Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay.

In closing, I say that warm words from the Government mean nothing and do nothing for island communities, unless the Government is willing to put its money where its mouth is and establish—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

—a proper resilience fund to compensate businesses.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Dargavel parents have said that they have no confidence in Renfrewshire Council, the chief executive and the director of education, so does the cabinet secretary agree that the review that Renfrewshire Council initiated and paid for cannot possibly command public confidence?

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I wish my colleague Alex Rowley a speedy recovery from his recent planned surgery, and I wish Kevin Stewart well, too.

When I start my speeches in Parliament, I almost always say that I welcome the chance to speak in the debate, but there is nothing to welcome about one of the biggest public procurement disasters in the history of devolution, which has resulted in ferries that are three times over budget and five years late. However, I want to thank the Public Audit Committee and, in particular, the convener and its officials, for their extensive work, which they did in spite of the difficulties that they encountered, as outlined by Mr Hoy.

The motion asks us to note the conclusions and recommendations of the report. I not only do that but put on record that I agree with those recommendations, even if the SNP members of the committee, who tried to remove any criticism of Scottish Government ministers from the report, do not. I say to them that almost everyone with any sense in Scotland knows that the Scottish Government is ultimately responsible and at serious fault for this fiasco. The attitude and failure of those SNP committee members to fully recognise that reflects very badly indeed on them.

This week on South Uist, as we do every week on many of our islands, we see the impact of the ferries debacle, with people paying the cost of this Government’s failure. Of course we need to look at how our ferry services will be run in the future, but the number 1 reason for people in Scotland not having a reliable ferry service is that they do not have a reliable ferry fleet. Despite what the First Minister claimed earlier in the chamber, over the SNP’s time in office, only six ferries have been built in 16 years, whereas 10 ferries were built by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Government in half that time—in eight years.

Because of the current fiasco, we face a situation in which our ferry network is in crisis and we are having to build ferries in Turkey. We are also having to pay £1 million a month for the catamaran MV Alfred as a relief vessel.

The Public Audit Committee’s report sheds light on how that situation came to pass and raises a series of concerns about the SNP’s financial mismanagement and irresponsibility. It also highlights the considerable lack of transparency and accountability on the part of all those involved, including Government ministers. From FMEL not being open about its inability to provide a full builders refund guarantee to the current First Minister exercising “poor judgement”, in the words of the committee, when he was transport minister and stating that he had no knowledge of the preferred bidder when evidence suggests that he did, the entire scandal has been characterised by the complete opposite of transparency.

It is little wonder that there are still so many unanswered questions. In particular, the fact that serious questions about competition and serious concerns over the integrity of the procurement process remain compromises public trust. The findings of the KC’s inquiry must be shared with the Parliament in full—no ifs, no buts. I say to the cabinet secretary that it is not for CMAL to tell us what it will and will not share with the Government. That report must be shared in full—no ifs, no buts. [Interruption.] I could not make out what the cabinet secretary was saying there. I would welcome confirmation from the cabinet secretary that the KC’s findings will be given to Parliament in full, with no redactions.

No one in Government has taken responsibility for the situation. We have had a merry-go-round of ministers, who once could not get down to the yard for a photo opportunity quickly enough, but who are now desperate to avoid any association with the fiasco. Real responsibility would mean Government ministers fixing this mess and seeing the job through until it is done.

The Government has also failed to hold senior management to account. Those managers should not have received a penny in bonuses while ferries were delayed and over budget. To add insult to injury, the former turnaround director was paid £2 million, despite overseeing more delays and increasing costs. People do not want to hear the Government say, “I agree with you and that was wrong”; they want ministers to get their money back.

There is a lot of blame to go around in this fiasco. Ministers, agencies and management are all responsible but, as the convener said, the one group of people who have been entirely blameless throughout are those in the Ferguson’s workforce. In fact, if the warnings from the GMB union had been listened to earlier, we might not be in this mess now. It is vital that we listen to them in future.

Along with Alex Rowley, I met GMB shop stewards Alex Logan and John McMunagle at the yard some weeks ago. They are calling for investment in facilities at the yard and for it to be directly awarded contracts to build smaller, simpler, standardised vessels in order to secure a positive future for Ferguson’s and its workforce. That work could easily be done at the yard, as has been demonstrated previously. The workforce should not be judged because of these two vessels. The Ministry of Defence work from BAE Systems is a vote of confidence in the yard and the Scottish Government should follow suit by awarding contracts from the small ferry vessel replacement programme, although with robust oversight in place.

We need a national ferry building programme that gives our islanders the ferries that they deserve and builds them efficiently here in Scotland, not in Turkey. Nor should the Government sell off the yard now. This is the Government’s mess and it is the Government’s job to clear it up and to help restore the yard’s reputation.

The committee’s report highlights a lack of financial responsibility, transparency and, ultimately, responsibility. There has been inadequate oversight of the entire situation from start to finish and a complete disregard for stakeholder engagement. Despite what SNP members of the committee may think, islanders, workers and all of Scotland’s taxpayers are paying the price for this SNP Government’s incompetence and financial mismanagement.

I think the answer that the minister was looking for is “nothing”. Despite McGill’s cutting a huge 13 per cent of services in Renfrewshire, the Scottish Government has done nothing, and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and councils have only limited resources with which to step in.

At a busy public meeting in Linwood this week, people from across Renfrewshire told of the huge impact that those cuts are having on national health service staff and patients, college students and working parents. People in Renfrewshire think that the cuts are unacceptable. Does the minister agree that the cuts are unacceptable and, if so, what is the Government going to do to reverse them?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to prevent recent cuts to bus services in Renfrewshire. (S6O-02351)

I rise to speak for Scottish Labour in this debate and to support the Scottish Government’s motion in the name of the cabinet secretary to withhold consent to the UK Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.

I thank the officials from the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee for their assistance in turning round a report on the issue very quickly.

I suspect that, at decision time, Labour will join every party bar one in the chamber in refusing consent and reaffirming our opposition to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. We recognise that there have been amendments, but we also recognise that the amendments that have been made since we last discussed the matter are inadequate. That unity across four of the five parties here as well as across the devolved nations, with the Welsh Government taking the same approach, should encourage reflection on the part of the UK Government and be enough for it to ditch its reckless assault on the environmental, food, health and workers’ rights contained in the bill. However, history tells us how unlikely that is. The approach of UK Government ministers to leaving the EU has been arrogant and disrespectful. They have trashed conventions, ruined governmental relations and tarnished Britain’s reputation on the world stage—and for what?

The disastrous bill carries little confidence given the uncertainty in law that it will generate, and it has already been rejected once by the Scottish Parliament, as well as by the Welsh Senedd. The UK Government’s marching on demonstrates just how out of touch it is.

As the cabinet secretary has said, the amendments from last month were constructed to such a tight timescale that proper scrutiny has been avoided. That re-emphasises our concern about the approach that the bill fosters.

The Labour Party, here and at Westminster, repeatedly called on the UK Government to remove the automatic sunset clause, which would have resulted in hundreds of laws dropping off the statute book at the end of the year. We therefore welcome the significant U-turn, which flips the original approach on its head and assimilates all EU law into domestic law, with the exception of those in schedule 1 to the bill. However, as we have heard, concerns remain.

The cabinet secretary’s evidence to the committee outlined that there are nine areas in which concurrent powers between the Scottish ministers and UK Government ministers could mean that the Scottish Government’s and, indeed, the Scottish Parliament’s aims are frustrated when UK ministers have a different policy objective in those areas. That amounts to the creation of uncertainty and a potential encroachment on devolved competence.

It is essential that we see more co-operative working to ensure that possible areas of disagreement are avoided. When the bill receives royal assent, as it undoubtedly will, we must ensure that there is enough transparency in how it is operated.

Amendments to the bill mean that UK ministers will be expected to present a progress report to MPs every six months. Given the vast broadening of executive power that is contained in the legislation, it would be appropriate for the Scottish Government to follow suit and ensure that we in this Parliament are updated on the actions of Scottish ministers as regularly as possible. I do not believe that the current commitment to do so annually is good enough in an area in which there are likely to be many developments throughout the year. I agree with what the convener has said on that issue. I also acknowledge what the cabinet secretary said to me in the committee in that regard, and I hope that we will see progress on that matter.

Labour will vote to withhold consent to the bill. Pressing ahead is the wrong approach. The bill poses a significant and serious threat to devolution. It will mean large-scale deregulation and a race to the bottom, and its enactment will result in a weakening of rights awarded through 47 years of EU membership.

Businesses, trade unions and campaigners in Scotland and across the UK have called for the bill to be stopped. This Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and many MPs agree. Those warnings must not be ignored, and the bill should be scrapped before it is too late.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. As my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy said, Scottish Labour welcomes the Government’s national discussion on education and the publication of the report, but they must now lead to the right action and positive change.

It is essential that the voices of those in the education sector, especially children, parents and teachers, are not only listened to but acted on. It should be clear that we will not create an education system that meets the needs of all our children and young people without that.

The sad reality is that pupils who live in more affluent families are still more likely to succeed in school and higher education. We will not close the poverty-related attainment gap unless we give our teachers and staff the proper resources to do their jobs. Pam Duncan-Glancy made some important points about non-contact working time in that regard. Resources will also be needed to better support children with additional support needs and to tackle issues such as violence in our schools. It will take the efficient use of resources to make our shared objectives a reality.

A national discussion or vision for education will be a national success only if it delivers positive results for the whole country, and places such as Renfrewshire in the west of Scotland in particular.

I now want to discuss the major challenges facing children and education staff in Renfrewshire. Renfrewshire children are currently facing a double whammy when it comes to resources, which will make positive change more difficult, rather than easier, to achieve. Not only are local pupils and staff facing cuts to attainment challenge funding; they are also facing a massive bill due to the disruption of the Dargavel school debacle.

Four of the nine authorities that have been allocated attainment challenge funding are in my West Scotland region: Inverclyde, West Dunbartonshire, North Ayrshire and Renfrewshire. That is a stark reminder of the scale and concentration of poverty in the west of Scotland, but those areas all face massive cuts to their share of attainment challenge funding—in Renfrewshire, it is 71 per cent. I say to the Government that I do not have a problem with providing extra money for education in every council across Scotland where it is badly needed or with reviewing how existing funding is being used and considering improvements. However, I have a problem with funding extra money for all councils by taking it from the councils that the Scottish Government itself has identified as facing the biggest challenges in relation to the poverty-related attainment gap. Hitting the poorest families in the poorest areas hardest will only worsen the attainment gap.

One group of people with whom the cabinet secretary should definitely have an urgent discussion is the parents of children in Dargavel, Renfrewshire, where a primary school with a capacity of 430 was built when accommodation is, in fact, needed for 1,500 pupils. The former education secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville, told me that she had not seen anything like it. I agree.