Chamber and committees

I thank Paul Sweeney for bringing this important debate to the chamber. It concerns a timely issue that the Parliament is right to discuss. As we have heard, many organisations have raised the issue as a matter of concern. It is from members’ business debates such as this one that we become more informed and start asking serious questions. We have also heard that the issue is the subject of a live petition, so there will be progress on it.

In preparation for the debate, I read through the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s recently published report and the report on the travel choices project, which members received last night. Both reports highlight benefits to asylum seekers, but it is clear that more work needs to be done.

We need to understand the costs of the measure—the bus companies would need to be reimbursed from somewhere. We need to understand whether there is more of an issue in rural areas such as the north-east and Highlands than there is in urban areas. We need to understand how we can identify those who might be eligible for the scheme. We need to understand how the scheme would benefit those in rural areas, where bus services are few and underresourced. I suppose that the Government might have choices around options that it could provide in the scheme, such as whether travel would be limited by ticket price or distance, or whether it should be an unlimited scheme to allow asylum seekers to travel right across Scotland.

As we have heard, there are still many unanswered questions, and it is imperative that the Scottish Government looks into the matter in greater detail, as the committee report calls on it to do. I know that the Assembly in Wales has taken similar action, so it should be possible for us to learn from its experience and to evaluate its scheme prior to considering one for Scotland.

I fully appreciate the calls from many charities and faith groups to introduce the scheme here. It feels like a simple thing that we can do to help those who are fleeing persecution. However, we have to understand better the implications on public finances and the potential implications for our local government colleagues. With so many strains on public finances, we need to be sure that this is the right thing to do at this time.

We also need to have people’s asylum applications dealt with faster. I note from the travel choices report that one of the asylum seekers who took part in the pilot had been here for 20 years without a decision being made.

The cost to the public of transport in Scotland is high. Bus and train fares are high, and we need to work together to ensure that transport is not a barrier to accessing vital public services and support.

I appreciate that Mr Sweeney is a member for Glasgow, so the focus of the motion is on that city. However, rural regions such as the one that I represent have different challenges and priorities. I would like to know whether such a scheme would help asylum seekers in those areas when rural bus services are under such pressure.

I absolutely recognise that but, in this chamber, we are often challenged about where money is going to come from, so it would be good to know the overall cost. I am sure that it will not be huge, and the proposal is surely something that we can implement.

I echo the final paragraph in the statement by the faith communities, which have also called for the scheme to be introduced. In doing so, I commend the work of the third sector in Scotland, which carries a great deal of the burden in our social care sector. The faith communities’ statement says that they look with hope

“to a future in Scotland where everyone has the opportunity to thrive and contribute to their communities.”

That is a sentiment that we can all agree with.

I agree that the Scottish Government should look more closely at getting accurate costings, and should consider where the money should come from and how the system would work. It must also consider the implications for our rural communities, because one size probably will not fit all, but I am sure that that is something that we can overcome.

I thank Mr Sweeney for raising the issue, and I look forward to discussing it further as we go through the process.

Could the complexity of the engine management system not potentially cause issues? Are the systems not more complex than what was needed?

That £70 million figure is still a lot less than £200 million and £160 million. It seems that, instead of building two vessels, we have built a gravy train. That is a huge amount of money. What has happened to that extra £220 million? Has it all gone to contractors? Has it gone on things such as the installation of the wrong equipment, which has had to be taken out and scrapped? Where has that money gone?

However, if you were building the ferries again, the cost would be a lot less, as you said earlier.

I come back to the point that you made at the start—you said that these two ferries are more complex than a type 26 frigate. That sounds incredible. How on earth did we get into that situation?

Will the vessels ever run on LNG? Initially, they will not, will they?

I want to get clarity on one point. Mr Tydeman, you spoke about the costs of the vessels being £200 million and £160 million. Does that include the pre-nationalisation costs and other costs, such as the loan to the yard that you mentioned? Are those figures the costs for everything that the Government has paid towards Ferguson’s and for the two vessels?

However, the cabinet secretary was given clear information that additional escapes on the upper deck area had to be installed. Surely if he was told two days earlier, we should have been told in the update on 30 June.

So, at the end of May, the Scottish Government would have known that there was an issue on the escape plan and the 1261. I am trying to work out why this committee was not aware of it until much later, and it seems that the cabinet secretary was not aware of it until much later as well. It would have been discussed at those meetings. This is maybe a question for us, convener—we have to try to work out why that was not fed back to the cabinet secretary if it was discussed at the meetings at the end of May that we have heard about.