Chamber and committees

Having finally recognised that HPMAs were not fit for purpose, does the cabinet secretary recognise that poor management of a well-meaning policy has significantly damaged trust between the fishing industry and the Government? What will the Government do to rebuild that trust in a way that protects the thousands of jobs in Scotland that depend on the industry?

I thank the committee for its work on the report, and I thank ferry and port staff for the services that they deliver.

The ultimate responsibility for the Clyde and Hebrides ferry fiasco lies squarely with the SNP Government. Its relentless incompetence has left island communities waiting for years for new lifeline ferries and taxpayers picking up the ever-increasing bill, which is likely to be over £400 million by the time that we are finished.

Shetland and Orkney interisland ferries have similar issues. The councils on those islands do not have the funding to replace their ferries—Liam McArthur and Beatrice Wishart have made that point. The same is true of the Corran ferry, which belongs to Highland Council. Again, that is ageing infrastructure. The island connectivity plan needs to include those ferries as well.

We know about the problems. The fleet is ageing. The average age of the CalMac vessels is 37 years old. The Scottish Government has committed to lowering that to 15 years old by 2030. We need to see a detailed plan for that that says how the Scottish Government will achieve that promise.

There is a lack of resilience in the system. Breakdowns are common, there are no spare parts, and there is no spare capacity. We need political leadership to make the difference, and that has not been forthcoming in the past while, with very few transport ministers staying in post for over 18 months.

Katy Clark made the point that that lack of resilience in the system led to food and fuel shortages. That happens all too often.

Many members have talked about the tripartite system and the need for restructuring, because that system does not work. As Alex Rowley said, that ends up with people passing the parcel of blame to other organisations in the tripartite system.

Just about every speaker in the debate has made the point that decisions have to be made closer to the community. Alasdair Allan talked about islander seats on the board. The committee made the point that trade unions should also be on the boards of the companies.

I am not convinced that the answer lies with Transport Scotland, because it seems to be more distant from communities than anything else and, indeed, it may well be part of the problem. However, whatever new structure we have, it needs to have the resources and expertise to deliver the services, as Alex Rowley said.

I turn to the award of the contract. Edward Mountain told us that there are only 16 months left of the contract. There is no time to put it out to tender. However, we have long advocated the direct award of the contract. Indeed, in the previous parliamentary session, my colleague David Stewart talked about the Teckal exemption and how that would have exempted those services from being put out to tender. Alex Rowley and Katy Clark asked about the current legal advice post-Brexit and whether that is now possible. We urge that it should be, because any disruption will cause more trouble to our islands. The contract needs to run for an extended period so that people know who is delivering the service and that it can receive proper investment.

We also need to consider all who deliver the service. We should be committed to fair work in every contract, so that everybody who delivers the service has the same terms and conditions—the RMT made that point in its briefing for the debate.

We need standardised designs for harbours, ports and ferries. Having three interchangeable designs for ferries would mean that harbours could accommodate them; the minister made that point when she referred to Tarbert’s new harbour development. If our shipbuilders knew what designs were to come forward, that would allow them to plan and invest for the long term and deliver ferries more cost effectively.

We should look at delivery and maybe listen to people in the community on the Isle of Lewis, who asked for two smaller ferries, rather than one large ferry, to get better efficiency benefits and better interchangeability when boats are in dry dock in the winter.

We must learn the lessons of the past and make sure that we do not repeat them. We need to make sure that our ferry services are fit for purpose and are accessible to all users. That applies particularly to the northern isles interisland ferry services, which are not accessible to disabled people.

The ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with the SNP Government. From it, we need transparency and collaboration with local communities to deliver a ferry service that is fit for the future.

I have one more supplementary question, convener.

Are you convinced that the SSPCA will have the resources to do this? After all, it is pulling out of Caithness; it is closing its premises in the area and is not providing services for abandoned animals, and that makes me somewhat concerned about the resources that it has. Are you clear that this will not impact on other services that it provides to the community as a charity?

Could you tell us a wee bit more about what training will be given to make sure that cases do not fall? The collection of evidence is crucial for court cases. What training will be given to ensure that the evidence is collected in a way that would stand up in a court case?

Perfect, thank you. I repeat that I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, in that I own a sixth share in a family home.

The “Rural & Islands Housing Action Plan” is a first step, but it really lacks ambition. As Mark Griffin said, we now have a rural housing emergency, and we know what the issues are. Second homes and holiday lets inflate prices, as pointed out by Colin Smyth and others. There is also urbanisation, where people are moving to centres of population because of a lack of homes and services in our more rural communities.

Housing costs are more expensive in rural areas because there are no economies of scale. For instance, the six new affordable homes that were built in Barra cost £1.4 million, which is £233,000 a unit. That is a huge cost in a rural area. Housing policy is made for urban areas, so until we have a policy that is made for rural areas by rural communities, we will not get the housing that we need in those areas.

Mark Griffin and Rachael Hamilton talked about depopulation and the fact that the lack of housing was a key driver of that. Jamie Halcro Johnston also quoted the HIE report, which showed that young people were leaving because of a lack of housing, which is true for every generation, not just young people. People are being forced out because of the lack of housing. Finlay Carson quoted Calum MacLeod’s work on the need to repopulate rural Scotland, because if we do not, the economies of those areas will fail. With our young people being frozen out, we will also end up with an ageing population, and there will be no young people to provide services.

Members from the Highlands and Islands recently met Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which talked about rural housing being a priority, because the lack of it is holding back economic development in those areas.

Mark Griffin talked about meeting Salmon Scotland, which flagged up to him the issues of a lack of housing for workers in those communities, which is holding back development and communities.

Colin Smyth talked about hospitality businesses, which are really struggling to house staff. That is certainly true in my region—the Highlands and Islands—where many hospitality businesses close for two days a week because they do not have staff to cover shifts and they need to give staff time off to enable them to rest.

All services—health, education and many others—are suffering because there is no housing. The minister mentioned key workers, which is a case in point, especially in the health service, to which people cannot be recruited to take up posts. People want to move, of course, as the standard of living in remote rural communities is very attractive, but the inability to find a home to live in makes that impossible.

It is not always about affordable housing. We cannot attract general practitioners because no suitable housing is available. Many other professionals who might need to buy a house cannot do so because of the pressure on the market from second homes and holiday lets.

Many people would build their own houses, but a cost is involved in that. I talked about the social rented houses on Barra, but even self-build means that the transport costs of materials are higher. Access to planning and to land also causes problems.

Many speakers talked about the 10 per cent figure not being enough, given that 17 per cent of people in Scotland live in rural areas. I agree with that. In addition, the 10 per cent that is ring fenced for rural areas includes remote small towns and accessible rural communities—which are, to all intents and purposes, commuting communities. If those areas are covered, remote rural areas—where the housing crisis really happens—are going to be left out. We need to focus on remote rural, not pursue the urbanisation of rural communities by including rural towns.

I welcome the fact that the Government has said that it will review the croft house grant scheme. That is a positive move, because the grant is not enough to build a house. It needs to increase; to include workspace, because crofting is a business; and, I suggest, to be paired with a self-build loan, to make self-building affordable. Kenneth Gibson and Ariane Burgess talked about how self-build means that local companies are involved in the build. Using local companies is more affordable than having large companies coming into the area and having the additional expense of workers having to stay over and travel. Using local procurement would be really good in providing jobs and would be a boost to the local economy.

Mark Griffin made a number of positive suggestions to the Government—for example, on examining how the Crown Estate might help by taking some of the money that it makes from its leases of the seabed, the compulsory sale of empty homes to local people, and charging council tax on empty homes. Colin Smyth talked about good practice in his area that needs to be promoted and shared as good practice elsewhere.

We need to pursue a rural burden on every house that is built or renovated using Government money. We need to find a way of protecting rural homes—especially those that are created or renovated with public money—and have them stay within those local markets. I therefore urge a look at a two-market option or a rural burden, in order to keep those homes in community hands.

Alasdair Allan talked about the impact on the Gaelic language of forcing people out of communities. Alex Cole-Hamilton talked about fuel poverty, which is another huge issue in rural areas.

I am conscious that I am coming to the end of my speaking time. Many constructive comments were made in the debate, which I hope that the Government will listen to. I hope that it will listen to the comments about the fact that the action plan is not ambitious enough and that it is a missed opportunity. The action plan needs to be developed by those who know and understand rural areas, because lazy mistakes are made due to a lack of understanding of the needs of rural communities.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, in that I own a sixth share in a family home.

Okay. Can you hear me now?

For years, fishery protection staff have been underpaid and undervalued. That needs to change to keep that expertise and experience in the service. What is the cabinet secretary doing to retain officers and to strengthen the protection fleet to enable better policing of our waters?

I hope that the rest of the day is like that. [Laughter.]

Mary Ramsay and others stand ready to present to the committee, and I think that that would be powerful. She has had deep brain stimulation and is not eligible for the new treatment because of that. However, others are willing to give evidence, so you would see the contrast and hear the different experiences that people have faced. It would be powerful for the committee to hear that. The petition has been running for some time, so those who gave evidence previously did so to a previous Parliament and committee. It would be good for members of this committee to hear that evidence, so I very much back Mary Ramsay’s proposal.

It is really frustrating, because we thought that we were there. We have the machine in Scotland, and there are individual patient applications to get the treatment in Scotland, but we are still stalled in relation to the treatment becoming available to all as par for the course. I do not totally understand what happened in NHS Tayside. The stage 1 application was put in, but something delayed or prevented the stage 2 application from going in. I do not understand that, given that the equipment and staff are there already.

I wonder whether the committee would write to the chief executive of NHS Tayside to find out what happened and whether it stands ready to make a substantial application at the next round, which, I understand, is next year. It might also be helpful if the committee could write again to the national services division to clarify the timescale for applications—when it would need applications—so that we are all clear as to what is required to get this as an NHS treatment in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Those are the two things that I recommend, and I back Mary Ramsay’s offer for her and others to give evidence to the committee, because I think that that would be really helpful.