Chamber and committees

I congratulate Christine Grahame on securing the debate and bringing the campaign to Parliament. She is absolutely right to raise the issue and the work of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has already made its position clear, and I hope that the issue will be given as much attention as possible.

There has been much discussion of history in today’s debate. The history of mining in Scotland is a brutal one. It begins with what was called thirlage, which was basically a form of slavery. Conditions for miners and people in mining communities were absolutely appalling. That applies not only to coal mining, but to mining for tin and iron ore. The communities that many of us represent exist because people often lived beside their workplaces and had often moved, perhaps by walking, from another part of the country to live beside the mines.

The select committee report makes clear the principle that the Government should not benefit and profiteer from miners’ pensions. I have always argued for the trade union position, which is that pensions are deferred pay. The principle is that those miners paid into their pension scheme. We have heard a number of contributions highlighting the poor amounts of pension that many miners receive from the scheme. I understand that some widows receive as little as £8.50 per week. Many of the miners receiving those pensions are struggling with work-related illnesses as they get older.

There are many issues of justice. I listened to the Conservative contribution, and I appreciate that the Conservatives find anti-Tory rhetoric tiresome and are attempting to detoxify themselves. The UK Government, and Conservatives here, should be facing up to the consequences of the actions that they forced through in the 1980s. The pit closure programme caused devastation to communities up and down the country.

Those communities are not benefiting from the socioeconomic justice that the UK Government claims to stand for. Nor are they benefiting from levelling up, as we see from Boris Johnson’s reaction to the select committee’s report. Those communities are still suffering from decades of de-industrialisation, poverty and lack of economic justice and jobs. Generations have campaigned for economic justice for those communities since the 1980s.

It would be useful if the cabinet secretary could keep Parliament updated on the number of refugees who come to Scotland. Could he give more detail on the money that was announced last week and how it will be spent? As he knows, previous work on refugees has been funded by the Home Office. Will he outline what he is doing to look at the pressures on councils, and outline what can be done by the Scottish Government to provide help with wider support services?

I ask Ken Dalling whether he agrees that the virtual approach should be taken by agreement. There will be police witnesses where the evidence is relatively uncontroversial, and it could be agreed but, with other key witnesses where, as Tony Lenehan said, the evidence is critical and controversial, would it be right for that evidence to be taken remotely if the accused and their representatives did not agree? Is there a need for agreement on that, to give the right to a fair trial?

I have one final question, which is for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Last year, there was a doubling of fire fatalities—

I want to pick up on some of the points that were raised earlier about the emergency Covid regulations. In the programme for government, it is clear that we should expect legislation on custody and bail, and legislation to make some of the emergency Covid practices permanent. Pauline McNeill has already raised the issue of time limits, and we have heard powerful evidence about the experiences of witnesses. There has been success with using electronic documents and taking more evidence on commission, and it is suggested that that should be extended perhaps to have witness evidence taken remotely.

In Scotland, we have an adversarial rather than an inquisitorial system. Whether that is right or wrong, it is the system that we have. On the detail of what would in your opinion be acceptable and what would not be, to what extent do you think that those kinds of methods, particularly the hybrid model, should be used by the agreement of both parties? What detail should be in the legislation that you think it would be reasonable for this place to pass? What would that look like? Could you give us a bit more detail on that, because it is going to be a big issue?

Perhaps Tony Lenehan and Ken Dalling could come in on those questions. I am looking for the detail of what you think would work.

If there is not enough time, that is not a problem at all.

The “Scottish Government Ferry Services Procurement Policy Review Interim Report—Emerging Findings”, which was published in December 2017, said:

“We will build a case for making a direct award to an in-house operator”.

Is the Government still taking that approach?

I congratulate Alasdair Allan on securing the debate, which highlights the huge frustration that is felt by many who rely on lifeline ferry services. It really is astonishing that there is not one person who lives on an island on either the CalMac or the CMAL board, particularly given that so many people who work on CalMac ferries live on the islands and that that has been the case for many decades. It is quite clear that the expertise is there. I know many islanders who have applied for positions on the boards and have not been able to secure one. It is right that the case is being made for a model that requires reserved seats for islanders. I also believe that we need reserved places for the workforce and that their voices need to be heard.

It is absolutely clear that there has been a catalogue of poor decision making, unfortunately, in relation to our ferry services. The Scottish Government has committed to a new model, and I agree that one is needed. It has committed to delivering a model of ferry services that will deliver accountability, transparency and good outcomes for communities. That is what we are all looking for.

In the 14 years since 2007, the Scottish Government has commissioned only 12 ferries and only five have been delivered. In the 14 years prior to that, 26 ferries were commissioned of similar tonnage. In 2019, more than 1,000 ferry sailings were cancelled, and over a five-year period more than 1,000 were delayed due to mechanical issues.

There is absolutely no doubt that one reason why there are so many problems is the old nature of the fleet. However, it is not just money that is needed. Alasdair Allan is absolutely correct to highlight that the way that decisions are made is also an issue. Any of us who has represented an island constituency will have seen example after example of communities saying clearly and consistently, over extended periods, that those in authority are making the wrong decisions. That is partly because there is a level of expertise and knowledge among the communities that rely on the services and because there is self-interest in the correct decisions being taken.

We have heard from my colleague Neil Bibby about the ferries that are being built at Ferguson Marine, which is perhaps the most high-profile example of poor decision making. However, there are many other examples that show the significant problems with the current model, such as the building of Brodick pier and the current situation in which investment is still not signed off for Ardrossan harbour after almost five years. I understand that the reason why the Ardrossan harbour investment has still not been signed off is that the land is owned by Peel Ports and the Government feels that the balance of risk is wrong in relation to the negotiations that have taken place. North Ayrshire Council is willing to take Ardrossan harbour land into public ownership to facilitate that much-needed investment. I hope that the Scottish Government will be supportive of that wish from the council to try to make progress.

That situation highlights the need for a new model for the ferries. It simply does not make sense that we have a fragmented model in which the ferries are owned by one organisation, another organisation, CalMac, operates them and the ports are owned by a multitude of organisations, including CMAL. I ask the minister, in his considerations after the debate, to look at the long-term issues and at a new model that will ensure that the voices of communities and the workforce are heard and taken into account in future decision making.

I strongly welcome the Scottish Government calling this debate, as well as the powerful contributions from across the political spectrum in support of human rights and the people of Afghanistan. It is important that those issues remain centre stage, because that scrutiny in itself will help those who are fighting for human rights in Afghanistan and put more pressure on the Taliban.

The situation in Afghanistan is bleak. As so many have said, we face a humanitarian and human rights crisis. Women, girls, human rights defenders and those who have helped the west are at great risk.

In the short time that I have, I will focus on what we need to learn from our experiences of the weakness and corruption of the Governments that have been in power in Afghanistan over the past 20 years and that have fallen so quickly to the Taliban. I will also focus on some of the issues that have been raised—for example, drugs—on how we should accept that Scotland and the UK now have to bear responsibility and relentlessly focus on how to give support to the people who are fleeing the Taliban, and on how refugees can be housed and welcomed in Scotland.

It would be wrong if I did not declare that I campaigned and marched against the western military intervention 20 years ago, as I suspect from their speeches a number of other members did, too. I was sceptical about the stated war aims and the arguments that were made at the time, particularly because of the history of failed interventions and occupations in Afghanistan. I feared that it would be a counterproductive war that was not the most effective way of combating terrorism and there was no clear exit strategy.

I understand that many people supported the invasion and that one of the reasons why was the plight of women and girls under the Taliban. However, it was clear that that was not the USA’s motivation for the war, given the role that it had played in the 1970s and 1980s in funding the mujaheddin against a secular Government that had brought in free medical care, mass literacy programmes and unprecedented gains for women and girls. Of course, the problem was that that regime was backed by Soviet Union, which then invaded.

Over the past 20 years, 457 British service personnel have lost their lives in Afghanistan and many more have been injured, had limbs amputated and suffered psychologically. Many civilians, like Alasdair Allan’s constituent Linda Norgrove, have also lost their lives. It is estimated that almost a quarter of a million people have lost their lives in the conflict, the majority of whom were, of course, Afghan.

Most politicians supported the invasion and the big political parties were all in favour of it. One of the things that needs to come out clearly today, from across the political divide, is that we have a responsibility and have to play our full role in assisting the people who are now fleeing the Taliban. We must robustly condemn the UK’s inadequate response. The international aid budget cuts are shameful. I hope that when the Conservatives sum up they will echo the demands that have been made from across the chamber.

However, we also have to look at what the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and all levels of government are able to do. People who are working with refugees have told me that they are not confident that we will take even the promised 20,000, given that previous commitments in similar situations have not always been honoured. In reality, it is the Home Office that commissions and undertakes most of the resettlement work. In Scotland, it is the councils that bear that burden, but every level of government has to take responsibility.

I welcome the further financial commitment from the cabinet secretary, but ask that we consider what more we and the Scottish Government can do. My colleague Pauline McNeill asked what percentage of the refugees are due to be resettled here and how many we feel that Scotland is equipped to welcome. How many refugees can we bring here and what work has the Scottish Government done to work out how many refugees it would be possible to house across the Scottish council areas? What discussions are taking place about what more can be done to maximise the numbers to which Scotland is able to provide support?

We have to show solidarity and learn lessons from the past, but most of all we have to give practical help. We must keep speaking up on behalf of the people who are fighting for the kind of values that brought most of us into politics to be upheld in Afghanistan, so they know that they have our solidarity and that we will not forget them. The more that we do that, the more we will ensure that Afghanistan has a society that the people of Afghanistan support and one in which fundamental human rights, including the rights of women and girls, are respected.

Thank you, convener.

As you said, cabinet secretary, we cannot expand everything. There are genuine reasons why, sometimes, the staff who could perform certain functions simply do not exist. What are the budgetary constraints over the coming period that could prevent your taking steps to reduce the huge backlog in cases? Have you quantified that, or do you have the funds that you need to get through the backlog as quickly as possible?