Chamber and committees

I want to query an aspect of the Town and Country Planning (Miscellaneous Temporary Modifications) (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/292). As you will be aware, under coronavirus legislation, the requirement to hold public consultation events on potential building developments was suspended; in other words, such events did not need to be held. The regulations continue that suspension until 31 March next year. Given that we are now allowed to attend all sorts of events, such as concerts, football matches and weddings, I query why anyone should not be allowed to hold a public consultation event.

We have not had an explanation for that, so the committee should write to the Government asking for one. We could also write to the lead committee, which I think in this case would be the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. There is a related regulation that we will consider later—SSI 2021/291—so we could perhaps include that in the letter.

I congratulate Alasdair Allan on bringing the debate to the chamber. It has been interesting for me to listen to members who represent islands—I do not represent islands, so it is great to hear from people who do and who have first-hand experience of the problems that islanders have faced, particularly this summer. We heard from Dr Allan, Kenneth Gibson and Jamie Halcro Johnston, who spoke of islanders’ anger, and we heard from Jenni Minto—I will come back to something that she said.

Alasdair Allan set out very well the problems and issues that people have been facing over the summer. I take issue with one thing that he said, which relates very much to his motion. He said that having islanders on boards would in itself improve services. It would not in itself improve services; however, it is the right thing to do.

On the review, which I think is very important, can the minister say when that will be concluded? Is he prepared to make a statement to Parliament once it is concluded?

That is why I said that it is the right thing to do. It will not in itself improve matters. What will improve matters is having more ferries and newer ferries.

That is the issue. We have an ageing ferry fleet, as all members who represent islands and all people who have to use ferries know. The fleet is too old and we have underinvested in Scotland’s ferries for decades. That is why we are in the position that we are in.

Let me talk about the role of a board member. A member of a company board has a responsibility to act in the interests of the whole company and every community; they should not just try to secure decisions that suit their particular interest group—if we can call it that. If someone from island A is on a board and sees themselves as an islands representative, there is a risk that they might act in a way that does not serve the interests of island B.

However, if we are adults about this, we can get through the problem. That brings me back to what Jenni Minto said. She was absolutely right to say that British Columbia Ferry Services has representatives from different communities. I have spoken to a board member of the company. They do things rather differently in Canada: British Columbia Ferry Services has been given a decades-long contract to run the ferries, which enables it to invest in ferries in a way that we have not seen in Scotland.

There is an opportunity to do things differently. I urge the minister to look at the serious proposal from Alasdair Allan and others and to involve the people who use the services.

We have seen cuts to services, a dispute that has now passed 130 days, 90 per cent of Sunday services cancelled, engineers now threatening strike action and the looming threat of all that continuing while world leaders visit rat-infested, SNP-run Glasgow in November. All of that is happening on the transport minister’s watch. When will he take control and get it sorted?

Minister, is this a taste of things to come when ScotRail is nationalised?

I agree with everything that the convener has said, but the instrument highlights a problem concerning the need to be clear in law about what is meant. If it was the Scottish Government’s intention that people in nightclubs who are dancing are not required to wear face masks, why did it not just say that? The word “dancing” appears nowhere. That is probably because it is very difficult, if not impossible, to define dancing in law.

We saw an example of someone dancing in a nightclub in Aberdeen over the weekend. Some people may call that dancing, but some will not. One man’s backward walk is another man’s dancing. It is very difficult to say what we mean. The Scottish Government said that dancing can be

“taking part in exercise of a type that reasonably requires that the person is not wearing a face covering.”

However, while dancing can be exercise, it does not have to be. It is a recreational activity that is not necessarily strenuous. That makes it difficult, if we want to be clear in law, which we do.

It is worth highlighting to the lead committee that there are issues with the instrument. My guess is that the reality in nightclubs—not that I have been to one for many years—is that people take off their face masks as soon as they get inside, whether or not they are dancing. The lead committee should look at the matter, accepting that as a reality. The instrument falls down in terms of clarity of the law and we should highlight that.

The reason for the 28-day rule is to allow parliamentary scrutiny. There will be occasions when the Government will breach the rule for very good reasons—for example, there can be emergency legislation—and we will often accept that. However, I do not believe that the regulations fall into that category. There was simply no good reason, in my view, for the Government to breach the rule in this case, and we should push back strongly on it. The explanation, to be frank, does not wash. A change of minister is not a reason to breach the 28-day rule, in my submission.

I will just quote from the coalition agreement. It states:

“The current plan is to fully dual the A96 route between Inverness and Aberdeen.”

It goes on to talk about having a “transparent, evidence-based review” to

“include a climate compatibility assessment.”

Can the First Minister say whether or not the A96 will be fully dualled?

I want to ask about face coverings. The First Minister has made it clear that she thinks that the law on face coverings should remain. However, she will be aware that that restriction was removed in England a couple of weeks ago, and most people are choosing to continue to wear them. What needs to happen for the First Minister to change her mind on face coverings, so that we can enjoy the same freedoms that are enjoyed in England?