Chamber and committees

My next question is about the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The witnesses have made clear that wider social and economic issues are primary drivers of the drug problem, so the legislative framework around it is exceptionally important. People have talked about safe consumption rooms, for example, and a debate is going on about the legal framework around the issue.

In relation to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, what kind of changes are the witnesses looking for in the legislative framework? What do they believe can be done in the current legislation? Do they argue for the devolution of drugs policy and, if so, what real changes are they looking for? I will ask some of the campaigners first. Could Peter Krykant briefly outline where he thinks we need to move in relation to the legislative framework around drugs?

I will put the same question to David Liddell. Do you agree with Peter Krykant?

We are short of time so, if other campaigners or those with lived experience have a different view or approach, it would be useful to know but, if not, perhaps the Crown Office could be asked whether it believes that safe consumption rooms are possible within the current legislative framework.

I want to pick up on a couple of the points that have been made. Peter Krykant spoke about the production and supply of drugs. As he knows, at the moment, the issue of drugs is completely tied up with organised crime, and a lot of the money ends up in places such as Afghanistan. Does Mr Krykant believe that it would be possible to bring the whole production and supply process into a legal framework that would not involve organised crime and despotic regimes? That seems to be the model that he is advocating, but is it completely possible? I can see how it might be possible in relation to drugs such as cannabis, but is it feasible for drugs such as heroin?

We are not really talking about something that is equivalent to fair-trade coffee, then. You said that you were worried about the small farmers. However, they are not the ones who make big money out of the drugs industry; it is the drugs cartels, which are dripping in money and blood. The challenges are massive.

You make that point powerfully. Those are important issues. Thinking through the detail is part of the discussion that we need to have about what alternatives there might be to the current legislative regime.

I have a question for the drug deaths task force. We have discussed prisons and the massive challenge that we face. The biggest changes over the past five decades have probably been in the level of drugs misuse in society that is connected to crime and the level of drugs within prisons, which impacts on how the Scottish Prison Service is able to manage prisons. Have the recommendations that were made in April 2020 about adequate provision for prisoners after liberation been implemented? That question is for Neil Richardson.

Parliament needs to be very clear that we need ambitious outcomes from COP26, and I do not think that party-political point-scoring is necessarily the way to do that. I hope that we can unite around a clear message on behalf of the people of Scotland that we want to see ambitious outcomes, and that we amplify some of the more radical voices that we will hear during the coming days and raise our game.

I say that because we all need to be humble and recognise the challenge that we face. Greenhouse gas concentrations are at their highest levels in two million years. In 2018, the UN said that, based on the work of scientists and Government reviewers, it was necessary that global temperatures rose no more than 1.5°C to help us to avoid the worst climate impacts and maintain a liveable climate.

According to Al Gore’s climate reality project, however, even 1.5°C of warming will lead to wildfires, dwindling biodiversity, storms growing even more powerful, and oceans becoming more acidic, killing off our seas and, indeed, many parts of the planet that we have become so aware of.

The first thing that Parliament should be saying is that we have a duty to speak on behalf of the people of Scotland. We recognise that Scotland does not necessarily have that status in the negotiations, but our role as the host means that we are uniquely placed to give a clear message and work with those from all parts of the world who will be campaigning on our streets and arguing that a far more ambitious approach to the challenge that we face is necessary.

We are not one of the 10 countries with the highest emissions. As has been said, however, we have the history of the industrial revolution and we have contributed to the situation that we are in. Between 1988 and 2015, 100 companies producing fossil fuels were responsible for 71 per cent of all global emissions. As a major country in the energy sector, our message needs to be very clear and distinct. Oil and gas make up 75 per cent of Scotland’s energy consumption, 90 per cent of our heat demand and 6.6 per cent of our gross domestic product, and the sector supports more than 100,000 jobs as well as being a massive exporter—82 per cent of Scotland’s oil and gas is exported—so its role is a key issue in the discussions. The voices of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government need to be heard.

A lot has been said about transport in the debate. Of course, Scotland no longer has the domestic capacity to build and maintain its own trains, and it has been said that a massive cut to train services is coming, which is far from the message that we want to send when we welcome delegates in a few days’ time.

We need to send a clear message. I hope that the party-political bickering is not mainstreamed in that message and that we unite in the coming days to say that we stand with young people in this country, with those in the streets and with the trade unions, and that we will fight and argue for a more ambitious proposal to come out of COP26. As politicians, we will be fighting for that.

The debate highlights the crisis facing lifeline ferries, which has largely been created by the failure to invest in the renewal of the fleet over the past 14 years, but also by poor decision making. As has been said, most industry experts agree that the average life expectancy of a ferry is around 25 years, but around half of the 31 working state-owned vessels are older than that. More than 1,000 ferry sailings have been delayed in the past five years for mechanical reasons and only five new ferries have been fully delivered to CalMac since 2007, but only two of those have been for major routes. In comparison, 12 vessels were launched in the 14 years up to 2007.

Although the management of the project to build the two lifeline vessels at Ferguson Marine has been shambolic and a disgrace, that is not the only problem that we have. We need to learn lessons for the future from the mistakes that have been made. CMAL scouring the globe for second-hand vessels or, out of desperation, seeking to charter vessels such as MV Pentalina from anti-union operators is not the solution to the challenge that we face. The Parliament must realise and agree that the reason why we are in this situation is a long-term failure to invest in and plan for new vessels.

The current structures, however, are a mess and dysfunctional. CMAL owns the ferries and CalMac operates most of them, but the ports are owned by trusts, private companies or public bodies, depending on the area. We therefore have a fragmented structure. North Ayrshire Council is willing to take Ardrossan harbour into municipal ownership, given the considerable delay of more than four years in getting the private owner of the relevant land to agree to what is required to develop the harbour. I appreciate the Scottish Government’s position on wanting to get the best deal for the taxpayer, but at the end of the day it is those who rely on the ferry service and, indeed, the communities of Ardrossan and Arran who suffer.

In 2017, the Scottish Government said that it would build a case for making a direct award to an in-house operator for the Clyde and Hebrides services. Earlier this year, the Scottish Government was unable to confirm whether that was still its intention. I hope that the Government will be able to confirm that it intends to go down that path and that it will urgently produce a Scotland-wide ferry strategy to commission a new fleet and to integrate the fragmented structures that have led to poor decision making.

The Scottish Government brought in its flagship RET policy after the 2007 election. The policy cut fares but also led to a significant increase in passenger numbers, creating additional stress on the service that was not planned for or resourced. We urgently require a plan that recognises the need for long-term solutions to ensure that vessels are commissioned, ideally in Scotland, and launched over the next 20 years. The Scottish Government should put detailed proposals before Parliament for scrutiny and debate.

I have been asking the Ferguson Marine shipyard management for a number of months if I could visit, to hear their side of the story. They have been much criticised, and a great deal of public money is obviously involved in the project. I understand that they might not wish to facilitate a visit for just one MSP, but I believe that other MSPs would be interested in visiting, too. Will the minister support us in visiting the shipyard to find out more about what is happening with the contracts?

Given the current crisis, are you expanding the Public Defence Solicitors Office? Are you recruiting? How does the pay compare with the pay for the types of solicitors in private practice to whom Ian Moir referred?