1964 act, but could she also allude to the need for greater regulatory oversight of ports, particularly on things such as dredging and maintaining the navigation channel? Surely such activity is integral. Should that not be a legal obligation on harbour authorities to ensure that they are held to account for such fundamental things?

My friend has made very powerful points about the lack of accountability. Does she agree that one of the key challenges on the upper Clyde is the lack of regular dredging of the river? That has been the case for many years, and it is severely constraining navigation on the upper part of the river—it is, in effect, sterilising much of it for navigation.

I extend my congratulations to the member for Greenock and Inverclyde on securing this members’ business debate. It is an important issue, and I am sure that the minister will agree that it brings into sharp focus a public policy failure that has loomed large in the west of Scotland for the past 35 years.

The Ports Act 1991 was a disaster for the west of Scotland’s economy, and the surreptitious privatisation of what was a public body has presented long-term strategic, economic and social challenges for the development of the west of Scotland.

I had the opportunity to venture into the Clydeport building a few weeks ago to discuss some matters with Peel’s property side about development on Clydeside. I had the chance to pop my head into what was once the trustees’ chamber of the Clyde Navigation Trust building. The trust was a public body that was established under statute to democratically manage a public asset, the Clyde navigation, which is a man-made channel from Glasgow city centre down to the Firth of Clyde. It was also established to undertake port improvements, build shipbuilding facilities, enable trade and enable public access.

The reality is that it was privatised like something out of Yeltsin’s Russia. It was an appalling act of surreptitious privatisation of public assets. The continuing lack of regulation that prevails over port authorities in Scotland, particularly the private port authorities, is simply unsustainable. This is another symptom of the wider disease of public policy failure in Scotland.

The issue that we have to contend with is not simply the conservancy fee, although that is an example of the monopolistic behaviour that we have become all too familiar with in relation to the Clyde; it is a symptom of a wider lack of regulation and a lack of balance of control.

I offer the cabinet secretary the example of bus privatisation in the 1980s and the steps that have been taken by the Government to introduce greater regulatory scope to address the imbalance that it caused. Perhaps similar consideration could be given to how we can deal with port management in Scotland by introducing a similar process of greater public oversight, regulation and accountability for harbour and port authorities.

The process does not necessarily need to be the more extreme example of nationalising assets. It is about how we bring the assets under a greater degree of public control. That is what we all seek to achieve. Whether it is developing and maximising the opportunities of port infrastructure or facilitating democratic access to the river, it is important that we get this right.

I extend the point that was made by Mr Gibson about the sheer scale of the Clydeport area. It covers 450 square miles of the west of Scotland and it is the biggest harbour authority in the UK by a considerable distance. It is not just a contained port facility; it is a vast area of territory, extending from Glasgow Green and the Clyde tidal weir right down to the Isle of Arran.

As the cabinet secretary will be familiar with, the reality is that there is not much vibrancy or leisure traffic on the upper part of the Clyde beyond the Erskine bridge. One of the longer-term challenges is how we develop that vibrancy around the river if another charge is imposed without any commensurate development plan.

Where is the marina for Glasgow, for example? Liverpool has the Albert dock, with myriad pleasure craft and a vibrant riverfront. Glasgow has the Scottish exhibition and conference centre and Pacific Quay, but the area is a desert. Apart from the Waverley plying its lonely trade up and down the Clyde in the summer season, there is not very much else going on.

There is a broader concern in that regard. The port facilities are underutilised, and economic development on the river banks has not been achieved because of the monopolistic behaviour of the port authority. We are seeing a private tax being levied by the port authority on pleasure craft for no obvious benefit, and there is no clear plan for the development of infrastructure on the upper Clyde. If I were to take a small craft to the Riverside museum, I would pay an annual conservancy fee of £120, yet there is barely any berthage, and there are very few amenities there.

We really need to get a grip on the issue, as it is a bigger problem. As the member for Greenock and Inverclyde hinted, the Harbours Act 1964 is ripe for revision. In addition, consideration could be given to how, in addressing the issue, we extend greater public oversight and accountability, perhaps through the Clyde mission and Glasgow City Region programmes. We could also go back to the idea of having a Clyde Navigation Trust that is accountable to other public authorities along the river.

I welcome the response in relation to exploring the idea with the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust. It would be welcome if members of the Scottish Parliament and other devolved legislatures were able to participate in the programme. Given that it is governed by an independent board of trustees and funded largely from industry, that would not necessarily come at any cost to the Scottish Parliament, and it would provide an opportunity for members to augment the existing excellent and well-attended visits programme, which I have also had the opportunity to attend, with a deeper engagement with our armed forces.

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, further to the answer to question S6W-34464, what its position is on whether MSPs should be able to participate in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, in addition to the armed forces visits programme, should they wish to do so, in light of it being a structured 15-day course with one of the armed services, and it also offering the opportunity to enrol on a Royal College of Defence Studies postgraduate degree level course in strategic leadership and international strategic studies, and it therefore being different in nature. (S6O-04476)