Chamber and committees

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 also do not intend to move a motion to annul but I have significant concerns about the statutory instrument and the length of time that the extension would be in place. Therefore, if circumstances were to change, I would want the Scottish Government to come back.

I also have concerns about the practical implementation of the substantial powers that governors will have under the instrument. The committee should be kept advised on that to satisfy itself not only that individual prisoners’ human rights are respected but that the approach is consistent with health guidance that is in place outside prisons.

The committee would have preferred it if the instrument had been in force for a shorter period. It is unfortunate that the Scottish Government does not feel able to do that on this occasion. For that reason, the committee should be kept closely advised of how it is implemented.

What role might the Public Defence Solicitors Office play in a reformed legal aid system? What would the balance be between private practice and public sector provision through the PDSO?

With regard to the current crisis, is there a role for the PDSO, especially in busy courts? It may well be that, because of waiting times and so on, there are more efficient ways to deal with the problem and to ensure in the way that things are organised that solicitors are actually addressing the tasks that need done. I want to ask Colin Lancaster about that. Is there realistically a greater role for the PDSO to play in the immediate future?

I ask Ian Moir to come in on that. What would make a difference? There could be an increase but it might not be sufficient for what you are arguing for. What does the Government need to do?

So you are saying that to maintain your business model and recruit lawyers you need to go back to 1999 levels in the immediate future. I am not talking about the long-term structure—I am talking about what needs to be done now to ensure that we do not have a crisis this winter.

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?

My question is to Julia McPartlin and Ian Moir. Exactly what level of increase are you suggesting there needs to be in legal aid fees? Are you suggesting that the restructuring of legal aid to encourage pleas at an early stage would be sufficient to enable better recruitment for criminal defence agents or are you suggesting a percentage increase across the board on criminal legal aid rates? What kind of percentage is necessary now to enable you to recruit into the sector?

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to raise awareness among the public and healthcare professionals of the symptoms of leukaemia. (S6O-00203)

According to Leukaemia Care, patients with leukaemia have a significantly higher rate of emergency diagnosis than those with other forms of cancer, which means that people only find out that they have leukaemia when they present with an emergency. The problem is also being exacerbated by the pandemic.

What can the Government do to increase awareness, given that people are delaying seeing general practitioners, and that there are backlogs in the health service?