Chamber and committees

I welcome this timely debate and the long-overdue publication of the project Neptune report. The further very serious revelations in the “Disclosure” programme that the Scottish Government did not stick to its own rules need to be responded to. A huge amount of public money has been squandered, and, of course, it is the taxpayer, islanders and people who rely on ferry services who are paying the price of the Scottish Government’s poor decision making and delays.

More than a decade ago, CalMac advised the Scottish Government that it would need to build a ferry every year just to stand still. That did not happen and, as a result, we have an ageing fleet that is increasingly unreliable. Sadly, the situation will only get worse. We need an emergency procurement plan from the Scottish Government. Despite repeated debates in the Parliament, a plan with an adequate ferry replacement programme has still not been presented.

I welcome that the Scottish Government has ruled out unbundling and privatisation, but it has not committed to an in-house permanent operation, and retendering still seems to be a possible route. I would be very grateful if the cabinet secretary would confirm whether that is the case, because decisions need to be made about tendering and the procurement of new ferries. Such issues were absent from the project Neptune report, and a clear direction of travel is needed urgently from the Scottish Government.

We know that our fleet is ageing. More than half of the 31 CalMac vessels are more than 25 years old, which is the age that ferries are expected to last.

As representatives in the Parliament, we know that it is the people who rely on those services and the communities in which they live that are paying the price every week.

We do not believe that the problem is ownership, and we do not believe that a competitive process on lifeline services will be the solution to the challenges that we face. We believe that we are in this situation now not because of the ownership model but because of a failure to recognise over a lengthy period—indeed, since the creation of the Scottish Parliament—that it is necessary to repeatedly procure new vessels. The Parliament needs to learn that lesson, and we need to accept our responsibility to ensure that the vessels are procured.

CalMac has looked at more than 130 vessels around the world with a view to bringing them in second-hand. It is clear that that is not the solution. We need a procurement policy that builds in Scotland, develops our industrial capacity and delivers for communities that rely on ferry services.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will give an update on the work to upgrade Ardrossan harbour. (S6O-01378)

The failure by the landowner, Peel Ports, to agree a deal that is acceptable to the public purse has led to a delay of over four years. In the meantime, islanders on Arran, those who use the ferry services, and the Ardrossan people and economy are suffering. Does the minister agree that enough is enough? Will the Scottish Government now take urgent and compulsory measures so that progress is made?

Will the member give way?

I know that the member has experience of another place. Does he not accept that all Governments do that? Although he is absolutely correct in what he is saying, does he accept that that is a feature of the executive and one that we collectively need to address?

I welcome the report and its recommendations on hybrid working and remote voting, which enable MSPs to better balance their responsibilities in the Parliament and in their constituencies and which support family-friendly practices. I agree with Rhoda Grant that fixed times for decision making help those who have caring responsibilities and help with meeting other commitments.

We should support the proposed pilot of proxy voting, particularly for members who are suffering from long-term illness, having an operation or taking maternity leave. I agree with Stephen Kerr that the member themselves should choose their proxy.

It is fair to say that the Parliament’s operation of remote voting during the pandemic maximised members’ participation in voting, which was not always the case in other Parliaments. The use of points of order when the technology failed was a feature that this Parliament used and other Parliaments did not always use. We need to incorporate scepticism and cynicism about the reliability of technology in our working patterns, because we are reliant on the technology that is available to us. I look forward to the day when we have the technology to make interventions possible in hybrid situations, which will make a considerable difference when a person who is participating virtually wants to intervene on someone who is contributing in the chamber.

Any move towards hybrid working must be made in a way that allows for effective scrutiny, so ministers and key witnesses should continue to need to be present in person to be scrutinised. It is worth noting that, although the proposals came out of consensus, many of the changes that the Parliament needs might not necessarily be fully agreed on and might not be the subject of consensus in the Parliament now. We need to debate how we ensure that this Parliament operates in a more effective way and we must listen to some of the criticisms that have been made, which have already been referred to today.

Wider changes are needed. We need to look at how we scrutinise legislation and at the quality of some of the legislation that the Parliament is asked to consider. We also need to look at why some people are calling for a second chamber to provide that scrutiny function. We need to take on board some of the criticisms that are made about the lack of spontaneity and about the increasing stage management and choreography. That is partly a result of the way we organise ourselves.

We are right to be positive about what is successful in this Parliament. Much of this culture is a massive step forward, but we also have to look at the criticisms. Therefore, I hope that we will look at the founding principles of this Parliament and at how we can, for example, improve freedom of information legislation, so that there is a presumption in favour of publication. I hope that we look at the rights of individual MSPs, at how this place operates, at how speakers are chosen and at how committees can be more effective.

I hope that the committee will look at those issues, that we have a transparent view of the Parliament’s processes and that these debates continue to happen.

It is a pleasure to congratulate Ruth Maguire on securing the debate and to congratulate and thank Jack Dickson, who I understand is a good comrade, for the research that has been involved in what is a chronicling of working-class history, for bringing the story to the Parliament and documenting the exploitative working conditions that existed in the plant and, unfortunately, in many workplaces throughout Ayrshire and Scotland where there was brutal and grinding poverty. The health and safety concerns that existed then are, thankfully, more serious than those that exist today but, as members have said, health and safety remains a significant problem in many workplaces.

As Jamie Greene said, it was very much a case of guilty until proved innocent. I imagine that the work that has been done through the play has been welcomed by families and local communities, and I am pleased that some family members have been able to come to the Parliament today. It is important that we remember the tragic story of the deaths of these girls and women.

We must understand the important role that the Ardeer factory had in the North Ayrshire community. As has been said, it was reputed to be the largest explosives factory in the world and, at its height, 13,000 people were employed there. Many people in North Ayrshire either are former employees or know people who were. It is very much something that is still spoken about.

There has been an impact on the community, not just in the three towns but all over North Ayrshire, where works buses travelled in, bringing workers to the site. There are now only a few hundred workers at the Chemring site, which still produces ammunition, and there is no doubt that the loss of the workplace is still being felt in the three towns and beyond. Indeed, the closure of other large employers such as the Glengarnock steel plant, and the closure of the mines in the 1980s are still being felt throughout Ayrshire.

Working-class communities have a mixed story to tell. Massive employers that brought much wealth—not necessarily to the individual workers, but to Scotland as a whole—have gone, and that has created massive challenges. It is important that we remember and understand the brutal conditions in which people worked. The conditions at Ardeer and in many places of employment in the 1880s were appalling. It was only through the struggle of working-class communities and the creation of the trade union movement that that began to change.

The story is one of individuals involved in struggle and having to face exploitation. The story of the explosion, which killed 10 women, one of whom was only 14, would not have been heard if it was not for those who did the research, documented the evidence, listened to the oral stories that still exist, and put together the piece of work that we are discussing.

I congratulate all involved in the production. Those stories need to be heard. We need to learn the lessons of the past, recognise what we have been through, and understand what that means for us today in respect of the values of our society and what kind of society we want to live in. We must recognise the changes that have been made, which mean, I hope, that disasters on such a scale will not happen again, and we must recognise that the only way in which we will ensure that that happens is through understanding our history and fighting to ensure that we listen to the lessons and value the lives of all in society. For that reason, I am pleased to have contributed to the debate and to congratulate all those who have brought the issue before us.

I welcome the pilots and I think that the minister is correct to identify that funding arrangements can affect how work is done and cases are prepared.

Once the pilots have concluded, it would be helpful if a full and detailed report could be provided to committee members so that we can understand what has happened and the potential implications. Perhaps the minister could take that away for consideration.

I was going to ask whether you have consulted the Law Society or representatives of criminal defence agents on the regulations. You have clearly already had a certain level of engagement, although there has not been a great deal of feedback. Given all the concerns that have been raised about the problems in the funding of criminal defence work, and given the cuts to legal aid over a considerable period of time, will you ensure that you obtain and capture detailed feedback from that side of the profession as the pilots proceed and as the provisions of the regulations are rolled out?

I recognise that it was a huge policing operation, but media reports suggest that there was heavy-handed policing, with four arrests for breach of the peace, a number of other people detained and then released without charge, and a woman who was demonstrating about free speech being followed by police officers. What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with Police Scotland about those incidents?