Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

Is the member saying that she does not want any change to the current failed structure?

It seems that we are making some progress on publishing the project Neptune report, but can the minister put a date on that? Will it be in May?

To ask the Scottish Government how much it has allocated in its budget for port upgrades ahead of hulls 801 and 802 being completed. (S6O-00968)

In order for the Glen Sannox to use Ardrossan, the port needs to be upgraded, but the process has been stuck for four years—even though a ministerial task force has been in existence for four years, the scheme has still not gone out to tender. That process will take six months, because the overall package of funding is yet to be agreed. Once work starts, it will take another two years. Why is the project still marooned?

I thank the Liberal Democrats for bringing the issue of ferries back to the chamber. Since we used our own debating time on ferries very little has changed. Islanders on Arran are still without a ferry because it has broken down again. No one has accepted responsibility for handing the contract for vessels 801 and 802 to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd against the advice of the Government’s own experts. No one has yet explained why that was done and no minister, former or current, has held their hands up—not Derek Mackay, not his then boss Keith Brown, not John Swinney, who signed the cheques, and not Nicola Sturgeon.

We might find out more when the Auditor General appears before the Public Audit Committee tomorrow. Who knows what we might hear if Mr Mackay is invited to give evidence?

We agree with the Liberal Democrat motion, which ultimately calls on ministers to be accountable and to fall on their swords if need be. Frankly, that should have already happened.

We have rehearsed the arguments about the Ferguson contract. The ferries are years late and vastly over budget. Had the Government listened to CMAL, islanders could have had new ferries by now, and the taxpayer would have saved a fortune. Ferguson’s might well have survived without needing to be nationalised, and we should remember that when it was nationalised, ministers had no idea what they were taking on. They did not know what condition the vessels were in. They went in blind and, frankly, it shows.

Will the member give way?

The minister well knows that nobody has said that. Despite what he said earlier, nobody wants Ferguson’s to close.

We know that the vessel that the First Minister launched in 2017 had deteriorated by the time that Tim Hair wrote the update report in December 2019. It had suffered from two years of marine growth and was going to have to be taken out of the water. If that photo op had not taken place, things might have been better. There was also extensive internal degradation.

The procurement of vessels 801 and 802 is a scandal. Heads should have rolled but they have not. In our amendment, we call for an explanation of why CMAL was ignored. Of course, we know the answer. It was so that the announcement could be made at the SNP’s conference.

We also call for the project Neptune report to be published immediately. This is not the first time that I have asked for that to happen. Jenny Gilruth has promised to let us have it, but she has yet to deliver. She should be open and transparent and publish it in full because we need to start having an honest debate about how we will run our ferry services in future. The current model is not fit for purpose.

There is some urgency about this. The current contract for CalMac to run the west coast services is up in less than two years’ time. The Government should by now have signalled its intentions and, whatever model it chooses, started to either make changes or launch a new bidding process. All this dithering does not help the islanders, who are the people who really matter. They need the certainty of knowing that there will be a reliable service every year with new and more efficient ferries. They have been let down by the SNP.

Nicola Sturgeon has expressed her “regret” over the ferries situation. However, when asked at the weekend why she will not apologise to islanders, she said, “Oh for goodness sake!” The last thing that islanders who are suffering from a woeful ferry service need is a snotty response from the First Minister. “Oh for goodness sake!” is not the answer to people who cannot get to hospital appointments, make it to family gatherings, get to work, or run their businesses effectively. An apology would help, but the Minister for Transport, who is not here today, needs to decide whether the current model is the right one. I would say that a system that has herself, followed by Transport Scotland, followed by CMAL, followed by CalMac, is not a good place to start.

She should consider models such as those that are used in Canada and Norway, and she should consider issuing more than one contract for the west coast, which could allow operators such as Western Ferries to bid for routes.

We need action on ferries, and we need ministers to take responsibility. Our islanders deserve nothing less.

I move amendment S6M-04051.1, to insert at end:

“; further calls on the Scottish Government to set out why it ignored the advice of CMAL to award the contract for vessels 801 and 802 to Ferguson Marine Engineering Limited and to say which ministers were involved in that decision, and calls on the Scottish Government to publish Ernst and Young’s Project Neptune report immediately.”

Ariane Burgess calls for more clarity. Does she agree that large chunks of the draft document need to be rewritten?

It is an absolute pleasure to take part in this debate. In some ways, I feel responsible for the debate taking place because, in the previous session, I was on the committee—the Local Government and Communities Committee—that dealt with the bill that became the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, and it was my amendment that secured the ability for Parliament to vote on the NPF.

However, we do not have the ability to amend the draft, and from what we have heard so far, it would be good if we were able to do that. We seem to have a listening minister in post. Perhaps as the process moves on, he might want to consider giving committees some sort of ability to change and improve things because, from what we have heard, improvement is definitely needed.

We have heard the word “clarity” used time and time again. The previous speaker, Graeme Dey, spoke about the woolly phrases that crop up throughout the document. We are both former journalists and that grates; when phrases such as “community engagement” and “20-minute neighbourhoods” are used, we have to ask what on earth they mean.

At the moment, NPF4 is a typical planning document, where any argument can be made to fit any circumstance. It may take time, but the framework needs to be rewritten. Ariane Burgess—although she might not realise it—agrees with me on that point. The document needs to have fewer get-out clauses.

Let me give an example of what I mean. As a regional member for the area, I represent the community of Calderbank in North Lanarkshire, which has had the threat of a large planning development hanging over it for some years. It includes a large area of ancient woodland that is rich in heritage. I am looking at NPF4 to see whether it would protect that area of ancient woodland. Currently, the answer is no.

I am a firm supporter and defender of green spaces, particularly woods, so let us see what NPF4 says about woodlands. It says:

“Existing woodlands should be protected wherever possible.”

The phrase “wherever possible” is a get-out clause.

Policy 34, on trees, woodland and forestry, says that

“Local development plans should identify and protect existing woodland and potential for its enhancement or expansion”

and that

“Development proposals should not be supported where they would result in: any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition.”

What is an ancient woodland? How do we tackle the old trick of saying that trees are past their best and then chopping them down? There is never any enforcement action, even if the tree is protected.

Policy 34 also says that development proposals should not be supported where they would result in

“fragmenting or severing woodland habitats, unless mitigation measures are identified and implemented”—

that is another get-out clause. There is a whole series of such clauses and there is woolly language throughout the document, which needs to be tightened up. I urge the minister to get people around the table—I think that he wants to do that—so that we get to the point where everyone can agree on a document that makes sense and delivers.