Sue Webber
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, albeit briefly, to today’s debate on the legislative consent motion on the Railways Bill. As colleagues know, the bill represents a significant reshaping of how rail services and rail infrastructure will be overseen across Great Britain.”
“On the subject of public money, the entire premise of the climate plan is that the renewable investment that is outlined happens only because of subsidies from bill payers across the UK. I want to speak about transport.”
“Evidence that was considered by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee made it clear that open-access operators remain unconvinced that the new arrangements will protect their ability to compete on a level playing field.”
“Those are sensible steps. However, our party has a long-standing commitment to a rail system that grows instead of restricts choice, competition and freight capacity, which brings me to the principal issue that prevents me from supporting the LCM today.”
“We are committed to doing what we can, particularly in relation to the EV charging network—which, as an EV driver, I know has improved dramatically in the past five years and which is set to improve even more.”
“Any framework that risks weakening that model, whether unintentionally or through lack of safeguards, must be approached with caution. Similarly, on freight, Scotland has ambitious growth aspirations, but growth depends on confidence that freight paths will be protected, that investment will be worthwhile and that decisions affecting Scot…”
The complete record
Every one of 411 lines we hold for Sue Webber, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 9.
“You have mentioned lines from east to west, but will you comment on the need for the Almond chord in order to revitalise and bring back to life the lemon of a station that is Edinburgh Gateway, which is largely unused? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Fiona Hyslop: We recognise the previous work on the EGIP and the recommendations on the Almond chord. Electrification is taking place, particularly between Haymarket and Dalmeny. I saw that in person last Friday when I travelled to Fife to announce electrification in the Fife area. This week, we celebrate 10 years since the reopening of the Borders railway line, which had been closed for nearly 50 years. The reopening has transformed the economy and attractiveness of the local area and improved lives.”
“Obviously, bus stations are owned by different operators. In my initial answer, I mentioned that we are considering putting in place travel safety officers. Obviously, the issues that the member raises are for Police Scotland, but in general—this is a plea to the United Kingdom Government—the cuts to British Transport Police are not helpful, particularly to rail. However, I understand that the member asked about buses; I am sure that Police Scotland will give its attention to that area.”
“Police Scotland figures, which were obtained by the Scottish Conservatives during the summer, have revealed that assaults and threats at bus stations have soared by 65 per cent in one year. The number of police call-outs to assaults at Glasgow’s Buchanan bus station rose by 85 per cent, while the number of call-outs to Dunfermline bus station increased by 133 per cent. Does the cabinet secretary believe that that is acceptable? What action is being undertaken to ensure that hard-working commuters feel safe? Fiona Hyslop: Clearly, criminal behaviour needs to be dealt with by Police Scotland. Individuals are responsible for their own behaviour. It is more telling that people carry out such behaviour in environments in which there is a single bus driver, for example, and they are not in the company of others.”
“We want them to choose rail travel, because we know that it reduces congestion, lowers emissions and will support our climate targets. Although encouraging a shift from the car to the train is a worthwhile goal, it does nothing to address the underlying issues that Scotland’s rail system faces overall—the unreliable services, the frequent cancellations and the underinvestment in key routes. We heard some of the specifics from Mr Doris, including the need for Sunday services at Maryhill. We need greater frequency rather than one train an hour. Consumer Scotland research shows that 11 per cent of consumers feel that lack of safety is a barrier to adopting more sustainable travel methods. It is not just about fares but about accessibility, reliability and passenger safety. 13:03”
“On a 9.15 am service from Waverley to Queen Street, they will pay £16.80, but, at 9.30 am, it will be £13.40. People with other rail cards can get that discount, so why is it not the same for everyone? I want to make sure that the detail is provided and that everyone can benefit from there being no peak rail fares. We have also heard that consumers paying the anytime fare, no matter what time of the day they travel—I am getting a bit mixed up with my notes here. I apologise, Presiding Officer. Mr Doris said that it is not just about affordability but about services being accessible and reliable. We know that cheaper rail fares in Scotland will contribute to our net zero goals and better connectivity, so we need to encourage people to leave their cars at home.”
“Sue Webber: I did not, because the budget is not about one specific thing; it is about a collection of things. There were many things in the Government’s budget that we would never prioritise ahead of other things. I am pleased that the SNP has U-turned on peak rail fares. We have seen all the SNP’s tweets and other social media posts congratulating itself on reversing its own decision. I am glad about the decision. However, sadly, some passengers will still miss out, despite the sudden SNP U-turn, as is always the way when we scratch underneath for the detail. Those with a club 50—or over-50s—rail card cannot get a discount with that card until after the old peak time. We have had lots of numbers today, so I will give just one example.”
“Our party, the Scottish Conservatives, campaigned against that. Despite being defeated in the Parliament last September on a Scottish Conservative vote on the issue, the SNP at that time refused to budge, claiming that abolishing peak fares permanently was unaffordable. We have always campaigned to permanently scrap peak fares, because we want to ease the burden on hard-working Scots. Bob Doris: I was disappointed when the pilot ended. At the time, the Scottish Government said that it had to put its policy on a firm financial footing and that, if the Government found the funds, it would return to the matter. It found those funds and put them in the budget this year, and peak rail fares have now been scrapped. Did the member support that budget?”
“I thank Mr Doris for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is great to be back after our summer recess and to talk about something that people care about so much. Nicola Sturgeon promised passengers that Scotland’s rail service would improve under Government ownership, yet things are manifestly worse than they were under Abellio. Public transport has become unreliable and far too expensive. Taxpayer subsidies, ticket prices and the number of complaints have all soared, but the number of services and the number of passengers using them have plummeted. It was the Scottish National Party’s decision to reintroduce peak fares on ScotRail trains last year. That was a disastrous decision, because it punished hard-working Scots, who paid hundreds or thousands of pounds more simply to commute to their work.”
“To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to undertake a regulatory check of existing Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 powers to allow local authorities and regional transport partnerships to implement local road user charging schemes. (S6O-04852)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the allocation of any additional funding to meet the cost increases for MV Glen Rosa that were recently announced by Ferguson Marine. (S6O-04781)”
“In fact, Transport Scotland failed to appear at last week’s city region deal committee meeting to provide an essential update on the continued delay in progressing the Sheriffhall upgrade.”
“Having already accepted the need for improvement in the city deal, the SNP Scottish Government then bent to the Green Party’s will by agreeing to the public inquiry in 2023. Earlier this year, the Sheriffhall overarching objectors group—ShOO—got the Scottish Government to hold a public local inquiry, following the submission of 2,771 objections to the scheme’s draft orders. It has come to light that, according to Transport Scotland, a high proportion of those objections, which sparked the hearing, were submitted through the Scottish Green Party website. The resulting report was delivered to SNP ministers a year ago, and since then, there has been nothing, apart from the fact that we now know that £6.4 million has been spent on consultants to produce designs. We are no further forward.”
“That deal is worth £1.6 billion, and the agreement should really accelerate economic growth and prosperity, but the one element that has been missing is the upgrading of the Sheriffhall junction. As we have heard, a flyover solution was proposed by Transport Scotland, and it should be progressing. Designs for that much-needed flyover are available and funding has been put in place but, seven years on, we are no further forward, because the Scottish Government and the City of Edinburgh Council have been in thrall to the Green Party’s anti-car agenda. A review of the project was ordered in 2020, when Edinburgh’s SNP-Labour administration was, frankly, drunk with power during lockdown and was blocking streets and narrowing roads in a hidden agenda to make driving as difficult as possible.”
“More than 75,000 vehicles use the bypass every day, and that figure is set to increase, given that Lothian has the fastest-growing population in Scotland and is forecast to account for 84 per cent of Scotland’s predicted population growth over the period to 2033. That includes Midlothian, East Lothian and all the local authority areas surrounding Edinburgh. Under the SNP-Green Scottish Government, the project totally stalled. The fact is that this key piece of infrastructure brings the Edinburgh bypass to a standstill every rush hour, and if the junction were to be successfully upgraded, it would hugely benefit people across Edinburgh and the Lothian region. It is only seven years since the Edinburgh city region deal was signed, with the support of all the local authorities and the Scottish and UK Governments.”
“You caught me unawares, Deputy Presiding Officer. I was clapping vociferously, not for Ms Grahame’s retirement, but for wanting to get a decision on Sheriffhall. I thank my colleague, Miles Briggs, for bringing the debate to the chamber. Sheriffhall roundabout has been a long-standing problem, yet it remains neglected by SNP ministers, after more than 15 years and millions of pounds spent on planning. The Sheriffhall roundabout has cost Lothian residents countless hours in traffic and millions of pounds. A much-needed upgrade to the notorious junction has been discussed since 2008, but there has been no tangible progress in that time, despite the £6 million that has been spent on consultants.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with cardiology patients, clinicians and other relevant stakeholders as part of the development of the recently published long-term conditions framework consultation. (S6O-04716)”
“To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it decided to make a direct award of the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services contract to CalMac. (S6O-04696)”
“To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the MV Glen Rosa will now not be delivered until the second quarter of 2026, with costs estimated to increase by up to £35 million.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that shoplifting crimes have increased by 89 per cent since 2020. (S6O-04649)”
“I also thank them for the many generous comments about me and my “generations” of staff, as Jackson Carlaw referred to them. The debate has fully lived up to my expectations, and I think that it has done justice to the seriousness and sensitivity of the issues that we are discussing. It has allowed those issues to be fully aired and, importantly, as Kevin Stewart and Patrick Harvie reminded us, it has allowed them to be listened to.”
“I ask fellow members to consider not just today’s public mood but tomorrow’s reality, and to consider not only the short-term comfort of choice but the long-term consequences of this risky bill. Once we start down this path, we cannot guarantee where it ends. If one life is ended unnecessarily—just one— due to the introduction of the bill, I, for one, could never forgive myself. Let us protect our duty to care. Let us commit to end suffering, not by ending lives but by supporting them with dignity, love and proper medical care. The proposed legislation is inherently risky, and no number of amendments can ever make it safe. Do not risk it today; vote against the bill. 18:48 Liam McArthur: I thank all colleagues who have contributed to this afternoon’s lengthy and emotional debate.”
“It shifts the suffering elsewhere: into the hearts of families, into ethical dilemmas for doctors, into the legal system and into our understanding of what society owes its most fragile members. I was asked recently, in a somewhat crude message, if I simply hoped that I would not die in excruciating pain. The answer is not that that is my hope; it is my expectation. I expect a society such as ours to provide the palliative care and end-of- life care that we all deserve. That is our duty, and that is what we are putting at risk. We must not confuse the compassion of the intention with the consequences of legislation. We must not allow rare and tragic cases to determine policies that affect the entire population. We must not pass a law trying to solve suffering that may ultimately multiply it.”
“The arguments for and against are well rehearsed, but I do believe that there would be an inevitable move to relaxing criteria, and the consequent unexpressed sense of coercion experienced by vulnerable patients is a genuine concern. I do realise that this is an emotive subject, but as a clinician, I could not support a shift to actively ending patients’ lives.” We cannot ignore the data from abroad. In Canada, laws that were initially introduced for terminal illness have expanded far beyond their original scope. In the Netherlands, the number of assisted deaths continues to rise, and we have heard about some of the “progress”—in inverted commas—from Oregon. The idea that legalising assisted dying reduces suffering across the board does not hold.”
“Our NHS does not shoulder that responsibility, so what message do we send when, instead of properly funding care, we legalise assisted dying? Let us be honest about how subtle pressure and coercion work. They are not always visible, and they do not need to be spoken out loud. A person nearing the end of their life may begin to feel like a burden. They may internalise the idea that choosing to die is more dignified, more convenient and less costly for their family and for society. No doctor and no checklist can truly measure that weight. One of my healthcare professionals wrote to me and said: “As a consultant physician at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, I wanted to let you know that this would forever change the doctor-patient relationship.”
“However, we cannot view the debate solely through the prism of the bill as it is written today or what it will look like in the future, given that laws evolve, precedents are set, judicial decisions reshape intentions and no Parliament can bind the next one. If we pass this law, none of us can guarantee where it will end up. We must consider the practical pressures that accompany legal change. I have spoken about palliative care in the past, and I care passionately about it: how essential it is, and how it should be the backbone of any compassionate end-of-life system. Marie McNair, an experienced palliative care nurse, eloquently presented that argument to the chamber. Today, much of that care is funded by charity, especially in our hospices.”
“Once the principle is established, pressure becomes difficult to resist. Liam Kerr: I am listening carefully to this speech. In his speech, Jackson Carlaw was suggesting, I think, that we should allow the bill to progress so that it can be tweaked and tightened to address the exact concerns that you are raising. Is that not the point that he was making? If so, why do you not accept it? The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Sue Webber: I thank the member for that intervention, because that is the very issue that I want to come to next. Some members think that there are safeguards in the bill and that it looks secure now, or that it could be amended to make it even more secure.”
“It sets conditions around mental competence and diagnosis of terminal illness, and it has safeguards. However, when we look closer, the scope is far wider than it seems. That is one of my most grave concerns. Crucially, the definition of “terminal illness” in the bill does not require a specific prognosis and clinical expectation of imminent death. That means that individuals with conditions that might persist for years, even with fluctuating severity, could still qualify. That is not a safeguard. It is a red flag, and it carries serious, lasting risk. That looseness in the definition opens the door to further expansion. In fact, the Scottish Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee warned of that risk, stating that, if the bill becomes law, it could be challenged in the courts to widen eligibility even further.”
“We have heard that public opinion has perhaps shifted since the issue was previously debated in 2015. I recall Mr O’Kane’s point about how the experience of the pandemic has perhaps made people think differently about death, suffering and the control that the state might have over their lives. Coming into Parliament in 2021, I looked far more favourably on the bill than I do now. I have changed my mind. Thousands of emails and hundreds of discussions have led me to believe that, despite the provisions at the heart of the bill having the very best of intentions behind them, the risks that the bill would introduce are real and serious. Like many members this afternoon, I say: do not risk it. At first glance, the bill appears focused and narrow.”
“Without echoing all the comments from across the chamber today, I will simply say that this has been quite an afternoon. To see the chamber as full as it is goes some way towards reflecting how connected we can be with what is happening outside Holyrood. I commend Liam McArthur for the way in which everything has happened—from the sensitive manner in which the bill was introduced to how the debate has been conducted across the chamber. I look forward to his closing remarks. These have not been easy discussions, and I respect the convictions of colleagues on both sides. I thank everyone who has contacted me by email, letter and phone, and in person, and those who continue to contact me—I am still getting emails in my inbox. I have been contacted thousands and thousands of times since I came into Parliament in 2021.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve performance and close any treatment gap for prostate cancer, in light of reports that a lower proportion of patients in Scotland are treated within the 62-day target, at 49 per cent, compared with higher rates reported in England. (S6O- 04623)”
“In line with the timetable that she has shared with the Parliament, further steps will be taken for new sections to be put out to tender. Indeed, there is already a tendering exercise out for one of the other sections of the A9. In relation to the A96, we remain absolutely committed to dualling the Inverness to Nairn section, including the Nairn bypass. Made orders were published on 12 March 2024 to deliver that particular road. Progress is under way, and we will continue to keep the Parliament informed of developments.”
“The programme for government outlines no timeline or plan to dual the A96; offers supposed milestones on dualling the A9, which was supposed to be finished this year; and contains no mention at all of other vital roads, such as the A75 and the A77. Does the First Minister accept that communities have been left in the dark over long-promised SNP upgrades to those vital roads? Can he guarantee that the upgrades will finally be delivered or even that they will be delivered at all? The First Minister: On the A9, the programme for government reaffirms the timetable that has already been shared with the Parliament. There is no deviation from that timetable. Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport was up at the Moy to Tomatin stretch of the A9 to see the start of the works there.”
“However, I will ask CalMac to provide the member with a briefing on maintenance issues, particularly when incidents happen and vessels have to be put into dry dock for repair. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can take a supplementary question from Paul Sweeney if he is very brief.”
“Key vessels owned by CMAL, such as the MV Isle of Mull, are currently operating with passenger restrictions after failing a safety check. It is expected that the MV Isle of Mull will return to full capacity next month, but how is the cabinet secretary working with CMAL to ensure that all vessels in operation pass the safety requirements? Fiona Hyslop: I will perhaps take the opportunity to ask CalMac Ferries, which is responsible for the safety aspects of the current vessels and how they are operating, to provide the member with a briefing. The member referred to the MV Isle of Mull; I met with the South Uist community, and certainly four—now possibly five—of their asks for help to support them through that difficult time will happen.”
“At this week’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee meeting, Sarah Boyd from Lothian Buses made it clear that there is a link between the increase in antisocial behaviour on the Lothian Buses fleet and the under-22s concessionary bus pass. Will the minister provide an update on progress to find a mechanism to remove the under-22s concessionary pass from those who persistently engage in antisocial behaviour?”
“Motorists are essential to Scotland’s economy and crucial for our connectivity, but they are being punished by the Scottish National Party Government through punitive low-emission zones, controlled parking zones, botched disincentives to car use, endless road works and a constant battle against pothole-ridden roads. Further, there are now the SNP’s ludicrous plans for a 50mph national speed limit.”
“The Scottish Conservatives will always stand up for motorists, unlike the left-wing parties in this chamber, who continue to treat them with disdain. For too long, road users in this country have faced punitive and ill-considered measures that do little to support our economy, communities or environment in a fair and effective way. Motorists are not the enemy. They are parents doing school runs, workers getting to jobs, tradespeople running businesses and carers reaching the most vulnerable. They are ordinary people going about their everyday lives.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the City of Edinburgh Council regarding its allocated budget. (S6O-04590)”
“Enforcement is a matter for Police Scotland, and local policing teams are best placed to identify misuse and work to prevent future incidents. Police have the powers to enforce the law using public disorder or dispersal powers. I have reached out to the member to be part of the group on off-road vehicles, along with other MSPs. Drones (Prison Infiltration) 7.”
“Any e-bike that does not meet the electrically assisted pedal cycle requirements is classified as a motorcycle or a moped, as the minister has stated. That requires that it be registered and taxed, and the rider requires a valid licence and must wear a helmet. However, we have seen some e-bikes exceed the speed for electrically assisted pedal cycles, and they should be classified as mopeds— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question. Sue Webber: Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the minister outline how she is working with Police Scotland to ensure that e-bikes that do not meet the EAPC requirements are being— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister. Sue Webber: —seized by— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister. Siobhian Brown: I assure the member that we support Police Scotland and its partners in dealing with the misuse of vehicles.”
“The cabinet secretary has stated many times that the rule of law is important and must be followed right across the public sector. I trust that that extends to organisations that receive grant funding from the Scottish Government. Will the Scottish Government now support organisations financially only if they respect and abide by the rule of law? Shirley-Anne Somerville: As I have said on a number of occasions, it is important that the Scottish Government, public bodies and other organisations reflect very carefully on the Supreme Court judgment and ensure that they abide by not only the Equality Act 2010 but all other relevant pieces of legislation. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the ministerial statement.”
“Fiona Hyslop: I also point out that, if the member does not understand what has happened at the harbour, perhaps she might want to look into its history—regrettably, it is a long history. The harbour is owned by a private company. [Interruption.] The original plans for it were to be developed by the private company Peel Ports and North Ayrshire Council. What do I see as the best option? The best option is to get the level of investment that I think is required. I am sure that the member also understands the United Kingdom subsidy control measures that were brought in by the then Conservative UK Government. If she understands that and the basis of business commercial negotiations, she will understand that there must be space and time for successful negotiations to take place. Her line of questioning does not help with that.”
“Time is of the essence. Residents of Ardrossan have been messed about by the Scottish National Party ever since the ferry fiasco started, a decade ago, with one resident saying: “Why anybody would commission a ferry which doesn’t fit the harbour for the route it is meant for is crazy.” Given the limitations that were outlined in the cabinet secretary’s answers, can she guarantee that the negotiations will deliver for the residents of Arran and Ardrossan? How much money has she allocated to upgrade Ardrossan harbour in the event of a successful purchase? Fiona Hyslop: I point out that the Conservatives refused to support the budget, which contains funding for Ardrossan harbour. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Thank you, members.”
“I believe that the financial settlement that we have put in place for policing is adequate for the challenges that we face in our country, given that we know that recorded crime is down by 40 per cent since 2006-07 and that there has been a 54 per cent fall in the rates of attempted murder and serious assault. We have, comparatively speaking, lower levels of crime in our society, but we continue to invest in policing. I know that the chief constable will be very attentive to the need for effective deployment of resources around the country to meet the needs of communities that are facing challenges.”
“These events should concentrate the minds of the Scottish Government regarding the on-going underresourcing of policing in the capital. Three years ago, Edinburgh had 120 fewer officers than its population needed, and by March last year there were 22 fewer than in the year before. I press the First Minister on the matter. Will the Scottish Government commit to resourcing Edinburgh’s police force in a manner that reflects the growing population, the additional complexities and what is needed to police a capital city? The First Minister: I give the reassurance that the chief constable will address these issues. The chief constable is responsible for the operational deployment of police officers around the country.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I thank the member for her question. She alluded to the guidance that we publish on mobile phones. She also spoke about an issue in relation to her constituent accessing content on a phone, I think, during the school day. The mobile phone guidance that we published in August—not very long ago, at all—goes as far as I am legally able to go, as a minister in the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government does not have the power to introduce a national ban on mobile phones: that power rests with local authorities. I am more than happy to raise the issue directly with the City of Edinburgh Council, if that would appease the member on the issues that she has raised today. I recognise her strength of feeling, but the national guidance goes as far as I am able to go, at present. Scottish Digital Academy 8.”
“Cabinet secretary, in relation to your comments on digital and online resources and online hate, a parent in Edinburgh has revealed that secondary 1 pupils have been sharing extreme content, including pornography and violent videos, while at school, which is leaving her son distressed and suffering from nightmares. Despite growing concerns, the Scottish Government has only issued guidance, which that mother says is simply not enough. Given the clear impact on students’ wellbeing, cabinet secretary, do you think that schools should be left to handle the issue alone, or will the Government finally acknowledge best practice and take responsibility for introducing a national ban on mobile phones in schools? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Sue Webber: I apologise.”
“I move amendment S6M-16845.1, to insert at end: “; believes that the social and economic impact of ferry disruption is causing existential harm to Scotland’s islands; shares the frustrations of Scotland’s islanders and ferry passengers, who believe that their needs are not being prioritised by the Scottish Government; notes that the increasing maintenance repair bill for the ageing fleet has hit £98 million in the last decade, which compromises the ability to invest in new infrastructure and maintain affordable ticket prices; agrees with the Audit Scotland report that the five-year business plan for Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow was overly reliant and predicated on winning the Small Vessel Replacement Programme contract; is concerned with the repeated awarding of ferry-build contracts to numerous overseas shipyards whilst taxpayers in Scotland are funding a publicly owned yard on the Clyde; notes the Scottish Government’s plan to purchase Ardrossan Harbour and urges Scottish ministers to ensure that the much-needed infrastructure upgrades to the port that were promised are delivered in a timely and cost- effective manner, and calls on the Scottish Government to be clear about its long-term intentions for Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow, and the future of Scottish shipbuilding, in light of an apparent lack of faith in it shown to date.” 15:09”
“We would secure a well-equipped modern fleet of ferries and ensure that future ferry procurement puts the needs of islanders first. Islanders have been repeatedly let down by the SNP Government. SNP ministers need to show some common sense and provide a reliable ferry network that delivers for our island communities.”
“The patronising attempt to play down the scale of the ferries scandal has only highlighted the Government’s complacency and failure. Despite the years of misery that the SNP has caused islanders and the huge expense that it has imposed on taxpayers, it still has the affront to complain that I have referred to the Government’s “catastrophic mismanagement” of the ferry network. The decision not to award the contract to Ferguson Marine is a hammer blow for the yard, and the warm words and blind optimism do the workers no good whatsoever. SNP ministers cannot pass the buck any longer on this scandal— they must immediately explain to Parliament why this decision was made and what steps they are taking to ensure that the yard has a viable future. Enough is enough.”