Chamber and committees

Cabinet secretary, you will be aware of the campaign for additional funding from the Scottish Government for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service spearheaded by Fire Brigades Union Scotland, and no doubt you have seen its report “Firestorm—A Report into the Future of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service”. There has been a decade of real-terms cuts to the fire service and a lack of investment—particularly capital investment but also other investment—over many years, so what the service now faces is cumulative. Are we now legally exposed as a result of, for example, the failure to provide safe systems of work and the failure to have adequate decontamination available for firefighters?

My question is on both. It is to do with the language that is used.

It is not for every diet but is just for the initial appearance from custody. Thank you.

I would be very happy to write to the UK Government with Keith Brown. He clearly has a huge amount of experience to draw upon and I am sure that he is absolutely correct in what he is saying.

As Russell Findlay has said, one person from an organised crime group in Scotland reportedly made more than £126 million, yet only 0.1 per cent of that money was confiscated. I am clear that organised criminal gangs do not stop at borders. The more cross-border co-operation there is, the better, and I would welcome clarity on what steps are being taken and, indeed, what dialogue ministers are having with the UK Government as well as with Police Scotland and the Crown Office to ensure that more money is being recovered in cases for potential use in supporting community projects. I would also welcome the minister outlining the work that is being done to increase the moneys being recovered.

As I have said, Russell Findlay has made a powerful case for review. I make it clear to the minister that Scottish Labour supports the cashback for communities scheme, but I hope that she will address the issues and concerns that have been raised in the debate as well as respond to the reference in Labour’s amendment to restorative justice.

I move amendment S6M-11127.1, to insert at end:

“, and recognises the importance of access to restorative justice practices, not only as a measure to prevent antisocial behaviour, but also as a tool for young people who are already involved in the criminal justice system.”

I am pleased to follow Russell Findlay, who makes a powerful case for a review, and to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.

We support the programme and efforts to work with young people, direct them to positive destinations and reduce reoffending. Cashback for communities is the continuation of a scheme to reinvest the proceeds of crime that was first established by Scottish Labour in Government in 2006. That, in turn, drew from the framework in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which was introduced by the Labour Government of the time.

Two decades on, with the challenges of Tory austerity and the pandemic, there is absolutely no doubt that youth services in Scotland are in a sorry state. However, as we know, young people still face many challenges. The diverse activities that the minister has spoken about are a clear component of any functioning justice system, and they provide alternatives for those who might be drawn into crime. The antisocial behaviour that was on display at the weekend testifies to the fact that prevention of crime, and better outcomes for those who are at risk of involvement, must be a crucial part of addressing criminal behaviour in the first place.

There must be greater clarity on what metrics the Scottish Government is using to measure the success of the various activities that are being supported by the scheme. I note that those metrics are not set out in the latest evaluation report for 2020 to 2023, which was published on the cashback for communities website, and, as a result, I would welcome feedback from the minister on that point.

Other than assessments of positive destinations, it is not clear whether there is concrete evidence to conclude that those specific projects are reducing crime. I am also unclear as to how organisations are selected, so it would be helpful if the minister could say more on that, too.

Many of the organisations that are funded are national charities. However, I think that we will all know of schemes through which local groups in our constituencies receive valuable funding. One example is in North Ayrshire. As well as getting the benefits of having the national governing bodies for football and rugby, which have received hundreds of thousands of pounds between them, the area also has a number of local sports projects that receive support.

It would be good to know whether smaller, grass-roots organisations, such as council-run youth clubs, tend to bid for grants. The sums awarded to a relatively small number of large organisations clearly have benefit, but the fact is that almost all such projects are now delivered by the third sector. Of course, charities and not-for-profit organisations are not subject to freedom of information coverage, despite receiving public money, albeit that those funds are recovered from criminal activities rather than from taxation. Therefore, it is more important that the Scottish Government provides transparency, as it would not only be of public benefit but allow us to better guide projects and assess outcomes for the young people whom they support.

I also point out that the amount of funds that are recovered to support those projects in the first place is relatively small. I understand that £7 million was recovered in 2020-21, which was the last financial year to be measured, but the Scottish Government’s assessment in 2017 was that organised crime cost the Scottish economy £2 billion a year.

I hope to make that clear during my contribution.

The Scottish Government’s ferry services procurement policy review concluded that an in-house operator is

“capable of delivering similar levels of operational efficiency, innovation and service improvement to those which might otherwise be obtained from tendering.”

Despite that, ministers still spent taxpayers’ money commissioning Ernst & Young to scrutinise how ferries are run. The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has since concluded that Ernst & Young’s project Neptune report failed to engage sufficiently with island communities or with the workforce.

I welcome the fact that the committee’s report does engage with communities and with the workforce and I also welcome the report’s references to the current, poor, procurement approach. CMAL has searched the globe for five years and examined 650 second-hand ships, but only the Alfred has been chartered, while the Chieftain is now leased by CalMac. Four projects to build ferries have been outsourced to Turkey, a country in which, according to the Trades Union Congress, workers face random arrests and unions operate in a climate of fear, which certainly makes a mockery of the Scottish Government’s supposed fair work procurement policy

The committee’s report says:

“Efforts by CMAL to purchase or lease existing vessels abroad are not working and should not be relied upon.”

If we agree that that is unsustainable and, as the minister says, that change is needed, where is the Scottish Government’s sustainable alternative? The Government’s draft islands connectivity plan contains very little detail on rebuilding shipbuilding capacity anywhere in Scotland, but rebuilding that capacity will be essential if the Scottish Government is to abide by its commitment to dramatically reduce the average age of the fleet.

As the tendering process opens for the small vessel replacement programme, I hope that the minister can provide some assurance that islanders, local communities and the workforce will be centrally involved in the decision-making process, so that vessels are commissioned that meet the service’s needs and the wider socioeconomic needs, which Alex Rowley spoke about in his speech. I have to say, as somebody who has represented island communities over many years, that islanders consistently do not feel that they have been listened to or, indeed, consulted.

Standardised vessels require standardised ports. I ask that the minister provides an update on the Ardrossan harbour redevelopment, which is essential for the Ardrossan to Brodick route.

I welcome the debate and the opportunity to consider the long-term future of Scotland’s ferries, and I urge the Scottish Government to come forward with its own proposals.

The Parliament passed the recent fireworks legislation after a reduced scrutiny process, to enable it to be in place for bonfire night last year. Delay meant that councils were not able to designate control zones this year, and the proposed licensing scheme might create a black market. Labour supported the bill because of the new offences that it contained. Does the minister not accept, though, that the framework that was created by the legislation is making no difference to the problems that communities have experienced with fireworks, and that the 2022 act represents a wasted opportunity?

Will the minister take an intervention?

I am pleased to contribute to the debate and thank the committee for its thorough report. The consistent message is that Scotland has an unreliable ferry service because it has an unreliable ferry fleet. Islanders repeatedly tell us that their livelihoods, and indeed the very future of life on the islands, are affected by frequent mechanical failures. Last winter, those living on Arran faced food and fuel shortages due to the unreliability of sailings and supermarket shelves were empty of vegetables and much else over the festive season.

I welcome the minister making clear that change is needed. The report considers proposals for reorganisation and I fully understand why committee members feel that the tripartite structure does not work. As someone who was involved in debates before the previous reorganisation, which cost tens of millions of pounds, and who campaigned against that reorganisation and is therefore no supporter of the current structure, I say that the Scottish Government’s history of poor decision making and its broken procurement model lie at the root of the lack of reliable ferries. I ask the minister to inform our debate by advising Parliament how much any future reorganisation might cost.

I welcome the committee’s recommendation of a direct award, which would provide certainty. I have asked various transport ministers whether they believe that they can legally make a direct award—a question that has been asked more than once today. I therefore also ask the minister to respond to that question, in order to inform our debate. I also urge the Scottish Government to look at governance structures and to put islanders and trade union representatives on the board.

Unbundling, which, to be clear, Labour believes is just privatisation by another name, would be a grave mistake and would leave operators grasping for what little profit can be made on lifeline routes.

That matter is on-going and you have it under active consideration.