Chamber and committees

If the committee will indulge me a little, I have some information that I would like to relay, having spoken to the petitioner.

As you have said, convener, HIAL and Prospect recently released a joint statement, saying that they had agreed a framework for discussion regarding a new way forward for ATMS. Some people have taken that to mean that air traffic staff will now remain local. However, that is not the case. Work on the remote towers is continuing; only the timetable has changed. It is widely believed that HIAL is not looking for a meaningful solution that does not involve remote towers.

I understand from the petitioners that HIAL has hit some of the problems that were predicted in the evidence that they submitted to the committee, and that is why it has agreed to a delay. HIAL has stated that it will review air traffic provision after it has implemented the surveillance programme—which is commonly referred to as radar. My understanding is that the ATMS timetable has effectively been put on hold by HIAL for five years while it develops surveillance, which is required regardless of whether it proceeds with remote towers. HIAL has said, however, that it will implement remote towers in Inverness. That makes no sense, except that it has already bought the building where they will be located. That has no support from staff, or indeed from the public.

Neither have remote towers been ruled out for any of the other airports. They are merely being postponed for up to five years by HIAL in the hope that the problems that are dogging the project at the moment will be resolved. There is obviously a concern that delays will add to costs.

The CAA currently requires both primary and secondary radar. Primary radar shows any aircraft flying in the vicinity as a blip on a screen while secondary radar requires equipment to be carried on an aircraft to identify it to the controller. HIAL want to use the form of radar that shows suitably equipped aircraft. That is an issue in some of those airports where flight clubs and light aircraft use airports quite often.

In evidence submitted to the committee, the Minister for Transport said:

“HIAL have had many discussions with the CAA around the direction of travel towards a more cooperative surveillance approach (which ADS-B is one element of such a system). The CAA has not, however, given HIAL a firm timeline for implementation.”

The CAA requires HIAL to install primary radar. That could cost in excess of £30 million to implement, which has not been budgeted for.

Benbecula and Wick John O’Groats airports are being treated separately. HIAL wants to downgrade those airports from an air traffic control service to a flight information service. The impact on the community that is served by Benbecula airport will be profound, and both Wick and Benbecula may have difficulty in finding airlines to operate PSO routes.

Downgrading will also decrease safety, which is unacceptable to the petitioners, air traffic staff and the communities that those airports serve. It could result in a less safe and less flexible operation and may lead to airborne conflict, putting passengers at risk. That is especially an issue in Benbecula, which is very close to the QinetiQ range. It could also prevent Wick from becoming a hub for offshore traffic, as it was quite recently in the past. At the moment, work is on-going to attract more, rather than fewer, flights to both those airports. It will also cause unnecessary delays and cancellations to aircraft using those airports in bad weather during the winter.

I will quote what one of the petitioners told me this week. He said:

“In short, ATMS has been a mess since its conception. It is continuing in the same way. The wheels are coming off HIAL’s ATMS juggernaut, yet it rolls on leaving damage in its wake. It needs to be steered into the scrapyard of history and left there. HIAL as an organisation must get a blank sheet of paper, sit down with the representatives of the communities it is meant to serve and redesign itself. The board and senior management have completely lost sight of their role, which is to run airports efficiently for the benefit of their communities, not squander taxpayers money on unnecessary vanity projects.”

I could not agree more.

In the short term, I suggest that the committee contacts HIAL to get a clear indication of its plans regarding surveillance and remote towers, and whether it will recoup or lose funds if it disposes of the building that it has bought to house remote towers in Inverness. In the long term, I suggest that we keep a watching brief on the petition, because I fear that those developments are designed to take the heat out of the situation but make no real change to the future direction of travel.

Thank you for allowing me in again to comment on this petition.

I meet CHAT quite regularly, and in July, it raised the issue of community participation with me. The group had contacted NHS Highland, but the health board refused to recognise it as a constituted community-controlled body. I believe that the group is controlled by the community and that it needs to be recognised as such. It has a constitution, which sets out that it is community led, and it holds regular annual general meetings and regularly meets the community that it represents.

I have taken the matter up with NHS Highland on the group’s behalf, but it is not changing its position. As there is no appeals process, CHAT has no chance to debate its case with someone from outwith the organisation.

Members of the public regularly contact CHAT to ask for its assistance and to advise it of issues that they have faced, and, to be honest, I think that that often puts it at odds with NHS Highland. Nevertheless, I believe that it fulfils an important role in the community. It is keen for the health authority to engage with its members before any action is taken up in Caithness; in fact, the team has given me examples of issues on which there has been no consultation at all. For instance, a midwife-led maternity unit that was introduced resulted in a 200-mile round trip to Raigmore hospital for pregnant at-risk women.

I agree that people in Caithness are victims of the centralisation of healthcare services and that rural areas are being left out of the decision-making process. An appeals process would let the team question the ruling of any public body, and I support its introduction sooner rather than later. I would also say that NHS Highland’s out-of-hand dismissal of an appeal on this matter is wrong, and an appeals process would at least give the team the right to call such decisions into question. At any rate, I think that the board’s approach is questionable.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to improve ferry services to island communities. (S6O-00384)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not work. I would have voted no.

The minister will be aware of a number of cancellations due to crew testing positive with Covid-19, which obviously occur at short notice. What steps is the Scottish Government considering to minimise the risk of ferry cancellations in the event of positive Covid cases among crews over the winter months, when infections are high and are likely to rise and when ferries already face disruption due to weather?

A constituent contacted me after the instructions with a lateral flow test kit advised her to record the results through an NHS Scotland website. The UK Government website sends confirmation of her result within minutes, but my constituent discovered that the Scottish website can take up to 24 hours, which is useless when they require confirmation on the same day as the test in order to visit loved ones in a care home. Why are the wait times for the Scottish website so long? Is there a need for a separate Scottish system when the UK Government system works?

Graeme Dey will be aware that one of the services that are being cut runs on Saturdays, which is traditionally a changeover day for tourism businesses, meaning that changeovers will not take place. If the issue is crewing, will he allow CalMac to employ more crews so that the ferry can run more often, allowing changeovers to happen?

The negotiations are different this year, but they must be underpinned by sustainability and science to maximise the economic benefit to our communities while protecting stocks and the environment.

The debate takes place during COP26, and the goals that we expect world leaders to realise must be at the forefront of our deliberations. Brexit also looms large, which means that the negotiations are very different from those that have come before. In many ways, they will set the scene for the future. Regardless of how we feel about or voted on Brexit, our negotiators must have the best interests of our country, environment and industry as their primary focus. We must try to realise the vision of a sea of opportunity.

In the negotiations, it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to ensure the effective management of fisheries and to deliver the best possible outcome for the industry, our communities and our environment. Getting that balance right is key to a sustainable future and a sustainable industry.

We should strive to follow scientific advice on quotas, but we should also take steps to protect fisheries from the effort shift. We saw in the past that that almost caused the collapse of sustainable fisheries on the west coast, as Jenni Minto said. Having Marine Stewardship Council certification of our fisheries will be more important in the future, as we see people awakening to sustainability and protecting our planet.

We have issues regarding the distribution of quota. We have the opportunity to move to a different pattern of distribution and management. As Colin Smyth said, our smaller vessels currently lose out to those who own and operate larger boats, because quota distribution penalises smaller fleets. The Scottish Government must address that issue. It must look to our fleets and communities for good practice—for example, Shetland Islands Council owns quota that is leased to local boats on the understanding that they will land their catch locally. That needs investment in food processing, which has staffing shortages. The Scottish Government needs to consider how to make careers in the processing sector more attractive.

The problem of bycatch is still to be solved sustainably. I have long advanced a system where quota for bycatch can be bought at the point of landing. The price of such a quota would make it possible to land bycatch without detriment, but without profit. Stiffer penalties are also needed for those who dispose of bycatch at sea.

We have the opportunity to introduce conservation methods, by using science and fishing gear, in order to be more selective in our fishing, and to insist that those who access our waters do likewise. There is an opportunity this year to set in train solutions to the stubborn problems that have damaged the industry in the past.

We need to look at a transition that will keep a greater share of the fish in our waters for our industry, because doing so would create a buffer when there is a need to reduce our total allowable catch. We can farm our seas for the benefit of future generations, and we must maximise the opportunity that we now have, while recognising that it is also a transition for our neighbours.

Fisheries management is the responsibility of Scottish ministers. Fishers have a role to play in the responsible management of the seas, but Scottish ministers decide how our seas are used, because those who are concerned about their income today might not have the luxury of looking out for our future generations. The Scottish Government must listen to the industry’s advice on good practice so that it can manage our seas in a way that enables our fishing communities to thrive, while protecting our precious environment and ensuring the long-term sustainability and future of the industry.

To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it is providing to NHS boards that are currently experiencing pressures ahead of winter. (S6O-00307)

As others have said, the issues in the Highlands and Islands are particularly bad, with people moving up to the area because of Covid and people buying buy-to-let properties. Has the cabinet secretary given any thought to the Hebridean Housing Partnership’s initiative to sell houses only to local people who will live and work in the area?