Chamber and committees

[Made a request to intervene.]

I am grateful to all the members who signed the motion to enable the debate to take place.

Ardrossan has been the main ferry port for services to Arran for 190 years, because the Ardrossan to Brodick route is the shortest, quickest and most convenient way to get to and from Arran for most people. Infrastructure has been built around the port at Ardrossan, including transport infrastructure such as railway links, and the town’s economy is heavily dependent on the ferry route.

Eight years ago next month, MSPs and local councillors from various political parties joined members of the public and businesses to demonstrate fierce backing for retaining the Ardrossan to Brodick ferry route. The keep it A to B campaign was launched in response to the announcement by Humza Yousaf, then the Minister for Transport and the Islands, that there would be a wide-ranging feasibility study to examine the future of the Arran route, following a bid to remove the service from Ardrossan and give it to Troon. The study looked at the options under four broad pillars: connectivity, reliability, overall operational cost and socioeconomic considerations. After all the evidence was considered, the decision was taken to retain Ardrossan as the main land port for the Arran ferry service, as that was clearly the best option.

Fast forward to now, eight years after the launch of the keep it A to B campaign, and local residents, businesses and groups in Arran and Ardrossan still do not have any certainty that their lifeline ferry service will continue from Ardrossan harbour, due to the disastrous failure to commence the work at Ardrossan.

The two new ferries, the MV Glen Sannox and the MV Glen Rosa, should have come into service in 2018 and 2019. Despite both ferries being delayed for more than five years, the harbour work has not started and there has been no tender process to ascertain costs. The Scottish Government decided to commission the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa with a design that required the reconfiguration and upgrading of Ardrossan harbour to enable the vessels to berth. It knew that the infrastructure in terms of ports and fuel was not in place. The commissioning decision meant that decisions had to be made about the future of the port. The port is owned by Peel Ports, and it was obvious to those with experience of that owner that there might be problems with coming to a decision that it would agree with. Now, despite the ferries being more than five years late, no work has started at Ardrossan.

The delay of the two ferries has already cost the local economy millions of pounds on the island of Arran, which is heavily dependent on tourism. In Ardrossan, which has some of the most beautiful beaches and views along our coast, we suffer from some of the worst deprivation in North Ayrshire, and moving the ferry service would surely tear the heart out of the town.

The Glen Sannox started berthing trials at Brodick this week, and I hope that a service from there will start later this year, but it will not be going to Ardrossan—it has been rerouted to Troon—and there is real concern that the ferry service will never come back to Ardrossan.

Last night, more than 340 people—residents, those in businesses and other supporters—met in the Ardrossan civic centre for the inaugural meeting to launch the save Ardrossan harbour campaign. Many more were unable to get into the room. It feels like groundhog day. Eight years on from the keep it A to B campaign and eight years on from the argument being won on Ardrossan, local people still cannot get a cast-iron commitment from the Scottish Government that the Arran ferry service will keep operating out of Ardrossan in the future.

It has also been six years since Transport Scotland approved proposals to redevelop Ardrossan harbour. Constituents rightly feel angry and frustrated. You could not make this up. We have had enough time wasting and enough excuses. I have no doubt that the work would have been completed by now if the port had been brought into public ownership, which is why Labour has been calling for that to happen for a number of years. The future of Ardrossan as a ferry port, with integrated ScotRail train services, must be preserved. We must get that commitment from the Scottish Government.

I am glad to take an intervention from the local member.

As the member is well aware, this is a devolved matter. As he also knows, the Labour group in North Ayrshire Council asked for a number of years to be allowed to take the port into municipal ownership because of the horrific impact on the local economy of the delay to the redevelopment of Ardrossan harbour.

The lack of investment in Ardrossan harbour and in our ageing ferry fleet is a national emergency. It has been a national embarrassment for the Scottish Government, and it has been a disaster for businesses and residents in Ardrossan and on Arran.

My constituents in Ardrossan and Arran deserve an apology. They deserve a Scottish Government commitment to provide an adequate support package to cover the cost of the delays. They deserve a reliable ferry service on the fastest route—one that they can count on. Most of all, they deserve a cast-iron commitment from the Scottish Government that Ardrossan is the preferred route for the Arran service and a guarantee that the much-needed works to the harbour will get under way as soon as possible. I sincerely hope that the minister can give my constituents that commitment and guarantee today.

I hope that the minister is going to come on to the issue that we are debating today, which is Ardrossan harbour. We are in a position where Ardrossan harbour is going to lose its ferry service completely. I hope that the minister will have time to respond fully to the issues that have been raised about that.

It was, indeed, me who was asking for an intervention.

Does Kenneth Gibson agree that the port should have been brought into municipal ownership, because, as he said, there has been considerable investment in ports? Does he agree that Peel Ports seems to be the problem at Ardrossan? That seems to be accepted by everybody in the chamber. We need that port in public ownership, and it would have been better if that had happened some time ago to enable progress to have been made.

Will the minister give way?

I will support the Government’s and Sharon Dowey’s amendments, if they are pressed to a vote. I do not intend to press my amendments 48 and 49 to a vote today, but I might bring them back in some form at stage 3, after further consideration and discussion.

As the cabinet secretary has said, amendment 48 seeks to include reference to the Equality Act 2010 in the bill. That act’s requirements are important considerations in relation to the conduct of police officers. Amendment 48 has come about partly as a result of discussions with equality campaigners.

Section 2 of the bill relates to the principles, standards and legislation that the chief constable must have regard to in preparing the code. I note what the cabinet secretary said about a lesser right. I will look at the interrelationship of my amendment 48 with the cabinet secretary’s amendments. However, as she is well aware, it would not be possible to dilute in any way the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 in the bill. I would be happy to work with her to see whether it is possible to come up with a form of words that might be acceptable to all at stage 3.

My amendments in the group relate to the preparation of an equality impact assessment. Amendment 63 relates to complaints handling reviews and amendment 64 relates to the call-in of complaints. In both situations, the preparation of an equality impact assessment would be required. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response to the amendments.

I support the Scottish Government’s intention to attempt to strengthen and codify the duty of candour. The duty of candour for public officials is a live issue in all parts of the UK and in many different settings. Perhaps we know more about what the duty of candour might be in, for example, a health setting, where a lot of work has been done on the issue over many years.

It would be helpful for me and perhaps other members of the committee to get a better understanding of the Scottish Government’s view on what the duty of candour will look like and whether, as a result of the bill, it will be different in the police setting, specifically for officers but also, in the light of the evidence that we heard, for other staff, particularly civilian staff. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary will be able to say more about that, but it would be helpful to get more clarity from her before stage 3 so that we can better understand the issues.

Therefore, in relation to amendment 5, it would be helpful to understand the extent to which the Scottish Government believes that the bill will have an effect in relation to the duty of candour specifically for officers, and whether that will extend to anyone else. I would also like more information about the types of settings and scenarios in which the cabinet secretary believes that the bill will make a difference, or whether the provisions are simply a codification of the existing position.