Rhoda Grant
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“To correct the minister, I say that the agricultural funding was rolled up into the block grant rather than being Barnettised. The exact same amount of money is being received because of that. Stakeholders are concerned about the lack of detail in tiers 2 and 3 of the rural support plan.”
“It feels a little like groundhog day. South Uist and Barra face yet another chaotic holiday period. South Uist faces an 85 per cent cut in its ferry service during the Easter period. The First Minister knows that this community has suffered from cuts for years, and that has caused businesses to struggle.”
“We have given certainty about what the payments will look like between now and 2030. The funding has been Barnettised—it may well be rolled up into the block grant, but it has definitely been Barnettised. The funds from the United Kingdom Government have been frozen.”
“This will be my last speech in the Parliament, and it feels apt that it is about crofting, because the cross-party group on crofting was one of the first cross-party groups that I was involved in setting up, and it feels as though things have come full circle. It would be wrong of me, in my last speech, not to pay tribute to some people.”
“I thank Tim Eagle for his kind remarks. There will be a lot of thank yous in this contribution, because I also want to thank all those who helped us with our work on the bill, including Parliament staff on the committee and in the legislation team, as well as those who gave evidence to the committee and the bill team and the minister, for…”
“As MSPs, we should remember that we could achieve only a fraction of what we do were it not for those who work with us, so I thank them for their support. I also want to thank our Scottish Labour staff pool and the parliamentary staff who support us so well.”
The complete record
Every one of 428 lines we hold for Rhoda Grant, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 9.
“Why did that not happen before the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was introduced? The bill that is going through Parliament is half-baked and, in its current form, will make no change to land ownership patterns in Scotland. Will the Government be responsible for even more depopulation by doing nothing to help our next generations to remain on the land of their forefathers? Years ago, we passed temporary legislation to allow farmers to be paid following Brexit. We were told that new legislation and a reformed scheme would be introduced at speed. We have had the enabling legislation, but no new scheme. We all know that the delay is because the £200 million computer system says no—another example of incompetence.”
“A crofting bill was promised not only last year but in the previous session of Parliament. The Government shelved it in the previous session, saying that it would bring it back early in this one—yet here we are, rushing complex legislation through at the last gasp. Moreover, we expect to see a timid bill that will not meet the aspirations of the crofting counties, which means that Parliament in the next session will have to wrestle with the issue again. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill does not include communities’ and crofting communities’ right to buy land. We were told that that was because the Scottish Government was holding a review of the legislation, but we later discovered that that was an internal review of its own legislation. We now learn in the programme for government that there will be a consultation on the matter.”
“We were told that the Scottish Government would make misogyny a specific crime within a year. Now—four years later—it is taking the approach that we suggested. In those four years, incel culture has been on the rise, and rape and all forms of violence against women have increased. That protection is coming four years too late. There is so much of this programme for government that is doing what we urged the Scottish Government to do years ago. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but, sadly, it is not flattering—only frustrating that we have a Government that delays and prevaricates and has simply run out of ideas. I turn to the rural and islands part of the programme for government, which is a rehash of broken promises, too—those things should have been delivered years ago.”
“In reality, the programme for government is a long letter of apology and a promise to try harder. One apology that is especially galling for me relates to the addition of women, four years too late, to those who receive protection under the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. I lodged amendments that would have done that when the bill was going through the Parliament, as did Johann Lamont, but we were told, “No— misogyny is different. The Government will legislate within a year and women will be protected.” That has not happened. We suggested that women be covered by the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill and that that protection could be removed when the misogyny bill was introduced. However, that common-sense approach was dismissed.”
“The programme for government is an attempt at damage limitation by the Scottish Government. There is the reinstatement of plans for the cancelled Barra hospital, which were delayed for years but are now being brought back the year before an election. There is the scrapping of peak- time rail fares, which were so recently put in place. There is the pledge to end the 8 am lottery for general practitioner appointments—a lottery that was created by the same Government. There is the commitment to continue to try to find a solution for the Rest and Be Thankful, which was first promised in 2012 and became a manifesto pledge at subsequent Scottish Parliament elections. The Government made those promises while, at the same time, presiding over a worsening situation.”
“When discussing food security with the UK Government, did the Scottish Government share its proposals for the human rights bill, specifically in relation to how it would implement a right to food? If so, were those proposals within the competence of this Parliament, and what response was received? Jim Fairlie: The round-table meeting was the work of the UK Government, and it was more interested in hearing from the sector itself, which I was glad about. The issues raised will be taken up jointly with the UK Government, and the Under- Secretary of State for Scotland and I will be liaising on them.”
“Tim Eagle: Does the member agree that it is best to have annual negotiations, as was expected at the end of the TCA, rather than multi-annual negotiations, which is being rumoured under the Labour deal? Rhoda Grant: There is no deal. We will see what comes out, and we will have discussions about that when it happens. How the previous UK Conservative Government handled those negotiations did not work for the fishing industry. It is surprising that the Scottish Conservatives are trying to defend that, because positive changes to those negotiations would be welcome and would give our fishing industry more certainty and security.”
“The Conservatives are so devoid of ideas that they are reduced to a point whereby they must feed discord on everything that they touch. The United Kingdom Government will, of course, hold talks on future working relationships and management of resources with European neighbours—and everyone knows that those talks are scheduled to take place in May. We all know that fish know no boundaries and, because of that, negotiations have always taken place on fisheries. No one can pretend that those negotiations have taken place in a way that works for the industry. Often, annual negotiations go down to the wire and the industry does not know what its quota will be. Tim Eagle: Will the member take an intervention? Rhoda Grant: I will take a very quick intervention.”
“I am acutely aware that there are differences of opinion—based on politics—in this debate, which will, no doubt, come out today. However, as the subject means a great deal to me, I will try to counter them from the start. The Scottish National Party will probably want to challenge me on Brexit—I see that Angus Robertson is in the room—which is ever the norm for that party. However, is the SNP going to tell us what re-entry into the common fisheries policy would look like if it took us back into the European Union? I doubt that it can discuss that in depth, because the SNP would never secure a treaty change if an independent Scotland rejoined the EU, which I hope never happens. In that scenario, the CFP would be back in full force.”
“It is absolutely crass to suggest that fishing will be negotiated for national security. Surely, the member recognises that. Tim Eagle: I did not say that. Rhoda Grant: That is the premise of your motion. I ask you to recant and actually have a debate about fishing. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Through the chair, please. Tim Eagle: The member might need to read my motion. It does not mention defence, and I am not going to mention defence in my speech—others may, but I am not going to. I deliberately did not mention that in the motion. Labour seems hesitant to talk about the truth that it is selling out our fishermen. However, if it had given us the assurance that I just asked for, this whole debate could have changed.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment has been done of any impact on CAMHS waiting times targets, in light of reports of autism assessment services being cancelled leaving more children in distress and unable to access support that requires a diagnosis. (S6O- 04562)”
“That cuts out local companies, but it also substantially increases the cost of insulation, as people have to use a travelling workforce to the islands. Those issues are not difficult to address, but it will take a shift in mindset, from that of a simple tick-box exercise and thinking that the market will provide, to one that understands island communities and works with them to find solutions. I hope that those who represented island communities here today found the event helpful, and that it opens up channels of communication that allow policy makers to have a greater understanding of island life, and islanders to have more influence on policy. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ariane Burgess joins us remotely. 18:55”
“We simply cannot leave people to depend on satellite broadband because, although quality and speed are improving, it is much more expensive, and there is no choice in providers. In addition to those issues, islands suffer the highest rates of fuel poverty because they are off the gas grid. Draughty old croft houses are hard to heat and need to be upgraded. That would cut fuel bills, as well as making them compatible with more renewable heating alternatives. Sadly, however, approved contractors are few and far between locally, as accreditation takes place in urban areas. The cost of sending staff on courses for that purpose is prohibitive, and hence small local companies cannot carry out the work even if it is grant aided.”
“However, that begged the question of what was going to happen to the other three children, in their mother’s absence for a number of days. That is simply not good enough. The community in Barra is now looking for legal advice on lifeline services and whether the inability to travel is, indeed, illegal. Many of our islands suffer depopulation, which is little wonder, if the Government does not provide lifeline services that are fit for purpose. Connectivity, in every sense, is essential. Although the roll-out of broadband continues, smaller communities—many on islands—are being left behind. I previously asked the Scottish Government to allow such communities to use the voucher scheme collectively, along with support from local authorities, but that was rejected.”
“In the early days, that was stressful. I had arranged meetings, and the people who I was due to meet were being inconvenienced, because I had not shown up. However, I soon realised that I did not need to worry, as islanders are used to that. They are flexible and resilient, and they live in strong interdependent communities. Every day involves collaborating and co-operating with others to get things done. In recent years, the ageing Clyde and Hebrides ferry fleet has left communities abandoned. I had a case recently of a mother who was unable to get her children on a ferry when the youngest needed to attend a hospital appointment. CalMac’s response was that there was no question of mother and child missing the appointment, as they were both booked on the ferry.”
“I, too, thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate. I also thank him and the islands cross- party group for organising the islands showcase event in Parliament today. I pay tribute to all those who attended that, many of whom are in the gallery. It was a pleasure to meet them and to be part of the day. Our islands are special places and island living is unique. People have to be resilient to be able to live their lives buffeted by weather and transport restrictions. They need to take those inconveniences in their stride—which I had to learn when I was first elected to represent most of Scotland’s populated islands. I remember that I spent more time flying over Shetland before I ever landed there. Thereafter, I experienced countless flight and ferry cancellations, which are a common occurrence for our islanders.”
“Will the cabinet secretary consider intervening and asking the Clan Donald Lands Trust to pause the sale to enable the community to look at what is happening and perhaps come up with a bid or, in some way, influence the sale of the land? Mairi Gougeon: I thank Rhoda Grant for raising that question and for highlighting the issue in the chamber last week. I would have to go and see what powers there are in that respect. However, that is why we need the bill to be passed—it is so that we have the opportunity to prevent situations such as the one on Sleat from happening again. I am more than happy to follow up with Rhoda Grant on that. Wild Wrasse (Management) 3.”
“The bill is a step in the right direction, but there is still much to do to address crimes that disproportionately impact women. We need to change the societal issues that are increasing violence against women, and we need to ensure that the justice system does not add to the harm that has already been caused. Those who provide public services—social workers, teachers and others—must understand domestic abuse and violence against women so that they can act with compassion and not cause further distress to those who have already suffered at the hand of their abuser. 16:05”
“I cannot mention that without raising the issue of the gathering of forensic evidence in sexual abuse cases, which was highlighted again by the Scottish Human Rights Commission in its recent report on the Highlands and Islands. The commission highlighted a sexual abuse case in which the victim had to travel a long distance in the clothes that she was assaulted in so that forensic evidence could be recovered. Such cases happened on our islands until very recently. Victims of sexual abuse had to travel to have evidence recovered, and that often involved taking a flight, alongside their friends and neighbours, in the clothes that they were wearing when they were assaulted. That is unimaginable, but I understand that it is still the case for children who report sexual abuse crimes on the islands and the rural mainland.”
“Attending court is worrying enough, but being away from family and friends adds to the stress. It is not unheard of in rural or island communities for a victim, when travelling to attend court, to take the same ferry, flight or bus as the perpetrator or, if not the perpetrator, almost certainly their family, friends or other witnesses. That risks putting the victim under further stress and can lead to them withdrawing their co- operation. The opportunity to give evidence virtually would provide greater protection for victims and witnesses, especially in domestic abuse cases and other cases of violence against women.”
“I hope that it will also mean that evidence of those crimes is gathered, giving families some confidence in the process. Knowledge of what has happened also helps families to process their loss and, although it does not make the loss any easier to bear, gives a degree of closure. I will turn to part 1 of the bill. There is a need to modernise the court service. A huge amount of time is wasted in the justice system, with people sitting around, waiting for documents and the like. A more streamlined approach must be formalised and put in place, but it must have the confidence of the public. One aspect of that really resonates with rural and island communities. Solemn procedures were taken away from island courts during the Covid pandemic, meaning that victims needed to travel further.”
“When a death is accepted as being a suicide, evidence is not gathered as if it were a crime, so I hope that the reviews will ensure that detailed evidence is gathered, because that lack of evidence often leaves a lasting doubt as to whether the person actually took their own life or was killed by their abuser. The reviews should also ensure that there is more knowledge of on-going abuse, how it is perpetrated and the impact that it has on victims. I hope that that will lead to a deeper understanding of, and therefore more protection against, continuing abuse long before the victim feels so hopeless as to consider suicide. The bill itself will not do any of those things, but reviewing those deaths should lead to more intervention that will prevent murders and suicides from happening in the future.”
“I hope that the reviews of deaths will shine a light on that issue and will change practices to protect victims and their children from abusers. What is much less recognised and understood is the suicide of those who have experienced domestic abuse. The person facing the abuse is unable to escape, even when they have left their abuser. They see no end to the abuse, which often continues to be perpetrated through access to children or via family, friends and every other means at the abuser’s disposal. The victim sees no way out and takes their own life.”
“As others have said, the bill has two distinct parts. The first deals with the modernisation of courts and the justice system, which is welcome, and the second deals with reviewing deaths that relate to abusive behaviour within relationships. Both aspects of the bill are important, but they are quite separate and distinct. Part 2 looks at reviewing deaths that relate to abusive behaviours within relationships. Too often, we hear about abusers killing their partners, which is murder and leads to a criminal investigation. Learning from those brutal murders should help us to better protect those who are subject to domestic abuse. One all-too-common issue is the murder of children within a family. Despite that risk being well understood, family courts and social workers appear to ignore it when looking at contact with and access to children.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to upgrade older housing stock to make it suitable for modern-day heating systems. (S6O- 04504)”
“We will work in good faith with the Government to strengthen the bill in the hope that the consequent act will make a step change in land ownership patterns in Scotland. 15:56”
“It is also unclear what difference the bill would have made to the sale and community involvement. Mairi Gougeon: The member has chosen a topical example that goes to prove why the measures that we are introducing in the bill are important. They could have prevented the situation from coming about or, at least, the community could have been notified that the land would become available for sale. I hope that she welcomes that. Rhoda Grant: I sincerely hope that that would be the case, but the timeframes in the bill would make it nigh-on impossible for a community with no knowledge that the sale was coming up to act in time. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will reflect on that to ensure that communities have the time that they need.”
“Many people welcome the new environmental lease, which will allow a move towards using land for environmental purposes. We all know that we need to reach net zero, and we hope that the environmental lease will allow tenant farmers more scope to do that in their holdings. Land management plans and whole-farm plans also need to be dovetailed for the small number of farmers who will need both. As it stands, the bill is unlikely to bring about any change in community ownership or the desired diversification of land ownership. Urban Scotland is also excluded. The thresholds to define large landholdings are set so high that they exclude most land from the bill’s provisions. This weekend, we heard that Clan Donald Lands Trust is selling its assets and land in Skye. I am unaware of any approach being made to the community ahead of the sale.”
“Prior notification of any sale over 1,000 hectares is designed to put a restriction on the secretive off- market sales that have been increasing of late. However, that is a relatively high limit, which means that fewer than seven cases a year are likely to be impacted. Part 2 of the bill seems less controversial, but there are still issues that need to be dealt with. Partial resumption and compensation need to be dovetailed with a whole-farm resumption, so that there are not any incentives to resume the whole farm, rather than the part that is required by the landowner for development. Where possible, such resumptions should be done in negotiation between the landowner and tenant, with the land commissioner having a role should the negotiations fail.”
“Communities will get a subsequent 40-day period to get consent to make a right-to-buy application. Those timescales are unworkable, given that it can take the Scottish Government two months to approve the constitution of community bodies that are able to make the application. The 1,000 hectare cut-off threshold again means that very few transactions will be caught in that provision. The bill will introduce lotting for the first time for landholdings of over 1,000 hectares. Those landholdings may be required by Scottish ministers to be sold in smaller lots rather than as a whole, and the owners can seek compensation if that impacts on the value of the sale. That process appears to be complex with no community involvement at all.”
“Public interest tests are well understood in law, so to change that and to use a transfer test will risk having the legislation held up in the courts. Labour wishes to see amendments to reinstate a public interest test. Land management plans will be introduced for landholdings of over 3,000 hectares to enshrine community engagement in large landholdings. That is not cumulative and it is set at a level at which very few landholdings in Scotland will be affected. A fine of £5,000 for not producing a plan will not incentivise compliance. There should therefore be a system of escalation of sanctions for non-compliance. The bill will allow community bodies to have the opportunity to be informed about certain sales of over 1,000 hectares and will give them 30 days to register an initial interest in buying the land.”
“A new criterion to allow communities to register an interest in land of significance to them could be a measured way to trigger urban communities getting prior notification of sales and the right of pre-emption. The bill will create a new land and communities commissioner within the Scottish Land Commission to oversee the land management plans and make recommendations on the potential lotting of land. The new commissioner will be part of the Scottish Land Commission, but they will be completely autonomous from the commission in their work. That looks ill considered, as the commissioner will lack any corporate responsibility and adequate accountability. Proposals for a public interest test on land transfers have also been completely ditched.”
“Central to the bill is the setting of two thresholds in defining “large landholdings”: 3,000 hectares for the requirement to have a land management plan and 1,000 hectares to require prior notification of a sale that might trigger a community right to buy or a potential lotting decision. It is confusing and unnecessary to have different thresholds for different purposes, and it is widely felt that those thresholds, even if unified at around 1,000 hectares, are still too high. A reduction in all thresholds to 500 hectares would keep all crofts and 97 per cent of all farms out of the scope of the bill. The bill does not include urban land reform.”
“As it is currently drafted, the bill will not change land ownership patterns, nor will it deal with the power that is vested in those who own land to hold communities to ransom. The purpose of land reform is to empower communities, build economies and retain populations. Those things impact service provision, national and community wealth and the sustainability of the Gaelic language. Stakeholders are very disappointed with and critical of the bill. They do not believe that it will make any change to communities owning land, nor will it change land ownership patterns.”
“The Scottish Labour Party supports the general principles of the bill, but, like others, including many of the stakeholders who are in the gallery today, we want the bill to go further. Donald Dewar gave Labour’s enduring view on land reform in a 1998 lecture. He said that change was required “on grounds of fairness” to increase “local involvement and accountability” and deliver “greater diversity” in land ownership because there was “too much control in too few hands”. After 17 years of Scottish National Party Administration, the concentration of land ownership is getting worse—0.025 per cent of Scotland’s population still owns 67 per cent of Scotland’s rural land.”
“We will definitely have to update it as we establish new schemes as we go along, but that is no reason to chuck the baby out with the bath water.”
“The computer system is flawed, as was highlighted in a damning Audit Scotland report from back in 2017. Policy is now being devised to fit the computer system rather than the system delivering the Government’s policy. How will the minister ensure that policy is delivered? Would it be cheaper to scrap it and start again? Jim Fairlie: I do not think that it would be cheaper to scrap it and start again, because I do not think that there is any need to scrap it and start again. As I have already stated, we are getting the payments out on time. The payments that we are making to the services that are helping to sustain the system are in line with what would be expected for such agreements. The system is doing the job that we require it to do.”
“The report is clear that the Scottish Government is letting the industry down. If we are to continue to reap the rewards of a world-renowned product, we must get governance and transparency right. The committee has set a deadline for that and has left the door open to return to the topic next year. I hope that the Government will now act to ensure that we do not have to do that. 15:38”
“The committee recommended that a fisheries management plan or other protective action should be developed to stop the overfishing of wrasse and to look after their welfare at harvest time. We also looked at spatial management of the sea, which is a subject that comes up far too often in the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. The many competing pressures on our seas are not being managed. Those pressures relate to aquaculture, fishing, leisure and energy transmission and generation, so we need a zonal approach to planning on our seas to ensure that there is room for everybody and that people can continue with their businesses. Another issue that came up in the report was that fish farms should be able to move out of the way of things such as micro jellyfish, but the fact that planning is so cumbersome makes that nigh-on impossible.”
“When the Scottish Government responded to the committee’s concerns about climate change impacts, it highlighted work on issues that have already played out to a certain extent, but we need to look at future proofing, consider what changes are likely to occur and prepare for them. Otherwise, there will be more catastrophic impacts on the industry in the future. The report looked at wrasse, which were brought in as a response to the previous committee report that focused on sea lice. Wrasse are a natural way of dealing with sea lice, because they are a type of cleaner fish that eat the lice. The value of those wrasse actually exceeds that of farmed salmon, so we must protect them, because they are doing a job in protecting salmon but are, all too often, simply discarded at harvest time.”
“It was sad to see that the public and media response to the catastrophe caused by the micro jellyfish was to pillory the industry. When there have been on-land farming disasters such as foot- and-mouth disease and, more recently, bird flu and Schmallenberg virus, there has rightly been empathy and care for those who have worked hard to raise flocks and herds and have faced devastating losses. However, there is no such empathy or sympathy for those who work on fish farms—it is almost as though people believe that they deliberately set out to bring that catastrophe on themselves.”
“We saw what a catastrophic effect the micro jellyfish had. What research was carried out to identify that up-and- coming challenge before it arose? Mairi Gougeon: Does the member recognise that, in addition to the significant investment that the industry makes in research and innovation, we provided funding to the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre to do the very work that she is suggesting needs to be done to tackle those challenges? There needs to be broader recognition of that. Rhoda Grant: I recognise that, but those catastrophes happen and have really damaging impacts on the industry and on the international reputation of one of our largest exports, so we must do more and foresee the challenges that global warming is bringing.”
“I was brought up in a rural area, where the arrival of a fish farm provided permanent well-paid jobs that allowed young people to buy a home and stay in the community in which they had been brought up. We need more of that. We cannot simply hand over such communities as playgrounds for the rich, but the lack of good governance structures means that it is close to impossible for small companies to succeed. The planning system sets communities against one another and creates time lags that only those with the deepest pockets can survive. The industry is also impacted by climate change, but the Scottish Government’s marine laboratories have been all but hollowed out. We need research and development to take place to ensure that the industry is world leading, rather than being left to wither.”
“We are talking about a small local company that the Government should be supporting, which has fallen foul of a complex and expensive bureaucracy. It is little wonder, therefore, that most of the aquaculture industry is now owned by large multinationals, which have deep pockets and patient capital to see them through the planning process. The situation must change, because those jobs are crucial to our local economy. Good governance not only is transparent but cuts bureaucracy and makes trading easier, without cutting standards. Good governance also protects our international reputation and the reputation of the fish farming industry. Therefore, the Government is failing the industry and those who work in it by not acting on the concerns.”
“Recently, I read in the West Highland Free Press that a company in Skye, Organic Sea Harvest, has stopped farming at two of its farms in Skye, which will lead to the loss of 16 jobs in a part of Skye where local population retention is really challenging. That is the number of people who are directly employed by the company, but I fear that more jobs will be lost downstream in local support industries. In an already overheated tourism and second-home market, in which local people struggle to get a foothold in the housing market, such jobs are essential in allowing them to do so. From press reports, I understand that the reason why the company has stopped farming at those farms is to do with our slow and clunky planning process, with blame lying at the door of Highland Council and the Scottish Government.”
“Although that information is gathered, it is not transparently or accessibly available. That feeds negativity towards the industry. I welcome the fact that, in her response to the committee’s report, the cabinet secretary admitted that and agreed to look at how such information could be made more freely available. There are members of the committee and of the wider public who would like there to be a moratorium on all fish farm development. If they were honest, they would admit that they want to close down the industry altogether, but they forget that fish farming provides benefits. We need food, especially oily fish, which salmon farming provides. In rural parts of Scotland, where such farms are based, there is also a need for the jobs that the industry provides.”
“The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s report was difficult to compile, because it represents an appraisal of changes that were put in place following the report by its predecessor, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. It was difficult to measure change, because the challenges that the industry faces today are different from those that it faced when the previous report was written. However, we found that there had been no significant change with regard to transparency, regulation and governance. Even though salmon farming faces even greater challenges today, it appears that little progress has been made since the REC Committee’s report. It is for the Government to improve regulation and reporting, but, time and again, we discovered information that had not been published in a timely fashion.”
“Until we have governance structures that ensure that responsibility and good management are in place, until we have a Scottish Government that admits that it does not know best, and until people who are dependent on ferries make the decisions that affect ferries, nothing will change.”
“It needs to act to ensure that Ferguson’s is working, to keep the employees who have done such an excellent job, and to stop failing them by giving them the wrong contracts. The small ferry contracts would have been much better for Ferguson’s than the two large ferry contracts, which had no space for the second ferry. We need a 25-year plan for replacement of the fleet: we must have that in place. Scottish yards must know when ferry contracts will be put out to tender so that they can be prepared, and so that we can schedule that work in our own yards. Islanders need ferry services that are designed by them and that work for them.”
“The only difference would be that another company would be paying dividends to shareholders, as well as fines to the Scottish Government simply because the ferries do not work. Many members talked about the small ferry contract and the fact that it has gone abroad. Willie Rennie talked about learning lessons from the past, but those lessons do not seem to have been learned at all. The building of the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa has been an absolute disaster, and the blame for that lies with the Scottish Government. Its governance arrangements were non-existent, the contracts were let without a design sign-off, and the decision on dual fuel, which will never be used, was part of a vanity project. Sue Webber was right—if the Government does not shape up its act, it will doom Ferguson’s, and we cannot allow that to happen.”