Chamber and committees

The minister will be aware that many small farmers and crofters and those in island areas spent a lot of money preparing applications for the previous scheme, from which they gained little or nothing, even though they should have been prioritised. Will he make the new round of the scheme easier to apply to, so that people do not have to risk their own finances and end up getting nothing in return?

As the cabinet secretary said, we had a statement yesterday that tried to draw a line under the ferry fiasco, but, sadly, it did not. We are still seeing prolonged dry-dock periods for both the new ferry and the older vessels in the fleet.

Making pre-election promises does not cut it with communities that have suffered years of disruption. People are missing health appointments, weddings and funerals, and they have to leave for events earlier than they should just to be sure to make appointments. That adds costs and takes money out of the pockets of islanders. Local businesses struggle, their losses mounting up, and haulage providers are disrupted—every aspect of island life is impacted.

We called for the fines that are levied on CalMac for contract breaches to be used as a resilience fund to support impacted island businesses. Instead, a one-off fund was set up in a way that caused more division, pitting community against community. Division is also caused by some routes being given more priority than others when it comes to getting the best boats or having their timetables disrupted.

That uncertainty means that services fail and businesses face increasing costs. Businesses have left the islands because they cannot work in these operating conditions. Indeed, it is only because of the resilience of businesses and their commitment to their communities that they have continued to operate under these conditions. However, they cannot do that indefinitely.

The situation impacts on the hospitality industry. Bookings are cancelled, and tour companies no longer take bus tours to many islands, because there is nothing that they can do to accommodate 40 people when a ferry has been cancelled at short notice.

That has a dire impact on the economy of our islands and it increases depopulation. The Government says that it is trying to stop depopulation but, in practice, its actions or inaction have caused it. What is really wrong at the core of the Government is its motto, “Put off until tomorrow anything that you cannot be bothered doing today.” The ferry fiasco shows the danger of that approach, because to put right such omissions in the future takes longer and needs many more resources. The whole of Scotland is suffering from that approach, which, whether it is in relation to health or education, has let citizens down.

Scotland needs a Government that is not afraid to act and that does not put off until tomorrow what really needs to be done today. We need a Government that will put in place a sustainable rolling programme of ferry replacement to ensure that our island communities are never again left in that position. That is what Scotland needs.

I move amendment S6M-20957.1, to insert at end:

“; notes that disruption to ferry timetables is ongoing and continues to impact island communities; agrees that communities must receive support to deal with the economic and social impacts of disruption; calls for local representation ferry agency boards so that the needs of island communities and workers are at the heart of decision making; understands that the root cause of the ferry fiasco is the failure to invest in the ferry fleet and replace ageing vessels, and calls on the Scottish Government to have a rolling programme to replace the fleet going forward.”

I, too, thank Angus Campbell for his work on the communities board.

The cabinet secretary’s statement is equivalent to the photo op of the Glen Sannox with painted-on windows. Anyone would think that there was an election looming. The statement suggests that the Scottish Government lives in a parallel universe. There is no mention that the MV Glen Sannox was in reality rebuilt by plundering the MV Glen Rosa for parts. Indeed, we will soon revert to calling the MV Glen Rosa hull 802, because it will be that diminished.

CalMac’s app says that a third of sailings today are subject to disruption. Will the cabinet secretary say what she is doing to support the communities that are suffering those disruptions? When will the Scottish Government face up to its responsibilities and ensure that communities are properly compensated?

I thank the committee for carrying out its inquiry. Public inquiries are necessary, and especially so when someone is harmed by a public body, either directly or by omission. Demand for inquiries is increasing, because of a lack of trust in public bodies. That point was made by Liz Smith, who quoted John Sturrock KC, but I would suggest that it may also be due to a lack of candour on the part of public bodies. All MSPs will have had casework in which someone cannot gain closure, simply because they are not being told what happened or whether there were mistakes, or, if there were mistakes, receiving a meaningful apology. If that was provided, many calls for public inquiries might not be so great. If people knew what happened to their loved ones, they might be satisfied. For the most part, that is all that people want to hear, but it does not happen. As Martin Whitfield said, public inquiries give families and communities the answers that they need.

The committee is concerned that the Scottish Government has not accepted all its recommendations, although the Deputy First Minister seemed to hint that this is not the Government’s last word on the issue. I hope that the Government will consider the other recommendations and see where improvements can be made. However, we should never lose sight of the fact that public inquiries are there to serve the people we represent.

The committee talked about receiving more timely responses from the Government to the findings of public inquiries. That is necessary. Even when it is a long and complex public inquiry, surely the Government could provide interim responses to the issues, while taking more time to address the more complex issues that have been highlighted by the recommendations of the inquiry.

Other members talked about having a clear remit for public inquiries—the Government appears to concede that. I would suggest that that clear remit needs to be devised alongside those who have been impacted and seek answers, so that they have confidence in the process. It would also allow the inquiry to come back to the Government to expand the remit, if the inquiry feels that that is necessary, for example if the evidence takes it into a previously unforeseen area.

Many members talked about the costs of public inquiries. It seems to me that if we had uncovered other options—for instance a duty of candour—that would have been better than standing the cost to the public purse.

The length of time taken by public inquiries delays people getting closure, because they are waiting for answers. One of the speakers—I think that it was John Mason—talked about feeling that nobody would have ever accepted the answers that they were given, but that is because of the time that is taken. If you have not been given a timely response, sometimes you cannot get over that, and you are stuck. That is why a duty of candour would do much to meet the needs of people who are seeking answers.

Martin Whitfield said that having timely answers and faster responses from public inquiries would mean that those answers would be put in place and mistakes would not recur. He also talked about the culture of secrecy that often runs through the necessity of having those inquiries and about people having to fight to get to the truth of the matter. I think that that has been lost in this debate, because some people have to really push for inquiries because they need answers for closure.

One of the issues that is in the report but has not been touched on today is the delay in giving people a right to reply if they are identified in an inquiry as having been in some way culpable or if they attract criticism from the inquiry. I agree that that can be used to slow the process down, especially when people do not want to hear the outcome of the inquiry, but they still need a right to reply, albeit they would need to have a time constraint on how long it would take them to do that.

Many people spoke about budgets and mentioned huge amounts of money. I would welcome constraints to the budget, but again with the caveat that, if the inquiry needed to go in an unforeseen direction, it could come back and expand that budget.

I will conclude.

I will finish by thanking the committee for its report on public inquiries and reminding us all that we must have cognisance of the people who need those inquiries to hear what happened to themselves or their loved ones so that they can get closure. That must remain at the heart of our deliberations.

15:27

::I thank the committee for carrying out its inquiry. Public inquiries are necessary, and especially so when someone is harmed by a public body, either directly or by omission. Demand for inquiries is increasing, because of a lack of trust in public bodies. That point was made by Liz Smith, who quoted John Sturrock KC, but I would suggest that it may also be due to a lack of candour on the part of public bodies. All MSPs will have had casework in which someone cannot gain closure, simply because they are not being told what happened or whether there were mistakes, or, if there were mistakes, receiving a meaningful apology. If that was provided, many calls for public inquiries might not be so great. If people knew what happened to their loved ones, they might be satisfied. For the most part, that is all that people want to hear, but it does not happen. As Martin Whitfield said, public inquiries give families and communities the answers that they need.

The committee is concerned that the Scottish Government has not accepted all its recommendations, although the Deputy First Minister seemed to hint that this is not the Government’s last word on the issue. I hope that the Government will consider the other recommendations and see where improvements can be made. However, we should never lose sight of the fact that public inquiries are there to serve the people we represent.

The committee talked about receiving more timely responses from the Government to the findings of public inquiries. That is necessary. Even when it is a long and complex public inquiry, surely the Government could provide interim responses to the issues, while taking more time to address the more complex issues that have been highlighted by the recommendations of the inquiry.

Other members talked about having a clear remit for public inquiries—the Government appears to concede that. I would suggest that that clear remit needs to be devised alongside those who have been impacted and seek answers, so that they have confidence in the process. It would also allow the inquiry to come back to the Government to expand the remit, if the inquiry feels that that is necessary, for example if the evidence takes it into a previously unforeseen area.

Many members talked about the costs of public inquiries. It seems to me that if we had uncovered other options—for instance a duty of candour—that would have been better than standing the cost to the public purse.

The length of time taken by public inquiries delays people getting closure, because they are waiting for answers. One of the speakers—I think that it was John Mason—talked about feeling that nobody would have ever accepted the answers that they were given, but that is because of the time that is taken. If you have not been given a timely response, sometimes you cannot get over that, and you are stuck. That is why a duty of candour would do much to meet the needs of people who are seeking answers.

Martin Whitfield said that having timely answers and faster responses from public inquiries would mean that those answers would be put in place and mistakes would not recur. He also talked about the culture of secrecy that often runs through the necessity of having those inquiries and about people having to fight to get to the truth of the matter. I think that that has been lost in this debate, because some people have to really push for inquiries because they need answers for closure.

One of the issues that is in the report but has not been touched on today is the delay in giving people a right to reply if they are identified in an inquiry as having been in some way culpable or if they attract criticism from the inquiry. I agree that that can be used to slow the process down, especially when people do not want to hear the outcome of the inquiry, but they still need a right to reply, albeit they would need to have a time constraint on how long it would take them to do that.

Many people spoke about budgets and mentioned huge amounts of money. I would welcome constraints to the budget, but again with the caveat that, if the inquiry needed to go in an unforeseen direction, it could come back and expand that budget.

::I will conclude.

I will finish by thanking the committee for its report on public inquiries and reminding us all that we must have cognisance of the people who need those inquiries to hear what happened to themselves or their loved ones so that they can get closure. That must remain at the heart of our deliberations.

15:27

::I will conclude.

I will finish by thanking the committee for its report on public inquiries and reminding us all that we must have cognisance of the people who need those inquiries to hear what happened to themselves or their loved ones so that they can get closure. That must remain at the heart of our deliberations.

15:27

::I thank the committee for carrying out its inquiry. Public inquiries are necessary, and especially so when someone is harmed by a public body, either directly or by omission. Demand for inquiries is increasing, because of a lack of trust in public bodies. That point was made by Liz Smith, who quoted John Sturrock KC, but I would suggest that it may also be due to a lack of candour on the part of public bodies. All MSPs will have had casework in which someone cannot gain closure, simply because they are not being told what happened or whether there were mistakes, or, if there were mistakes, receiving a meaningful apology. If that was provided, many calls for public inquiries might not be so great. If people knew what happened to their loved ones, they might be satisfied. For the most part, that is all that people want to hear, but it does not happen. As Martin Whitfield said, public inquiries give families and communities the answers that they need.

The committee is concerned that the Scottish Government has not accepted all its recommendations, although the Deputy First Minister seemed to hint that this is not the Government’s last word on the issue. I hope that the Government will consider the other recommendations and see where improvements can be made. However, we should never lose sight of the fact that public inquiries are there to serve the people we represent.

The committee talked about receiving more timely responses from the Government to the findings of public inquiries. That is necessary. Even when it is a long and complex public inquiry, surely the Government could provide interim responses to the issues, while taking more time to address the more complex issues that have been highlighted by the recommendations of the inquiry.

Other members talked about having a clear remit for public inquiries—the Government appears to concede that. I would suggest that that clear remit needs to be devised alongside those who have been impacted and seek answers, so that they have confidence in the process. It would also allow the inquiry to come back to the Government to expand the remit, if the inquiry feels that that is necessary, for example if the evidence takes it into a previously unforeseen area.

Many members talked about the costs of public inquiries. It seems to me that if we had uncovered other options—for instance a duty of candour—that would have been better than standing the cost to the public purse.

The length of time taken by public inquiries delays people getting closure, because they are waiting for answers. One of the speakers—I think that it was John Mason—talked about feeling that nobody would have ever accepted the answers that they were given, but that is because of the time that is taken. If you have not been given a timely response, sometimes you cannot get over that, and you are stuck. That is why a duty of candour would do much to meet the needs of people who are seeking answers.

Martin Whitfield said that having timely answers and faster responses from public inquiries would mean that those answers would be put in place and mistakes would not recur. He also talked about the culture of secrecy that often runs through the necessity of having those inquiries and about people having to fight to get to the truth of the matter. I think that that has been lost in this debate, because some people have to really push for inquiries because they need answers for closure.

One of the issues that is in the report but has not been touched on today is the delay in giving people a right to reply if they are identified in an inquiry as having been in some way culpable or if they attract criticism from the inquiry. I agree that that can be used to slow the process down, especially when people do not want to hear the outcome of the inquiry, but they still need a right to reply, albeit they would need to have a time constraint on how long it would take them to do that.

Many people spoke about budgets and mentioned huge amounts of money. I would welcome constraints to the budget, but again with the caveat that, if the inquiry needed to go in an unforeseen direction, it could come back and expand that budget.

I, too, congratulate Douglas Ross on securing the debate and pay tribute to the campaigners who have come such a long way to their Parliament to make their case. I am sorry that I missed them earlier—I was late in coming to the drop-in event, and they had already left for the chamber.

I acknowledge the real concerns that have been expressed about the potential application. No application has been lodged, so we debate the issue in a vacuum with little or no information about what is proposed and what the impact will be. On the one hand, flagging up a potential development at an early stage is welcome, in that it gives people more chance to consider its impact. On the other hand, doing so without providing information obviously causes concern, as people cannot see what the impact would be and the effect that it would have on them.

We do not even know to which body the application would be made and what process would be used to assess it. What is clear is that those who are impacted by a potential flow park must be consulted, and the impacts on them and on local businesses must be taken account of. The proposed project has the potential to have an impact on local fishing and tourism businesses that are unable to move their businesses out of the way easily.

I would hope the Offshore Solutions Group would be speaking to those businesses now and hearing their concerns. If it does not, it is going to find itself facing a backlash that no amount of information will diminish. It is simply wrong to allow speculation that puts people in fear of their livelihoods.

I do not think that simply moving the site would work either, because another community would need to be consulted and may have similar concerns. It is important that a discussion is had before any application is put in.

There are also concerns about public bodies providing funding for the project—the Crown Estate to the tune of £1.5 million, and Scottish Enterprise to the tune of £1.8 million, as has been highlighted by Douglas Ross. Those organisations can spend their funding as it suits them, but it gives people real concern to see funds being invested by the same public bodies that are part of the Scottish Government and which will have a role in making a decision on any application. They will have a direct role in deciding on marine licence applications, or they will be able to use their call-in powers with any application that falls to the local authority. Obviously, that causes concern, because what if the body making the decision on the application has already invested in the proposal? The process not only needs to be fair—it has to be seen to be fair. Clearly, there needs to be much more public information and consultation.

I have spoken in the chamber before about the need for better marine planning that takes account of the needs of all marine users. Too often, we see the fishing community squeezed to make way for innovation, renewables, telecoms and energy connections. A thriving fishing industry provides local wealth and anchors our communities, and we need to value and protect it.

Scottish Labour has argued in the past for a community right of appeal in planning applications, and this case highlights our reasons for doing so. Therefore, I urge the minister to ensure that the community is informed of proposals at every stage and, more important, that it is heard at every stage.

18:27