Fergus Ewing
Independent · Scotland
“Last October, the Chinese renewables company Ming Yang announced an investment of £1,500 million in my constituency, which would initially create 1,500 direct jobs and lead to 4,000 jobs in phase 3.”
“As her cabinet secretary, I thank her for her diligence as a minister and congratulate her on the successful passage last week of a vital piece of Government legislation that was also supported across parties. I am glad that the bill that we have worked on together will—as I hope—pass this evening. It sends a strong signal.”
“I turn to the concerns of stakeholders, and particularly the teaching trade unions, with whom I have spent a lot of time in the past three years. First, I am sympathetic to some of the concerns from the teaching trade unions.”
“I will embarrass the minister now with all this praise in front of his colleagues, but he is known to be pro-business, and that is a good thing. Sadly, he is an oasis of common sense amidst a desert of disdain and disinterest.”
“Most practitioners will not need training, but those that do, definitely need it. Therefore, we need a focus on the training and on ensuring that it is available to all practitioners who require it.”
“Its work was diligent, detailed and critical to providing the scrutiny that allowed the bill to be improved. I pay tribute to Douglas Ross. He has been a diligent parliamentarian throughout, and I agree with him on what the Parliament needs to aspire to being when it comes to how it works and how contributions are made.”
The complete record
Every one of 452 lines we hold for Fergus Ewing, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
“In conclusion, in the 10 seconds that I have left, I note that Scotland’s fishermen are close to the hearts of most people in Scotland. They are part of our DNA and they deserve our respect and support. I hope that the cabinet secretary will answer some of the points that I have made. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ewing. Whether or not you are ripping them up, props should not be waved around in the chamber. The final speaker in the open debate is Finlay Carson. 18:19”
“I suggest to the Scottish Government—although it is a bit late now because it has had four years to do this—that there should be a review of the effect of the MPAs and an independent analysis of how we assess their economic impact. The current system does not work. I hoped that that review would happen in my time, but we never quite got there. I have here the strategy. I promise that I am not planning to tear it up, not least because I wrote the document but also because it would be out of order to do so. Scotland’s fisheries management strategy, which was produced in 2020, sets out 12 action points. I cannot go into them all now, but they are designed to promote fishing—not to regulate, challenge, ban or restrict it. Surely, five years on, it is time to have a review of the strategy.”
“Secondly, there should surely be a review of the efficacy of what we have done already before we go on to do even more. It is madness to create more designations unless we know how the existing ones are performing. The best conservation measures are often those that are proposed by the likes of Duncan Macinnes of the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association, or his equivalents in Mallaig, on the Clyde, in Pittenweem and all around our coast. I am talking just about inshore fishing because I do not have time to do anything else in this speech. Why do we not listen more to fishermen? As Rhoda Grant said, they feel that they are the forgotten tribe in our rural economy.”
“Ten years ago, there were 66 trawlers, but now only 14 are active. One was lost this week, three are up for sale and many skippers face retirement. We sometimes talk about fishing as if things have been the same for ever, but the challenges that the industry faces are absolutely enormous. That is why it is important that we have more time to debate them. One of the key problems is that, contrary to some people’s impression, large chunks of the sea are designated areas that cannot be fished. I will make two points. First, the method of assessing the economic impact of proposed MPAs and other designated areas is seen by fishermen as deeply flawed and as completely failing to take account of the magnitude of what has happened. The figures that I have quoted about the declining fleet tend to give credence to that.”
“I, too, congratulate Beatrice Wishart on her speech and on her support for the fishing industry. Indeed, she is following in the tradition of her predecessor, Tavish Scott, who championed the industry’s interests for many a year. Four minutes for a speech is very short, and I agree that there should be a proper debate. If there is not, that would be a bit of a slap in the face for our fishermen. The magnitude of the challenges that face the sector now is serious, particularly in the case of some of the inshore fleets. I do not have time to address the issues relating to the demersal or pelagic fisheries, important though they are. Mr Ross made several points that I agree with, as did Rhoda Grant. Some inshore fleets are in a parlous state. Elaine Whyte has told me that, as far as the Clyde goes, the decline is at a tipping point.”
“Community benefit of course brings considerable value and, by definition, benefit, but community ownership is a game changer for areas. I agree that, in relation to ensuring public consent for projects, it can have an important role to play, but fundamentally it can be game changing in regard to the economic power that becomes available for communities. I assure the member that I am engaging closely with my ministerial counterparts who lead on energy policy to ensure that we can work constructively to maximise opportunities for ownership as we progress through the renewable energy revolution. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes this item of business. Grangemouth”
“Community benefit at £5,000 per megawatt is all very well, and it is a benefit, but it is nowhere near as good as a share of community ownership. When I was minister, we had a community ownership scheme that was supported by Local Energy Scotland, the community and renewable energy scheme—CARES—that empowered communities. Why is the Scottish Government, along with the UK Government—which has some of the requisite legislative powers—Great British Energy and SNIB, not developing a community ownership scheme? I put it to the minister that, if the Scottish Government does not do that, the objections to wind farm applications in which communities have no stake of ownership might be overwhelming in the future. Tom Arthur: The member raises the question of ownership in relation to community benefit.”
“I apologise to members, as I may have to leave before the end of question time. I am grateful for permission to do so from your good self, Deputy Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how much it estimates will be paid in compensation for the properties to be compulsorily purchased to further the progress of the dualling of the A96 between Inverness and Auldearn, including the Nairn bypass, and when that process will be completed. (S6O-04308)”
“Scotland is leading the world on such innovation, and I am immensely proud of what our academic institutions and companies are doing to take forward that agenda. They will have the full support of the Scottish Government. Clinical Radiologists 6.”
“The First Minister: What I am interested in doing is ensuring that we manage the transition to net zero, because we cannot deny the climate crisis that we face. That will be the position that I adopt and observe, because the science tells me that that is the rational position for us to take. It will also dictate the approach that I take on energy policy and encouraging the move to sustainable energy security by the investments that we make in offshore renewables. Again, that is supported by the Government’s budget, which passed stage 1 on Tuesday, and is facilitated by outstanding interventions such as that from SGN in Methil, where there is a pilot project on using hydrogen as a replacement for gas in domestic power systems.”
“We are in a time of huge international tension and an ever-increasing risk of trade tariffs. The First Minister mentioned energy security. Is not the best way to protect energy security here and in Europe to produce as much oil and gas as we possibly can—not least because, as I hope the First Minister will know, the Equinor plan for the development of the Rosebank field states that the carbon footprint will be half the level of the existing North Sea average? Given that it will be electrification ready, the carbon footprint could reduce to 3kg of carbon per barrel, which is 25 times less than the carbon footprint of fracked gas from the USA or Qatar. Which is better for the environment: producing our own oil and gas or helping Donald Trump?”
“As Mr Rowley has argued, the skills challenge that arises from being able to do that work is simply on a scale that we cannot begin to comprehend. I am no expert in the area—I await what the minister has to say with interest—but I know that a lot of good work is being done by industry in schools and colleges around Scotland. However, we need to multiply that considerably. Along with the other capacity problems that we face in achieving our aspirations—aspirations that are all desirable—it should be a big focus of what we do.”
“Those targets are simply green pie in the sky—they are just stupid. What do we need to do, and what should we do in order to be able to do it? Many do not appreciate that the renewables opportunity, which is a form of industrial revolution for this century in Scotland, will create a volume of civil engineering projects of a like that is completely without precedent. Those projects include pumped storage facilities; grid schemes; Global Energy Group’s work at the Inverness and Cromarty Firth green freeport; electrification of the east coast line; hospitals; housing; schools; and schemes associated with Scottish Water and its £1 billion a year investment. When we tot all that up, it amounts to around £50 billion or £60 billion over the next 10 or 15 years. That is without precedent.”
“I congratulate Mr Rowley on securing the motion for debate in the chamber and for his contribution, which I thought set the scene extremely well. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the key issue. Governments should do what they promise, but they should not promise what they cannot do. I say with some regret that it seems that the UK and Scottish targets to achieve net zero—by 2030, in the case of the UK—are simply unachievable. I submit that we should not be setting targets that are unachievable. I am thinking of, for example, the target to install a million heat pumps by 2030, and, indeed, the target for installing renewable heating systems in the 170,000 houses that are off the gas grid and 1.2 million homes overall, when we are actually installing only a few thousand a year.”
“Given the vital importance to the Highlands and Islands of access in order to export our fine malt whiskies, our high-quality salmon and shellfish and many other products, will the Scottish Government provide its full-throated and unequivocal support for the third runway at Heathrow, which is the future gateway for Scottish Highlands and Islands exports to the willing world?”
“In 2022, the number of top-brass, grade-C civil servants stood at 2,278. By last year, that number had leapt to 2,776—a staggering 20 per cent increase in the number of senior civil servants in just two years. When the Minister for Public Finance sums up, I challenge him to explain to the public why this Government needs 500 more senior civil servants today than it did less than three years ago. This is a budget full of misplaced priorities.”
“Spending on workforce pay, pensions and national insurance contributions will swallow up 53.4 per cent of the entire Scottish resource budget this year alone. The cabinet secretary will no doubt hide cynically behind the increased pay for front-line workers in schools and hospitals. We welcome the efforts of those staff and we thank them, and their contributions are rightly rewarded. However, while everyone else is being told to tighten their belts, it is simply breathtaking hypocrisy on the part of ministers that we discover today—of all days—that the number of senior civil servants is still soaring. Data obtained by the Scottish Conservatives reveals that the core civil service wage bill has risen by £42 million in the past two and a half years. That is over and above the annual salary increases.”
“As we heard last week, one way of saving significant amounts of money, particularly in rural parts of Scotland—arguably £4 million or £5 million in the Highland health board area alone— would be the restoration of the provision of services such as vaccinations to local GPs, rather than those services being provided under a centralised metropolitan regime that does not work. Craig Hoy: Precisely. Our rural areas need that kind of support, as my colleague Edward Mountain has been calling for, and as I know that Fergus Ewing has also been calling for. Instead, we get one-size-fits-all, central belt-focused solutions from the SNP. Members should make no mistake: the projected spend in welfare is simply unsustainable. As Audit Scotland warns, so too is the cost of Scotland’s bloated public sector.”
“The Presiding Officer: The final question is, that motion S6M-16186, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on committee membership, be agreed to. Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that— Keith Brown be appointed as a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee; and Evelyn Tweed be appointed to replace Colin Beattie as a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. The Presiding Officer: That concludes decision time. Robert Burns”
“Motion, as amended, agreed to, That the Parliament believes that communities must be at the heart of the renewable energy transition, and that it is vital that they share in the significant benefits that will be created, in contrast with how Scotland’s communities have been failed for decades under successive UK administrations’ energy policies; notes the ongoing representations by the Scottish Government to the UK Government around the need for energy market reform; further notes that Scotland has some of the most stringent environmental impact regulations anywhere in the world and that the planning and consenting system is designed to ensure that local communities have their say; notes that the proposed reforms have long been the established position in England, which the previous UK Conservative administration did not alter in its 14 years in office, and understands that the proposals would require developers to consult communities much earlier in the planning process, which will ensure that affected communities can more meaningfully influence the process of project development.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the voting app. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ewing. We will ensure that that is recorded. For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Abstentions Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Gillian Mackay] Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-16171, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, on ensuring that communities are at the heart of the electricity consenting process, as amended, is: For 83, Against 35, Abstentions 7.”
“Jenni Minto: I hope that Mr Ewing will allow me to answer the question on the cabinet secretary’s behalf. I recognise the work that Mr Ewing has been doing to find solutions to the situation. As I indicated to Ms Baillie, the cabinet secretary wrote to NHS Highland today. I know that he would be happy to engage with Mr Ewing, and he will write to Mr Ewing to ensure that that engagement happens. The Presiding Officer: That concludes topical question time. Points of Order 14:27”
“For nigh on three years, I have campaigned with three health secretaries and three First Ministers to restore vaccination services to GPs, which would provide a safer system at much lower cost and a local service for the Highlands, not a metropolitan centralised model. I am pleased that it sounds as though there is good news on the issue at long last, and I thank the health secretary for that. That will help to avoid further loss of life. First, if there is to be that transfer of vaccination services, will it be swift? Secondly, is the cabinet secretary willing to meet me in person with NHS Highland GPs, perhaps in Inverness, and is he willing to have a virtual meeting so that GPs who are spread around the Highlands can contribute their views about how best to make the system work?”
“He said that they used to have a surge and do 60 per cent in October to get herd immunity up, but that has all gone. The facts are there in Ross Jaffrey’s report. I cannot go over them all, but the levels of immunisation in things such as—”
“There is cost—the old system cost roughly £1.5 million, and it is believed that the new system costs £6 million. If we extrapolate that across the whole of rural Scotland, it is a massive waste of money. However, the cost is not as important as the harm. I think that we would all accept that. One of the truly utterly shocking facts is that details of who has and who has not received immunisation—whether it is for flu, measles, mumps and rubella, whooping cough or Covid— cannot be shared with GPs. Immunisation is done at centralised locations, and when they see a patient, GPs do not know whether the patient, particularly when the patient is child, has been immunised. As Dr Jaffrey pointed out in his recent paper, that is leading to a drop-off in immunisation rates.”
“When I took up the case, I challenged whether it should take place at all. I have challenged Humza Yousaf, Michael Matheson, Neil Gray and the current and previous First Ministers, in the chamber, in meetings and, repeatedly, in letters. What has happened is that the GP contract has enforced removal of that service from GPs, despite the fact that three quarters of GPs in Highland voted against the contract. Now, 90 per cent of GPs want to have the service back. I am informed by Dr Jaffrey in a paper that he provided recently—I have furnished the cabinet secretary with a copy of it—that the 10 per cent of GPs who do not want it back are largely members of a Highland health board practice who are, no doubt, taking their lead from NHS Highland. There are many problems with that.”
“I thank Tim Eagle for, as he said, giving us all the opportunity to raise important matters. I wish to focus, as I have intimated to the cabinet secretary, on one of them—namely, the forced removal of vaccination services from GPs in 2023. Last spring, an infant in Highland died. No doubt, as is appropriate, the fatal accident inquiry will investigate the circumstances in due course. The family seeks total privacy: that must be respected. However, as the cabinet secretary knows, it is the belief of GPs who have been consulting, informing and advising me—notably, Dr Alastair Noble and Dr Adrian Baker from Nairn and, more recently, Dr Ross Jaffrey from Beauly— that the case arose because of lack of access to vaccination following the loss of provision of the service by local GPs. That change was brought in in 2023.”
“To quote the Godfather himself, Vito Corleone: cabinet secretary, I have made you an offer you should not refuse. 16:09”
“The approach leads to reduced costs, because companies can buy materials for the next contract ahead as well as the one that is being done and build up long-term relationships with suppliers. I say to the cabinet secretary that we should not go on making the same mistake. Somebody once said that you should never make the same mistake twice when you can make it five or six times and be sure of it. The approach that is being taken is almost guaranteed to lead to delays, although not necessarily in every one of the contracts. If that happens, any residual faith in the Scottish Government in the Highlands will be utterly shot to pieces. I want to make an offer to the cabinet secretary: please reconsider the request for acceleration. I make this in all seriousness. Consider it with the industry, which does not appear to have been consulted.”
“In such an approach, three, four or perhaps more companies will be on a list of approved contractors and will all be guaranteed work for eight, 10 or 12 years. Transport Scotland actually pursues that approach—Amey and BEAR Scotland have framework contracts for eight years and an option to renew for four—so why not use it for the main tendering of the major project? SSE has seven contractors on its framework and Network Rail has three. Scottish Water, I believe, uses a framework as well. From the company’s point of view, it is guaranteed work for about a decade. That means that it does not have the problem of a contract finishing and nothing to fill its place, which then leads to people being hired and fired.”
“Further, experience has shown that those contracts have not really performed timeously. I said in an intervention earlier that the Tomatin to Moy section was announced just before the 2021 election, and that was very welcome, but it will not be completed until 2028. That is seven years. There are eight remaining contracts. Eight sevens are 56. I am not saying that that will happen and that we will not see the project completed until 2080, but the way that we are approaching it currently is flawed. It is exacerbated by the fact that there is a plethora of other work to be done. I am told—and Grahame Barn said this in his oral evidence to the committee in June 2023—that a framework approach is far preferable to get things done.”
“That costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, so the unsuccessful ones have lost a hell of a lot of money. Secondly, the profit ratio is only about 2 or 3 per cent. Thirdly, as Jackson Carlaw mentioned in his opening speech, those companies all have an unprecedented level of other work. I could go through it all but, by my tally, it amounts to more than £60,000 million. That is unprecedented. If I was one of the big companies and was looking around for what to do, I would want to be sure that I could make a good return. Don Fanucci, in “The Godfather”, put it well when he said that everyone needs to wet their beak. That is facetious, perhaps, but it is true. If I can make 6 per cent, why on earth would I go for 2 per cent? Why would I carry the greater risks that the contracts that return only 2 per cent offer?”
“However, with respect, a little bit more humility in the response to the request for acceleration would have been seemly, and it is not too late for the cabinet secretary to put that right. I want to focus on one major and very serious issue, which is partly technical. My view, which is based not on my expertise, because I do not profess to have any, but on what I have learned from speaking to Grahame Barn, who has been a fount of wisdom, and to many other people in the civil engineering industry, is that the current approach of proceeding one by one with traditional procurement will not only fail in the future, as it has in the past; it bears very obvious foreseeable risks—risks that cannot really be gainsaid. For example, every one of those processes involves three or four companies putting in bids once they get on the short list.”
“It is devastating for every family involved. The tragedy affects them not just for a short period but for the whole of their lives. I think that we all recognise that, irrespective of our views. The Scottish Government has manifestly failed. I was part of it for a while, and although I was never responsible, I cannot elide myself from responsibility—I say that in all candour. I did speak behind the scenes and tried to influence things, but I was unsuccessful, and I obeyed the rules and did not speak out. I might have made up for that in the past few years, but I want to be honest. I know that the cabinet secretary is determined to do what she can, and I admire that. It is genuine; I can feel that—I think we all can.”
“I, too, thank the clerks for their assiduousness, helpfulness and patience, and I pay tribute to Laura Hansler, who has been dogged, determined and, indeed, indefatigable. When I was a boy, in my youth, my mother, Winnie, was particularly famous in Scotland. As I went around with her, I used to be asked repeatedly, “Fergus, are you going to go into politics and follow in your mother’s footsteps when you grow up?” I would always be inclined to answer, “No I won’t. I want to do a proper job first”—but here we are. It was back in the 1990s—I think that I can trump everybody here on the grounds of longevity—that I moved at the SNP conference that the A9 be dualled, so I have a bit of baggage here. We have heard from many people across the chamber about the sad loss of life on the road. I have lost friends.”
“I move, That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s 2nd Report, 2024 (Session 6), Inquiry into the A9 Dualling Programme (SP Paper 669), including the recommendation that a dedicated committee should be established to provide oversight and maintain momentum on scrutiny of long-running, multi-session infrastructure projects, such as the A9 dualling programme. 15:09”
“Our report suggests that taking the step of establishing such a committee would support the rebuilding of public trust and confidence that the commitment to fully dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness will be delivered. The whole Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has had an opportunity to consider the Government’s response, and we are slightly disappointed. We feel that the Government had an opportunity to reflect, to reset, to reboot and to restore public confidence, so that MSPs do not end up having the same debate in Parliament in 2035, having had another inquiry into why the A9 had still not been completed. I therefore encourage the cabinet secretary to seize the moment and the opportunity of the committee’s report and to do all that she can to ensure that public confidence is there and that the road is delivered.”
“During the A9 inquiry, I invited reflections from others, including former First Ministers and ministers, on how the existence of a cross-party parliamentary committee that was tasked with looking at a major project provided an impetus and helped to uncover solutions to difficult issues that might otherwise have led to drift. That was a legislative requirement for the Queensferry crossing. It is for Parliament to decide whether that is a route to look to in the future, but I think that the existence of the Forth Crossing Bill Committee undoubtedly helped to maintain a focus on a project that, after all, was eventually delivered on budget and on time.”
“We know from our work on the inquiry that there are people who feel that the Government should have been more candid about progress, or the lack thereof, on dualling the A9. Laura Hansler commented that part of the reason for lodging her petition was to challenge the very people responsible for the “unforgivable lack of transparency” surrounding the non-delivery of the dualling programme. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could respond to those who feel that there has been a lack of transparency up to now and set out what steps are in hand to change that. In a previous parliamentary session, I had the pleasure of serving as convener of the Forth Crossing Bill Committee, which colleagues might recall was established to examine the construction of what we now refer to as the Queensferry crossing.”
“There are those who would like the Government to take a more flexible and responsive approach to market capacity, with a view to accelerating the dualling programme, should the capacity exist in the construction and engineering sector to do so. That is why the committee is a little disappointed by the Government’s recent rejection of any plans to accelerate the current programme. During her evidence to the committee, Nicola Sturgeon reflected on whether the Government was “as candid as we should have been with ourselves, as well as with the public, about just how challenging it would always have been”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 29 May 2024; c 7-8.] to meet the 2025 target.”
“To put that into context, we heard that the north of Scotland can expect to see about £20 billion- worth of investment from SSE in the next five years, and that a further £20 billion to £30 billion will be invested by Scottish Power, Network Rail and others in major projects across Scotland over the next decade. Those organisations need the road to be completed in order to fulfil their obligations to those projects, but those projects will be competing for the same workforce as we require to complete the A9. The Scottish Government has told us that it considered market capacity when it developed the updated A9 delivery plan.”
“It is to be hoped that contractors now have a more positive view of working with Transport Scotland, as it became increasingly clear to the committee that, due to the scale of the civil engineering work that is planned for Scotland— specifically, the north of Scotland—over the next decade, it will be not only the availability of funding that determines whether the Scottish Government can deliver on its commitment on the A9 but the availability of a workforce to carry out the construction of the remaining sections as competition among members of the industry to undertake the projects continues to rise.”
“We are particularly grateful for the candid evidence that was provided to us by the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, which told us that its members regarded Transport Scotland “as the worst client to work for in the UK.” It is possible that that opinion might have softened as a result of a change in Transport Scotland’s approach to procurement contracts, which means that there will now be a greater balancing of risk between the Scottish Government and contractors. CECA Scotland praised Transport Scotland for taking the “large leap” of changing its procurement approach, with the number of bids received for the Tomatin to Moy section being an encouraging indication that contractors are content with the new form of contract.”
“As our report makes clear, the delays that have been experienced are, frankly, unacceptable for people who live and work in the north of Scotland. Although a revised date for completion of the project has been announced, the news of a delay to the expected completion of the Tomatin to Moy section leaves the committee unconvinced that the lessons of the past have been learned.”
“Our committee is no stranger to public concerns about the Government’s approach to major road projects, which we continue to examine as part of our consideration of a number of petitions. Transparency in relation to Transport Scotland’s decision-making processes is a recurring theme. Although we look forward to inviting the cabinet secretary to the committee in due course to discuss several petitions that relate to road projects that are in hibernation in different parts of Scotland, it might be worth reflecting on how past experiences, such as the lack of open, external discussion of delays and drift on the A9 dualling programme, have negatively impacted public perceptions of Transport Scotland.”
“Special thanks should also be offered to Edward Mountain, who attended many of the evidence sessions and contributed to our deliberations in his role as reporter from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Although the extensive evidence that we considered did not uncover, in the parlance of the day, a smoking gun that suggested that the Government had acted in any way maliciously—it did not suggest that at all—it became clear to the committee that a lack of clarity over the availability of funding resulted in a failure to deliver the project on time. It was clear, too, that the unwillingness of the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland to be open and transparent about the challenges that were being faced has damaged public trust in the Government’s ability to deliver the dualling programme.”
“Does Jackson Carlaw agree that the committee looked at not only what went wrong but how to put things right in the future? In that respect, the evidence that we heard from Grahame Barn, the chief executive officer of the body that represents 80 per cent of civil engineering companies in Scotland, was extremely helpful in the detail of his recommendations about how procurement might be done more effectively in the future. Jackson Carlaw: I hope to say more about that, and I am quite sure that Fergus Ewing will not miss the opportunity to do so himself. Like me, Fergus Ewing will have been slightly surprised when the documents that we received from Transport Scotland turned out to be about 18 inches thick. There was quite a bit of reading and digesting, even if quite a lot of the documents turned out to be redacted.”
“Everybody can see it, and it really must change, and change radically. I am afraid to say that, for my constituents, the past four years have been wasted years. However, the cabinet secretary—who, I know, has the best of intentions—has one year left before the next election to put things right. I urge her to do so. 13:01”
“I recognise the work that Brian Wilson has done on that and the various salient points that he has made. Thirdly, there should be far more reliance on industry and civil engineering experts, and there should be more collaboration. Let such experts, independently of Transport Scotland, advise, probe, quiz, challenge and question projects—not as paid consultants in the pocket of quangos but as independent experts who know far more than politicians about what they are doing. Fourthly, there should be candour and accountability and an end to the secrecy of the freedom of information regime. Sadly, whether it is CMAL on ferries or Transport Scotland on roads, these quangos, which should be quasi- autonomous, have become almost fully autonomous—the “quasi” has gone and there is no accountability.”
“I want to be positive. I have always tried to offer constructive criticism, even though it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. We need a fresh approach to strategic project delivery—a tabula rasa, as they might say. I will briefly set out four components of an entirely fresh approach, which I can talk about only at a very high level. First, we must take the partisan party politics out of our approach. There is consensus among the main parties, so let us negotiate and work with the main parties and not pander to our absent wine bar revolutionaries. Secondly, put local community people, who know their communities best, in charge and involve them at all times in decision making—not just in some synthetic and bogus consultations, especially in the Hebrides with regard to Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd and Caledonian MacBrayne.”