Chamber and committees

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the union connectivity review. (S6F-00526)

It is perfectly obvious from that answer that the First Minister has not read a word of the review, because it does nothing that she has suggested that it does.

I was pleased to hear earlier from the Minister for Transport, who, unlike the First Minister, is prepared to have talks with the UK Government on the funding for the A75. That would be a good thing.

If the First Minister bothers to read the review, she will see that a theme throughout it is that both Governments should work together. On that note, it says:

“Both the UK and Scottish Governments have previously agreed to develop options which could support a rail journey time between London and Scotland of three hours.”

Both Governments were working on that, but we know that Transport Scotland officials were told to stop working on it. They were ordered to stop. Will the First Minister now allow them to restart that vital piece of work?

Obviously, it is good that the instrument is being dealt with under the affirmative procedure, as that allows the Parliament some time—although not much, it has to be said—to scrutinise it. We probably need more time, but something is better than nothing, which is the alternative that we could have been faced with.

As you said, convener, the instrument adds an alternative to the existing vaccination passport regulations, which we all know about and which we have debated in this committee and in other committees. The instrument adds an alternative for people who want to get into certain events, which is that they would have to take

“a lateral flow test, the results of which have been submitted through the NHS public reporting system.”

Most people who take such tests will do so with a kit at home. My problem with the instrument is that, if it is to meet the policy intent, as set out in the draft policy note, of reducing

“the risk of transmission of coronavirus”,

it relies entirely on people being honest about that. If people are absolutely desperate to get into events such as football matches or concerts, all that they need to do is open their kit and report that they have a negative test result, whether or not they have such a result, or have actually done the test. It is really easy for people just to say that they have done a test and had a negative result and then, 24 hours later, to go to an event. The system relies completely on people being honest. To be fair, the First Minister has admitted that.

I am not convinced that the instrument meets the policy intent as stated in the note. However, there is no basis on which the committee could report the instrument. I do not think that it is badly drafted; I just do not think that it will achieve what it sets out to achieve.

In phase 1 of STPR2, the Government pledged to carry out an audit of all lorry parks and rest areas near trunk roads in Scotland. What progress is being made on that and will there be any investment for improvements?

As you rightly say, convener, the policy note attached to the regulations points out the effect of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which is that the policy intent behind the regulations might not be achieved. The result is that the ban that the instrument imposes will apply to products that are produced in Scotland, but it will not apply to products that are produced in other parts of the UK where they are not banned.

It is a significant measure to ban any product, whatever it is, and to stop its supply. As you said, the negative procedure applies to the instrument. I would normally argue that that was not appropriate and that it should be the affirmative procedure, but that is not legally available in this case. Therefore, if it is okay with you, convener, we should highlight the issue to the lead committee, which I think is the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, possibly saying that, although the instrument is subject to the negative procedure, that committee can still take evidence on it. If I was a member of that committee, I would want to do that, because I would want to hear from Scottish producers that are potentially affected by the measure.

I should point out that a consultation is going on in England—I read about it at the weekend. Ideally, we probably want the same policy to apply across the UK, so that we do not end up with one set of rules in one area and a different set of rules in another, which is potentially what will happen. The lead committee could address those matters. We should write to the lead committee to point that out and maybe suggest to it that, if it wishes, it could write to the Scotland Office, and probably the department that is dealing with the issue in England, which I think is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I think that the issue sits under the Environment Act 2021.

I am content with the recommendations, but we should highlight a number of issues to the lead committee.

My view is that the levelling up fund and another fund that I will come on to are great things and are examples of one of our Governments working with local councils to improve their areas. Frankly, the minister should be applauding that.

The Westfield roundabout project is just one of eight initiatives in Scotland to receive levelling up fund cash. The other projects are the development of Inverness castle; a new marketplace in Aberdeen city centre; a direct route between Glasgow and three towns in North Ayrshire; transforming Pollok stables and sawmill in Glasgow to become a net zero heritage centre; redeveloping Granton waterfront, which Ben Macpherson should be applauding; remodelling the Artizan shopping centre in Dumbarton; and connecting the advanced manufacturing innovation district to Paisley, which Mr Arthur should be happy about. Other SNP council leaders have welcomed the extra funding. What a shame that their parliamentary counterparts revert to type.

Lanarkshire is getting more than £3 million from the community renewal fund for a range of employment and enterprise projects. That funding will be used to engage local people and businesses and increase skills and employability at the community level. There were six successful bids, which have been awarded just over £3 million.

There is huge investment from Rishi Sunak and the UK Government in our local communities in Lanarkshire. The funding will help to improve skills and employability in our local communities and will make a real difference to the lives of local people. It is a welcome boost from the chancellor that demonstrates the benefits and support that North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire gain from being part of a strong United Kingdom.

Both funds show that the UK Government is working hand-in-hand with local communities in Scotland. It is little wonder, then, that councils are so grateful, given the way that they have been treated by the SNP over the years.

Ben Macpherson should be ashamed of the motion that he has brought to the chamber today. It is petty—it is not like him. It is grievance ridden and unbecoming of him. Parliament should reject it and vote for the amendment in Miles Briggs’s name.

The minister rightly points out that the guidance gives councils flexibility. The problem is that many councils do not show that flexibility and instead hide behind the guidance. Having been a councillor, I have experience of that. Some councils just present the guidance, which is used as an excuse for not doing anything. That is done instead of showing common sense, which in this case would be to set a 20mph zone.

I start by talking about a project in my Central Scotland region that has already been mentioned. The Westfield roundabout in Falkirk will receive £20 million from the UK Government levelling up fund. It is a futuristic-looking scheme that will create four loops that appear to hang in the air. The new roundabout and pedestrian and cycle bridge will ensure that people are safe when crossing at that key junction and enable better connection for active travel. The roundabout is a key link between Falkirk and Grangemouth and is close to the new Forth Valley College, Helix park and the planned gateway project, and it is expected to bring more shops and housing.

When Rishi Sunak announced the funding, Falkirk Council’s SNP leader, Cecil Meiklejohn, who has already been mentioned by her number 1 fan, Stephen Kerr, called it “welcome news”. If an SNP council leader can see the benefits of that funding for her own area, why can an SNP minister such as Ben Macpherson not do the same?

I am going to give a long list of projects later on in my speech. There are not just a few projects.

Cecil Meiklejohn went on to say:

“It builds up the programme of works we are preparing in our Investment Zone and will complement a series of measures which will help drive forward our area’s economy following the pandemic.

The new roundabout and ... bridge will ensure people are safe when crossing ... while enabling better connection for active travel”—

that is a great thing—

“between key sites such as the Helix Park, Falkirk Community Stadium and Forth Valley College’s new campus.”

I am still quoting the SNP council leader. She said:

“The roads will be widened to accommodate increasing traffic and each of the four ‘rings’ of the iconic bridge”—

it is iconic—

“will provide an elevated platform to view the local area and a safe way of getting around without disrupting traffic.”

It sounds great, and it is a great project.

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.