Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement.

How can we take the Scottish Government’s commitment to net zero seriously when it repeatedly misses its climate targets, and then releases a statement like today’s about something that it has already announced but has failed to do?

I will explain. In November last year, the blue carbon international policy challenge that the minister has just announced was announced by another minister. I have here the press release from November, which states that the policy challenge will run from January to March 2022. Well, we are now in April 2022, so why was the challenge delayed? What is the new timeline? Why was that information not included in the statement?

The Scottish Government has also previously committed to provide £150,000 through the nature restoration fund to support the establishment of specialist blue carbon research. Applications closed earlier this month for the second round of the nature restoration fund. Is the minister able to update us on whether any applications relating to blue carbon research were received and, if so, how they are being progressed? If no applications have been received, when does the minister envisage that that £150,000 that was reserved for blue carbon research will be allocated?

Finally, the minister referred to the Scottish Government’s pledge that it will designate at least 10 per cent of Scotland’s seas as highly protected marine areas by 2026, with blue carbon protection being one of the criteria that will be used to identify sites. Can the minister give an update on what progress has been made in selecting sites for highly protected marine areas to ensure blue carbon protection?

Can we write to Fife Council? I do not know whether we can ask it to attach conditions to the licensing or to explore or look into the issue. I am not sure how it works, but it seems that, if a licence has been granted to an unregulated track, there is scope to add conditions to it.

Does the Scottish Government think that having a vote more regularly than every five years would improve transparency and accountability? It sounds as though you would support more frequent voting.

Thank you very much for coming to speak to us today.

Gill Docherty explained that the Thornton track is unregulated but is licensed by Fife Council. I have a follow-up to Alasdair Allan’s question. I assume that, if Fife Council revoked that licence, the track would have to close. Has your organisation written to Fife Council to request that it revoke the licence or that it attach a condition to the licence requiring the track to be regulated? If you have done that, have you had a response?

I am not sure whether Mark Ruskell wants to come back in. I do not know whether I am allowed to ask you questions, actually. Sorry.

Good morning, and thank you for coming.

What is the Scottish Government’s understanding of how the UK Government reached the decision to require the board to hold a regular vote at least once every five years and not more frequently than that?

If levy payers reject the board’s proposals on how the levy will be spent, how can the levy payers influence the proposals? Can they make counter proposals? What is the process?

Thanks. That is helpful.

It is clear from the trials that a four-day working week benefits workers and businesses, with a better work-life balance and greater productivity. The Scottish Government has the power to introduce a four-day week in the public sector, so can the minister confirm when the Government will expand four-day working week trials in the public sector and whether workers in non-unionised workplaces, such as many of those in the hospitality sector, will be covered by future trials?

It was right that Ferguson Marine was brought into public ownership, because its closure would have led to the loss of hundreds of skilled jobs and further weakened Scotland’s industrial base. However, although public ownership is welcome, the Scottish Government’s mismanagement of Ferguson Marine is not.

The Government could have used public ownership of the company to drive the development of a national ferry procurement and building programme. It could have worked with trade unions and workers to transform Ferguson Marine into a vital publicly owned industrial asset. Instead, the Scottish Government has mismanaged Ferguson Marine, leaving us with continuing delays, secrecy about procurement and a lack of a long-term vision for the company.

We remain in a position where neither of the two vessels has been delivered. Their construction has been subject to repeated delays, while costs continue to increase as parts degrade, redesigns take place and items fall out of warranty. The Scottish Government’s ownership of Ferguson Marine has exacerbated those delays due to poor planning and ineffective management. However, we should reflect on the fact that it is the communities that rely on ferry services who are truly bearing the brunt of the delay. We need the Scottish Government to take urgent action to ensure that the two vessels are delivered without further delay.

The Scottish Government also has questions to answer over procurement decisions relating to Ferguson Marine. Audit Scotland’s report highlights that ministers awarded a contract to a builder that could not meet the basic contract guarantees. Ministers also signed up to a contract that committed public funds without public accountability. Warnings from Transport Scotland and CMAL to retender the contract were ignored, with ministers pressing on at a cost to the public of £250 million.

Despite their commitment to open government, ministers have failed to make public all the information relating to their decisions on that contract. That is why Labour is calling for a public inquiry into the failings in the procurement of the contract.

The experience of Ferguson Marine emphasises the need for a long-term strategy for Scotland’s shipbuilding industry. In March, Audit Scotland called for Transport Scotland to finalise the long-term plan and investment programme for ferries by the end of this year. The Scottish Government must ensure that trade unions and workers are able to input into that process so that what emerges is a truly national ferry procurement and building programme.

We must also begin to think about the long-term governance of our ferry network. The Scottish Tories have called for CMAL to be privatised but that is the wrong approach. Labour wants a new governance framework to be established—one that prioritises the needs of passengers and communities who rely on the ferry network. We need a long-term vision for Scotland’s ferry services and I look forward to tomorrow’s members’ business debate, led by Katy Clark, on that subject.

Ferguson Marine must remain publicly owned but must also receive continuing investment, because the alternative is stark. A failure to invest in Ferguson Marine will cost vital shipbuilding jobs and skills in Scotland. That would be an act of industrial vandalism that the Parliament cannot allow to happen.