Chamber and committees

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tom Arthur is a likeable chap. As a back bencher, he was affable and straight talking. However, during questions on the draft national planning framework last week, he showed that he has quickly learned the art of being a Scottish National Party minister, because Fergus Ewing—also a straight talker—asked the minister whether he could

“provide reassurance to me and my constituents in Inverness and Nairn that his statement does not and will not, in any way, manner or means, delay, detract, diminish or dilute the absolute commitment of the Scottish Government to dual the remaining sections of the A9 between Perth and Inverness and the section of the A96 from Inverness to Auldearn, and to do so as swiftly as possible?”—[Official Report, 10 November 2021; c 28.],

which was a great question. Unfortunately, Mr Arthur did not give a straight answer, so we were left none the wiser. Jamie Halcro Johnston had a go as well and did not fare any better.

Today’s debate is an opportunity for the Scottish National Party to drop the prevarication and tell us straight: will the A96 and A9 be dualled in their entirety—yes or no? I will happily take an intervention if the minister can tell us that.

I appreciate that you are up against the clock, convener, as the committee always is. I will be as brief as I can be.

The committee will be aware of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s decision on the regulations. I sit on the committee, but I am not the convener, so I cannot report back in that sense. However, the committee took the view that the procedure for bringing in the regulations—they come into effect and then the policy committee looks at them, as it is today—was inappropriate and wrong. On a point of information, we are in discussions with the Government about setting up a series of protocols to determine when the made affirmative procedure should be used. I think that that will be useful for everyone.

If I have time, I want to make a comment that people, if they wish, can respond to. Professor Leitch mentioned his experience of the rugby on Saturday and also referred to football matches. I did not go to the rugby, but I have spoken to people who did, and they said that they were just being waved through. Someone told me that one of the stewards said, “The app’s down—in you come.”

I have been to three football matches since the scheme came into effect, and the checks, such as they were, were cursory. You flash a bit of paper at a steward, it is not looked at in any great detail—it could be anything—and you get waved through. If any club in Scotland did anything different, it would cause absolute chaos. If they were to start scanning everyone they would not get everyone in.

I therefore think that the way in which things are working on the ground makes the scheme pointless. People are not being checked properly and are still getting into events. I have to say that I am comfortable with that, because I cannot see how else you can do it.

When I was last here, I asked about theatres. Ms Sadler told me that all Scottish theatres are exempt from the scheme. That is the case legally, but the picture out there is rather confused. For example, some events at the Usher Hall here in Edinburgh are requiring a vaccination passport to be shown, while others are not. Other theatres seem to be doing their own thing. The Playhouse—

I congratulate Jamie Halcro Johnston on securing the debate. I start by apologising, as I think I may have to leave before the end of the debate, if that is okay. I suspect that quite a lot of members speaking—

Okay—thank you very much.

This is not the first time that we have debated ferries and it will not be the last. The fact that we have to—and we do have to—tells us that there is a problem. Too many islands have suffered a dismally poor service. Breakdowns are common, which is not surprising with our ageing fleet. The chronic lack of investment in ferries over the years has led us to where we are.

We just have not had a proper ferries replacement programme, and now we are playing catch-up. That is exacerbated by the situation at Ferguson Marine, where two ferries are languishing years behind schedule and massively over budget. We do not know for certain when they will be finished, but we know that the nationalised yard is not considered good enough to bid to build two more ferries. They will be built in eastern Europe, and it would not surprise me at all if we see them in service before the Ferguson ferries.

We are also in the embarrassing position of having to buy a second-hand ferry from Norway to service the Craignure to Oban route. The MV Utne is being sold so that the Norwegians can replace her with a zero-emission battery vessel, so we get the gas-guzzling cast-off while they save the planet. We also have to fork out more than £3 million to prepare her to operate here. Quite what the justification is for that price tag is anyone’s guess, because the Government has not told us.

Jamie Halcro Johnston rightly says that our ferry links are lifelines. He notes the problems over the summer and recounts the damning report of the former REC Committee, which said:

“the Committee believes that there has been a catastrophic failure in the management of the procurement of vessels 801 and 802, leading it to conclude that these processes and structures are no longer fit for purpose.”

The committee went on to say that there should be

“a root and branch overhaul of current decision-making structures”.

It was really talking about whether we need CMAL—Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd—any more. The then minister in charge, Paul Wheelhouse, was completely dismissive of the committee and told it:

“we do not accept the Committee’s description of a ‘catastrophic failure’”.

Mr Wheelhouse is no longer here to continue the debate. I suspect that his election leaflet quoting me and Alex Rowley praising him during a debate—it was not about ferries—helped to put paid to his political career. [Interruption.] That is true.

Ferries are as vital to Scotland’s connectivity as decent roads and railways. The Government must accept that things have not been done properly. It must accept that there is merit in what we and others, including the REC Committee, have been saying, which is that we need to invest more in ferries; award longer contracts so that operators can procure the vessels; and consider whether we need CMAL. The issue has become a party-political football because of those failings. I make a genuine offer to the minister to put myself and maybe others on the ferry industry advisory group, which has not met for two years—I will even chair or co-chair it, if he wants—so that we can get our islands moving again.

The debated is titled “COP26: Action and Ambition”. I fear that we will see little of the former and only warm words about the latter, because that is what we get in SNP Scotland. Just today, we learned that the SNP’s target to meet 11 per cent of non-electrical heat demand from renewable sources by 2020 has been missed by a mile.

Most of the people of Glasgow and the surrounding area will be unaffected by COP26—unless, of course, they want to get into and across the city centre. In that respect, it will cause a big amount of hassle and inconvenience. Delegates will get the five-star treatment and be kept away from the rubbish in the streets and the creaking public transport system, while locals are told to keep their distance for the fortnight.

If anyone wanted to get into Glasgow, there would be little point in driving. They might think that turning to public transport was an option, but not if the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has anything to do with it. The barons of that particular union have decided that the latest pay offer should not be put to its members and are hell bent on causing chaos—unless they have changed their minds in the past couple of hours.

To strike for the entire period of the conference is irresponsible. They should do the right thing and ditch the strikes. Perhaps if the transport minister did what I have been urging him to do for weeks and got round the table with the RMT, they could be persuaded to tone down the posturing—for that is what it is. They know that nationalisation is coming and they smell blood. We can see through it, so they need to grow up.

After the conference, we need a transport system that is greener. Transport is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. We all know that we need to decarbonise the way that we travel. It is therefore ironic that delegates to the conference will be ferried around in electric cars charged up at electric vehicle charging points powered by diesel generators. Who are we trying to kid here? Or, if they are lucky, they may get to go on an electric bus.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. During the debate, Sandesh Gulhane intervened on Liam Kerr. He was interrupted by the Deputy Presiding Officer, who told him to hurry up and ask a question. Mr Kerr was untroubled by the intervention, which seemed perfectly normal to me. Can you advise whether there is now a time limit on interventions and whether they need to end in a question?

No.

The coalition of chaos’s programme for government announced plans to remove the remaining 4,400 diesel buses that are currently on the road by 2023. That is a noble and lofty ambition—which they will get nowhere near achieving at current rates. There is £50 million in the pot from the Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund when it will take £640 million to replace those 4,400 buses.

I will be taking part in a mass cycle ride to Glasgow a week on Saturday. People from all parts of the UK are wheeling their way to the city, which leads me on to action and ambition.

If we want to get people out of cars and on to bikes or public transport, that needs to be funded. We do not achieve that by cutting rail services and cutting projects such as the dualling of the East Kilbride line—the member for East Kilbride did not give an opinion on that. That is not how to do it.

A Cycling Scotland survey showed that people would be motivated to cycle if there were more cycle lanes, traffic-free routes and off-road cycle paths, because the main barrier to cycling is feeling unsafe on the roads. Cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh need to show the ambition of, say, Paris and make themselves bike and pedestrian friendly. We also need properly organised and integrated public transport systems, such as those in London or Manchester.

I am afraid that Glasgow is not miles better on this or anything—rats apart—but the COP26 delegates will not get to see any of that.

I am asking for permission—

I have a brief comment on the Valuation and Rating (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Order 2021. In essence, the order says that business owners cannot appeal the rateable value of their properties after April 2021 by using coronavirus-related impacts as an argument for changing the rateable value of the property. As you will know, convener, this is not a policy committee and we do not look at such matters, but it seems to me that that is pretty significant and that we should at least flag it up to the lead committee. It is a serious matter for businesses if they cannot use coronavirus impacts in that process. We all know that there are very serious impacts on businesses.

We should certainly write to the lead committee to make it aware of the issue. It will scrutinise the order anyway, but it is worthwhile highlighting the issue.