Oral Answers to Questions

Kenny MacAskill Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the Scottish Government on maximising employment opportunities in the offshore wind sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)]

The future for Scotland’s offshore wind sector is bright. As part of our “Powering up Britain” package, the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme is currently open to applications. Through the scheme, we will distribute funding to support critical port infrastructure that will enable the delivery of floating offshore wind and provide quality employment opportunities for years to come.

[Kenny MacAskill]

It is not just in employment, but in community benefit that we are losing out. Ireland has ensured that €24 million per annum will go to coastal communities hosting offshore renewable projects. In the UK, there is a legislative gap, where onshore wind is providing benefits for communities but there is no provision for offshore wind and the communities onshore. In East Lothian, we have Cockenzie and Torness where the energy will come ashore, and on the horizon there will be turbines. Where is our share, if Ireland can see €24 million per annum going to its communities for far less hosting?

[John Lamont]

The growth of our green industries will lead to new jobs and many benefits for our communities, whether they be in East Lothian or in other parts of Scotland. To support this transformation and help people take advantage of the opportunities that the transition will bring, we will be producing a net zero and nature workforce action plan in 2024. We are starting with a set of initial proposals and actions from the net zero power and networks pilot working group, followed by a suite of comprehensive actions from those sectors by summer 2023, to ensure that communities such as those in East Lothian and across Scotland can take full advantage of the benefits of these projects.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Kenny MacAskill Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

As other speakers have said, there is always something in a Budget to commend, and some elements that are admirable. It is the totality that needs to be looked at, and it is not simply the headline figures that are announced by the Chancellor but the drill-down figures that will appear in days to come that will constitute the analysis of this Budget.

The support for carbon capture and storage is welcome, but the question remains, “Why not in Scotland and in the North sea, which has about 30% of Europe’s capacity, given its geology?” Prepayment meters are rightly being levied, as many Members have mentioned, but why has that not been done already? All that was required was a ministerial letter to Ofgem, which could and should have been sent before winter arrived. It is still snowing in Scotland, and people are freezing. This should have been dealt with a long time ago, as should other aspects of energy that have not been touched on.

There was another welcome announcement about new technology, but where were the announcements about hydrogen or long-duration battery storage? More than 17% of our turbine capacity in the UK, not just in Scotland, has been turned off, not because the winds are not turning the blades but because the national grid does not have the capacity. There is a solution, which is to store it and to use it. That is why we need battery storage and why we need hydrogen—and, as we see from the conflict in Ukraine, we can also get ammonia from it.

Those aspects should have been considered, but, as I have said, this must be looked at in the round. What the Budget does show is that there is wealth in society, and what I want to consider is where that wealth has come from and to whom it is largely going. The position remains that Scotland is energy-rich, yet the majority of Scots are going to find themselves fuel-poor. The oil and gas wealth that we were told in 2014 was all but gone, and would simply be a burden on poor Scotland if we went independent, is now being used as a crutch by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition, there is the situation of offshore wind. At the same time, however, fuel poverty continues to scar Scotland in not just rural but urban areas. There was no mention of unregulated fuels, on which some 8% of people in Scotland still depend. The cost has been even greater than that of gas and electricity, but no steps have been taken to address it.

No steps have been taken to address the needs of those who live off the gas grid, whose fuel poverty has worsened. That can be because they depend on unregulated fuels or because, in urban areas, those in 1960s multi-storey flats or other tenements where gas cannot be provided are dependent on all-electric supplies, which are usually the most costly and the most ineffective in providing warmth. What arrangements have been made for them? Why could the alternative fuel funding not be made available for them? They are in clear need, and that should have been extended to them. We need support for those using unregulated fuels and those in all-electric households in urban and rural deprived areas.

There remains the question of the social tariff. It has been trailed by the Government but we still have not seen an announcement. It is provided by other countries across the world, especially on the European continent, and it is about time that we saw a social tariff delivered here for those who are most vulnerable. We are not seeing support for the poorest, but we are seeing wealthy pensioners being provided for. Earlier this week there was a meeting at which research provided by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust pointed out that since the inception of the welfare state in this country we have always held the belief that there should be a safety net below which nobody should go.

This safety net was initially provided through supplementary benefits. Now it is meant to be provided by universal credit, whether someone is in work or in receipt of a pension, yet the situation that our society now faces is that this is not providing the basic essentials for humans to survive. They do not even have the basic essentials, leaving aside the need for people to deal with emergencies such as debt crises. It simply does not allow for day-to-day living. The shortfall is £35 per week for a single person and £66 for a married couple. The fact is that people in this country are going under, yet the only people being rewarded in this Budget are those who have the greatest wealth, whether to invest further in pensions or to pass on to those who will benefit from the wealth they have accrued. Society has to be judged by how it looks after its poorest and most vulnerable.

Of course, all of this is occurring in a country that is energy rich. We are talking about probably the majority of Scots, over half the population, being in fuel poverty. Whole areas will be existing in fuel poverty, yet Scotland’s energy wealth is being used by the UK to make the rich richer. Scotland’s wealth is being extracted and our people are being left bereft. It is not just the oil and gas that I mentioned earlier—let us look at what is anticipated to come from renewable energy.

I asked the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy what energy was going to be provided from Scotland to south of the border. I was told that at the present moment 35 terawatts of energy is going south. I confess that I had to investigate what a terawatt was—I had heard of a kilowatt, a megawatt and a gigawatt, but I did not know what a terawatt was. A terawatt is 1 billion kilowatts. The average household in Scotland uses a 4,000 kilowatts per annum. Scotland is sending 35 terawatts south, and BEIS anticipated that by 2030, Scotland would be providing 124 terawatts. That is 124 billion kilowatts of electricity, yet our people are freezing as I speak. People are unable to power their homes. Our energy is being taken. You took our oil and gas, and you are seeking to take our offshore and onshore wind. This is simply unacceptable. This Budget enriches those who are already rich in England while it exploits the natural bounty of Scotland and further impoverishes the poor people of Scotland and across the United Kingdom.

Independence Referendum for Scotland

Kenny MacAskill Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about securing consensus, not just between the UK and Scottish Governments, but across all parts of society in Scotland. We are lacking that just now. As he knows, we face major challenges, including restoring economic stability, gripping inflation, supporting people with their energy bills, supporting the NHS, combating climate change, supporting Ukraine and levelling up. People across Scotland just do not accept that now is the time for another divisive referendum.

At this time of unprecedented challenges, the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom have never been more apparent. For instance, the people of Scotland benefit from substantially higher public spending thanks to being part of the United Kingdom. That Union dividend means that remaining part of the UK is worth around £2,000 per year for every Scot. That is demonstrated in figures from the SNP Government in Edinburgh. Furthermore, the UK Government are providing the Scottish Government with a record block grant settlement of £41 billion per year over the next three years.

There can be no question about this Government’s commitment to Scotland; it is best demonstrated by what we are delivering on the ground. That includes a multibillion-pound investment in Scotland’s defence and shipbuilding industries, which will safeguard not just the UK’s security, but tens of thousands of jobs on the Clyde and beyond.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

The Minister does not have to give way, but he might be under the impression that we have to keep this debate to half an hour. We have some extra time because the previous debate finished early, if that helps the hon. Member and the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

Thank you, Mr Bone. Another divisive referendum is the wrong priority, at the worst possible time, and would be a complete distraction from the very real challenges that people across our country face.

[Kenny MacAskill]

I am listening to the Minister expound the great virtues. Can he explain to me why, when Scotland is energy-rich, more than half of our people are going to be fuel-poor this winter, and many will be in extreme fuel poverty?

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am just considering what the hon. Member said, and am remembering what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath said. I am not quite sure what that point has got to do with the referendum. I will leave it up to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Bone.

I fully understand and recognise the real pressures that people are facing just now with the rising cost of energy. We all know that is largely due to rising inflation, which is of course due to the illegal war in Ukraine.

[Kenny MacAskill]

indicated dissent.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member for East Lothian shakes his head; I would like to know what evidence he has to suggest that the war in Ukraine is not causing rising energy prices.

That is why this Government have taken action to support households in all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, to deal with those rising energy bills. That is yet another benefit of the strength of the Union and the power that this Parliament and Government are able to take to support people during difficult and challenging times.

Instead of divisive constitutional arguments, people in Scotland want and rightly expect both of their Governments, here and in Edinburgh, to be concentrating all their attention and resources on the issues that matter to them, their families and communities, such as the cost of living, working to drive down NHS backlogs, protecting jobs and securing our long-term energy security. The Prime Minister has been clear in his commitment to working collaboratively and constructively with the Scottish Government to tackle all the challenges we share and face. That is exactly what we want to do in vital areas, such as growing our economy, supporting our NHS and leading the international response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. This Government remain focused on getting on with the job of delivering for the people of Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

Kenny MacAskill Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, which covers the two crisis issues of our time: the collapse of the British economy and the kick-on effects on our society, and the vital need for Scottish independence. That is encapsulated in the perversity that Scotland is energy rich, yet Scots will be fuel poor this winter. The economy is faltering as a result of the Truss experiment, but the rot started before that. It started with a hard Brexit forced upon Scotland, and the situation has worsened and the pace has accelerated.

As a consequence, we have another perversity in that, as we have been taking part in this debate in this Chamber, the Deputy First Minister of Scotland has been speaking in Holyrood imposing swingeing public service cuts that will have an impact on Scotland’s poorest. What a perversity that that has happened. Of course, the responsibility rests with the budgetary situation in the UK and the Scottish Government’s limited ability to react, but it is why we should be moving fast for independence, and that is why we have to ask, “What has been done?”

Mandates have come and mandates have gone, just as mañana follows mañana. We are now told there is to be a referendum next year, just as I was told there was going to be a referendum next year ever since I first went into the SNP group in December 2019. Maybe there will be a referendum next year, but I do not see a great deal of preparation by the SNP or the Scottish Government to ensure that it will actually take place or that we are going to win it. That takes away from the need for Scotland to be sovereign. All the preparation we have had has been a few papers.

I will not go further on that, but the reference to the Supreme Court, far from being a wizard wheeze by the Scottish Lord Advocate, is frankly a counsel of despair. We will see what the outcome of that will be but, at the end of the day, it is the right of the Scottish people to choose their own destiny, and that cannot be usurped either by a UK Supreme Court or by a British Parliament.

The situation has changed as a result of Brexit. We did lose the referendum in 2014, but we came remarkably close. The UK had to call in favours from all and sundry, including President Obama, and just about did it, but we can do it the next time. The risk has also changed, because in 2014 the risk was that we would lose our EU membership. The risk was that people would lose their pension or the NHS that is so dear to us. The risk was having an unstable currency. The risk was not being part of a British force for good. But the situation is that we have had Brexit and been ripped out of the EU, sterling is plummeting, the NHS and our pensions are being privatised and undermined, and Britain, far from being a force for good, is an international laughing stock. What is so great about being British when people can see the turbines turning from their home but will not be able to heat their house this winter?

What is being done? Where is the action? That question is why I have to move on to what needs to be done. First, the Bill for a Scottish independence referendum should be launched in the Scottish Parliament. If the Lord Advocate is not prepared to do it, get a Minister or another member of the SNP to do it. Launch it forthwith, so that when it comes before the Supreme Court for a decision, it will not be a simple referral from the Scottish Government, but have standing behind it the sovereign will of the Scottish people, decided by their Parliament. The Scottish National party still has the time to get out of the fire and ensure that Holyrood passes that Bill.

Secondly, let us call a Scottish constitutional convention. At the end of the day, the people of Scotland are sovereign. As we have heard from speaker after speaker, especially on the SNP Benches, they should be sovereign through the Government that they elect, not one that they have not elected since 1955. Why do we need our Scottish countrymen? Let us look around. How many people do we have on the Tory Benches? Five. How many are sitting on the Labour Benches? Four. Will that make any difference? What matters is that the people of Scotland’s elected representatives should decide.

In February 2020, the First Minister of Scotland said that she would call a constitutional convention. Let us call that convention and make it clear that it is the Scottish people, through their democratically elected Scottish representatives whether in this Chamber or other Chambers or as senior members of local government—

[Mike Kane]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kenny MacAskill]

No, I am running out time. I am the only speaker from my party. The hon. Member’s party has undermined the cause of independence and sided with the Tories, which is why it paid the electoral price.

As I was saying, we need a constitutional convention. We need the First Minister to lead from the front and get active in demonstrations in support of Scottish democratic sovereignty and the legitimate right of our people. We need to pursue this through not just the UK Supreme Court but international courts and aspects. This is a position on which we have to make a stand.

The Scots will struggle this winter. That an energy-rich Scotland will probably see people dying as a result of a fuel crisis is simply perverse. We have had enough mandates; it is time to have our choice, as is our right. That has to be delivered through a referendum. If the Government will not give us a referendum, another route needs to be chosen. The Scottish people will not get any satisfaction from the Government or the Opposition in this Chamber, which is why we have to make sure that there is a convention and that the democratic right of the Scottish people prevails.

Ports (Forth and Clyde)

Kenny MacAskill Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

I will call Kenny MacAskill to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulation of ports and maximising economic and maritime potential on the Forth and the Clyde.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. As post-Brexit chaos has all too vividly shown, ports are a vital part of a nation’s infrastructure. Scottish and UK exports have been hindered and harmed by Brexit itself, but also by blockage at key ports. Commercial harbours are fundamental for trade and the health of the economy. Indeed, the UK Government even sought to reopen a port as the crisis loomed and at significant cost—albeit failure. Meanwhile, Ireland has seen ferry and container services to the continent greatly increase, allowing for both outbound exports and inbound tourism. Scotland, though, remains devoid of even one direct ferry service to Europe. There have been past debates about that issue and the continued problem, so today I wish to focus my remarks on another aspect of maritime policy, one that equally constrains Scottish economic growth and the potential for Scottish tourism. It is related and inextricably linked, as ferries and ships ply their trade and take their goods to harbours. The issue is port ownership and regulation.

Ports were privatised in 1992, and that lies at the heart of the problem and remains a serious concern for Scotland today. Hence, although transport is largely devolved and much to do with ports and harbours rests within the domain of the Scottish Government, a debate in this Parliament remains hugely relevant and, indeed, vital. As well as being caused by the UK Government’s actions in privatisation, it also affects their current reserved powers, as it has created a monopoly situation, which I believe is harmful to local needs and to Scotland’s national interests. Trust in municipal ports still exists and they mostly perform well for their communities. I have many in my constituency and others, such as Aberdeen, can be even bigger. However, there are critical areas in Scotland where what should be municipal, indeed national, assets are instead owned and operated for private profit, and where the wants of other communities and even countries dominate.

Scotland has many estuaries, but industrialisation and population have ensured that the two most critical are the firths of Forth and Clyde. They teem with people and businesses, as well as being redolent of Scottish history. They are vital for access, not just to the east and west coasts of Britain but for trade beyond with Europe, America and the rest of the world. Who owns them and what effect does that have on our nation?

Let me start on the east coast. I was born in Leith, for long the principal port on the Forth, if not in Scotland, until trade moved west. Nowadays, I can see the river from my flat in Dunbar and therefore know the estuary well. Ask anyone in either of those communities or, indeed, anywhere on the banks on the river who owns Forth Ports and they will say perhaps the council or the Scottish Government or maybe even a wealthy Scottish industrialist. But no, they would be wrong and they would be gobsmacked to know that Forth Ports is owned by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, a Canadian Crown corporation.

The fundamental duty of that organisation is to maximise revenue for the pensions of Canadian public sector workers, current or retired—a laudable aim that I do not criticise in the least, as they are no doubt pensions well earned through hard work and endeavour. However, the duty of the Canadian Public Sector Pension Investment Board is not to ensure the maximisation of the port asset for the local community, let alone ensure the growth of the Scottish economy. No wonder many residents in Leith and even some employees view it more as a property developer than as a port operator, or that Forth Ports sees the construction of a wharf allowing cruise liners to dock as being the responsibility of the Scottish Government, rather than its own, despite the name and ownership of the asset. That is how it is: it is not Canadian pensioners to blame but port policy, or the lack of it, in Scotland and the UK.

It gets worse. Not only is Forth Ports owned by the equivalent of an absentee landlord—Scotland knows how harmful they can be—it is worsened by other ports that Forth Ports plc owns and operates. Forth Ports becomes the equivalent of a branch factory and, once again, Scotland knows how harmful that position is.

Who is Forth Ports plc? For sure, it owns Grangemouth, which is Scotland’s principal container port, as well as the ports of Leith, Rosyth, Methil and Burntisland, the other major ports on the Forth. It also owns the port of Dundee on the Firth of Tay, the next firth or estuary up the coast. All fine and well, one might think, but it is what else it owns and operates, despite the name Forth Ports plc, which causes a conflict of interest. It also owns and operates the Port of Tilbury, which is part of the Port of London, situated on the River Thames, not the River Forth or any firth in Scotland.

We might ask, “So what?” But it is when we realise, not just where ownership lies, but where the major source of operation is sited that the problem appears. Tilbury carries more traffic than all the Scottish ports combined. Forth Ports corporate website last year indicated that 16 million tonnes of cargo went out of Tilbury, but only 9 million from Grangemouth, which is by far the largest Scottish port. Tilbury, as well as dominating in trade, dominates in passenger numbers. The cruise liner turnaround hub at Rosyth, mentioned on the corporate website, is dwarfed by the London international cruise terminal boasted of at Tilbury on the same corporate site.

In a nutshell, what does that mean? It means that what should be Scotland’s major east coast port area is owned for the benefit of pensioners across the Atlantic, and where the strategic focus of management is on the Thames not the Forth. The interests of the Forth in Scotland are swamped by those of a Canadian pension fund and a competitor estuary. That is the issue on Scotland’s east coast but what is it like on the west?

The west coast remains vital to Scotland, even if much focus has once again returned to the North sea and away from the Atlantic. It is rooted in the Scottish psyche and soul, from the tears of emigration, through ships that were built and sailed the world, to songs still loved and sung today. The Clyde remains Scotland’s largest urban concentration, still has a manufacturing base, provides world-class food and drink exports and possesses scenic sights that many round the world long to visit—the basis for a vibrant port, or even ports, one would think.

The major ports on the river Clyde—Glasgow, Greenock and Hunterston—as well as Ardrossan down the Ayrshire coast, are owned and operated by Clydeport, but since 2003, ownership of them has moved from the firth, as with the Forth. Ask a resident on the Clyde who owns the major harbours on the river, and a similar response of government, local or national, or a local worthy, will be forthcoming. But now the owners of the major harbours on the River Clyde are Peel Ports plc, part of Peel Properties, one of the largest property investment companies in the UK.

Peel Ports is based in Manchester and the majority shareholder is John Whittaker, a billionaire who lives on the Isle of Man. Again reflecting the situation on the east coast and the River Forth, the interests are not those of the local communities or even the nation’s economy. Instead, as well as owning other harbours, which I will come to shortly, it has an extensive property portfolio, including John Lennon airport in Liverpool and the Manchester Ship Canal. It also owns Cammell Laird shipyard and Tranmere oil terminal on the Mersey.

I have nothing against any of those operations and wish them well. I have no doubt they try to do the best for their workforce and customers, but their interests are not similar to the interests, and certainly not the needs, of the Clyde or Scotland. Moreover, the principal beneficiaries are not Clyde communities or the Scottish economy. Instead, it is for the benefit of a Manchester-based company and an Isle of Man billionaire.

Once again, as with the Forth, the situation of ownership is worsened by the operation of the ports by what in many instances should be competitor harbours. So much for the free market extolling and liberating competition. Peel Ports plc also owns the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, which in turn operates the port of Liverpool. Indeed, it also owns Heysham, Great Yarmouth and London Medway, and described the last as its “flagship port”.

It is not just in praise from the principal owners where the Clyde loses out in trade. In terms of tonnage of trade, according to Department for Transport data for 2020, the Mersey dominates with 31 million tonnes in and out; Medway has 9 million tonnes, leaving the Clyde trailing in their wake at under 7 million tonnes. As with the Forth, ownership and operation of the Clyde have neither the local community nor the national interest at their heart or as their focus.

There are additional issues in the Clyde that worsen those conflicts of interest. While they could also arise on the Forth given the circumstances, they are certainly live on the Clyde. First, as a consequence of harbour ownership, Peel Ports is in charge of Inchgreen dock in Greenock. That dock is potentially critical to reviving shipbuilding on the Clyde and to securing the future of the last remaining yard on the lower Clyde, Ferguson Marine in Port Glasgow. There are other issues there with ownership and construction of ferries that I do not have time to go into: the wrong ferries ordered, incompetence by the procurement agency CMAL and rush and failure by the Scottish Government.

What remains clear is that Scottish island communities have a desperate need for new vessels, and Ferguson Marine is the yard to build them. When work is required and an industrial future sought, it is there, not Turkey, where orders should go. Moreover, the workforce has not just the history but the current skills to build them. In doing so, and given the needs of island communities, future expansion may well be needed. That is where Inchgreen dock comes in. Rather than ensuring it can be used for shipyard expansion, Peel Ports has sought to lease it as a breakers yard. The skilled jobs are fewer and the work less profitable.

In any event, the breakers yard has not opened yet. Would that have anything to do with Peel Ports plc also owning Cammell Laird shipyard on the Mersey, which competes with Ferguson for orders? It is not just Turkish ports competing for orders; Cammell Laird also wants orders that should be going to Ferguson Marine on the Clyde. It certainly does not look right. Where is the free market competition so extolled by this Government when the interests of a Clyde shipyard, as well as those of Clyde communities and the Scottish economy, are drowned by those of the Mersey?

Dredging is an additional issue following privatisation. Clydeport, as with Forth Ports, has become the statutory harbour authority, and is therefore responsible for dredging in the river. But on the Clyde there has been no recent dredging upstream beyond the BAE Systems site. Govan docks has recently been taken over, and the new owners have ambitious plans. How can they ensure that dredging takes place when it is carried out by a rival port owner, and one who may have no interest whatever in its success?

Ports are critical to our communities and our economy. Key harbours and estuaries are vital for trade, tourism and employment. Yet in Scotland, the two major firths have owners whose interests are not those of the local communities or, indeed, the nation, and whose operations actually conflict with the needs and wants of the Forth and the Clyde. There is no way that Canada would allow the port of Montreal to be owned by New York or that the USA would allow Los Angeles to be run by Vancouver. Neither Belfast nor Dublin would benefit by being run by the other. It is, perhaps, unsurprising that the island of Ireland’s two major ports are thriving—they are municipally or nationally owned and focus on their own national interests, not those of someone else.

This unhealthy monopoly is damaging Scottish interests. It should be broken up, with the Government seeking action from the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure Scotland’s interests are both protected and promoted. If not, compulsory purchase or the creation of new ports should be pursued by the Scottish Government. The Forth and the Clyde cannot be drowned by the interests of the Thames and the Mersey.

Direct Ferry Links: Scotland and Mainland Europe

Kenny MacAskill Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with current guidance from the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test before coming on to the parliamentary estate, and to give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.

I will call Kenny MacAskill to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30 minute debates.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered direct ferry links between Scotland and mainland Europe.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

Connectivity is critical, if not king, in the 21st century. As coronavirus has shown, telecommunications are vital, allowing for home working and for businesses to operate, even during lockdowns. Zoom and Teams have come to the fore, even in this House, and have proven essential for many, but other, more established, physical methods of connectivity are equally vital.

Road, rail and air have shown how essential they are in a globalised world, and have been supported by Governments both sides of the border, even before coronavirus struck. Yet there is one major aspect of connectivity where Scotland has been left high and dry: direct ferry links to mainland Europe. It is not just a long-standing issue, but a long-standing omission. It was a major gap even before the impacts of coronavirus and Brexit, which have simply compounded the existing need.

Road freight has been hit hard, through driver absence and customs nightmares, let alone additional bureaucracy. Trade, which could have gone swiftly and with ease from a safe Scottish harbour, has been struggling to access routes south and, even then, facing delays and backlogs at English ports. The spectre of arterial routes becoming truck parks as lorries backed up and loads rotted in the back would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

At the same time, the cost of fuel has rocketed. Not only have there been challenges with fuel shortages, but profitability has reduced through having to trunk our goods to ports a considerable distance south, whether to the Tyne or Humber—or even far beyond to the channel ports. The former are a considerable distance, but the latter, especially for seafood or other perishable items, already meant an absurd journey, and it is one that has been made so much worse through additional delays and impediments.

There is yet another compelling reason for investing in maritime links, beyond the connectivity they provide. Despite COP26 taking place in Glasgow, little thought has been given to improving maritime links because of their environmental benefit. There are issues with maritime fuel, and action to address that—whether through reducing the pollution from marine diesel or exploring alternative fuels, such as batteries—is essential. However, it is still better for our environment to load freight aboard one ship than to have dozens, if not hundreds, of lorries struggling down congested roads.

These risks were known to be looming on the horizon, as were the opportunities that would be beneficial economically, socially and environmentally. It is not as if many of these events were not foreseeable, even for those who only foresaw sunny uplands for Brexit. Customs delays were always going to kick in and other nations, such as Ireland, prepared, but shamefully that was not done in Scotland, by either the Scottish or UK Governments. As a result, many businesses have paid a heavy price.

It is not as if Scotland lacks access to the seas or is devoid of ports. The nation has the facilities and, historically, the links. Scotland was always linked by sea routes to Europe, which continued even when the major trade moved to the west coast and the Atlantic. Pantiles, on the roofs of many homes in my East Lothian constituency, testify to links with the low countries. Along the shores of the Forth and the port of Leith, where I was born, street names are equally redolent: Baltic, Cadiz and Hamburg, although that name was changed to Hamburgh in the first world war.

More recently, the superfast service that sailed from Rosyth to Zeebrugge was enjoyed by many, benefiting both trade and tourism. That port and the facilities constructed for the ro-ro services still exist. Despite the valiant efforts of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), it currently serves as a safe harbour for berthed covid cruise ships with the ro-ro infrastructure moribund, rather than providing a major link for Scottish trade and tourism. There are other options, including in existing harbours and in the potential for a new port at Cockenzie in my own constituency.

The historic links and the infrastructure remain, so why has there been no progress in launching routes over past years when they would have been welcomed, or now, when they are essential? It is not as if the maritime sector globally, let alone in Europe, has been idle. Other nations have acted, and so must Scotland. Ireland, seeing the problems that Brexit would bring, prepared and added significantly to the services already operating.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

The hon. Member mentioned exports and trade. Is it not time that we had a substantial maritime support policy from the UK Government to support trade post Brexit, as he outlined is the case in Ireland? The low countries, which he also mentioned, have a direct support package to increase trade post Brexit.

[Kenny MacAskill]

I think that is something that should be done by the UK Government, but, as I will go on to say, transport—certainly maritime transport—is largely devolved, which is why my demands are not simply to the UK Government, but to the Scottish Government.

As I was saying, despite distance and sail times being longer, Ireland ensured alternatives to the land bridge that was the previous favoured route for many. That meant sailing to a port in Scotland, Wales or England and then journeying on via the UK motorway network to the channel ports. Not for them a Boris bridge or any other delusional nonsense. Instead, Ireland arranged to sail direct to Europe. Direct freight routes were expanded and passenger services increased, thus avoiding customs backlogs, reducing road journeys, avoiding the difficulties of driver absences through illness or self-isolation, and making environmental gains.

In Ireland, three main operators now offer passenger services. Brittany Ferries, Irish Ferries and Stena Line offer services, with some sailing up to five times a week from Cork, Dublin and Rosslare, heading to Roscoff, Bilbao and Cherbourg, ensuring access to their principal markets and allowing for inbound as well as outbound tourism. Those are not the only routes available across the Irish sea to access Europe. Other services provide for freight only, whether for vehicles with haulage or unaccompanied freight. Since Brexit, services and routes have increased, allowing further options and avoiding the problems that have arisen, especially at the channel ports.

Scotland and Ireland have similar sized populations, and both are dependent on trade and tourism. For both countries, Europe is a big and major market. In several instances, Ireland is a direct competitor, yet Irish maritime links are growing almost exponentially, and Scotland remains tied up in port with increasing paperwork. It is not only Ireland that has been acting to increase maritime links. Countries across Europe have been taking action to address the challenges that they faced—even if not the Brexit-imposed customs debacle—allowing for new opportunities for trade and tourism.

Many have accessed funding from the EU, but all have been financially assisted by government to develop. A tender has been issued to re-establish a ferry link between Greece and Cyprus. Support funding of €5.5 million is being provided for a three-year service, with the possibility of an extension beyond. Other nations have acted similarly. Stockholm in Sweden to Rostock in Germany is to begin this spring. Yes, it is having a state subsidy, but it is saving on CO₂ and other costs—and it is not just in the Baltic, but in the North sea, as a Norway to Netherlands service is to commence in April.

So why are we devoid of action in Scotland? Transport is largely devolved, and therefore much of the failure to date and, indeed, the action that needs to be taken rests with the Scottish Government. They have failed to show any sign of urgency, let alone any sign of ambition for the country. Instead, they have remained thirled to a free market dogma that might be expected of London, but which could and should be rejected by an Administration with Scotland’s interests at heart. Although a four-nations approach may have merit in aspects of health policy, with ferries it leaves Scotland isolated, sucking everything into the ports in England and leaving Scotland marooned.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

Does my hon. Friend share my deep regret that a comparative drop in the ocean of investment would be sufficient to move this project forward? The reluctance of the Scottish Government to do so undermines Scotland’s case for independence and the valiant work and efforts of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman).

--- Later in debate ---

[Kenny MacAskill]

I absolutely commend the efforts of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) that it is a very modest investment that would have significant returns.

However, the UK Government cannot absolve themselves of blame. Their free market dogma has privatised critical infrastructure such as ports, although that is a debate for another day. More importantly, they promised to match or exceed the benefits of EU membership that once applied. The motorways of the sea scheme, which was created to establish maritime links between nations, was once available due to EU membership; it has not been replaced by any scheme, let alone a better one.

Both the UK and Scottish Governments claim they support the establishment of new services but insist that they must be market driven, which means they must be entirely self-funding, with no state support. A new venture is therefore expected to launch without any state ballast—or even a lifeboat to ensure survival—which does not apply to other modes of transportation. No one would dream of suggesting that a haulier was required to provide the road network or that a rail freight operator should build a rail line, even though that is state support—albeit in a different way. Expecting an operator to acquire ships and launch the service without any support is equally perverse. Why should we not give assistance to start maritime links, matching support for road and rails and replicating what is standard in other countries?

The M74 extension, the Aberdeen western peripheral route and upgrades to the A9 are all about improving Scottish connectivity, and they are not left to the haulage sector. Scotland rightly lauded new rail links that have opened—such as Stirling to Alloa and Airdrie to Bathgate, both of which have proven spectacularly successful—while support is being given to reopen new stations, with East Linton and Reston to come. Even aviation has seen support, with bail-outs keeping airlines alive and a route development fund once provided, as I will expand on. Why the preclusion of maritime links?

The UK Government’s market-driven dogma, which neither applies to other transport modes nor is echoed in other lands, might be expected of a Tory Government, but it has shamefully been mirrored by the Scottish Government. Communications from the Scottish Transport Minister have parroted the UK line and ignored the steps that have been taken by other small and even competitor nations, such as Ireland and Norway. As a result, Scotland is losing out.

Two matters make that position particularly perverse. First, Scotland routinely funds ferry services. Considerable financial support is rightly given to back both Caledonian MacBrayne and NorthLink ferries; CalMac receives upwards of £120 million per annum, and even more is provided for boats and piers. Orkney and Shetland services receive approximately £45 million per year in support. No one would question that: it is essential, as they are lifeline services and neither roads nor railways can be provided. It is a sensible provision of public funds.

Why is it legitimate and sensible to support internal maritime links but refuse to do so for external ones? Why should a Government argue that an island nation that has to trade with Europe and encourage European visitors should not support maritime services? Why can maritime services not be supported when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath said in his intervention, only a fraction of the funds already spent on maritime support would be required and the economic returns would be considerable?

Secondly, Scotland previously operated a route development fund to establish direct air links. That was seen as essential to growing trade and in-bound tourism, as well as, given the environmental impact of aviation, to avoiding an additional flight almost invariably to a London airport. That was supported by all major parties and applied until EU regulations brought it to a halt in 2007. EU regulations no longer apply, so why no Brexit bonus? In any event, as with motorways of the sea funding, the EU and nations such as Ireland and Norway now see the benefit of state support for vital connectivity—and for reducing carbon emissions by reducing road freight and growing unaccompanied trailer use. Scotland is losing out to Ireland and other nations in competitiveness and convenience. Scottish trade and tourism are suffering, and promises from COP26 ring hollow.

Demands on the public purse are many, and resource is limited, especially post covid. However, the UK Government are still able to find funds for High Speed 2, even in a truncated form that will come nowhere near Scotland. Millions were also wasted on seeking to reopen a channel port when ports were available in Scotland and only the ferry service was lacking. That attitude might be expected from a Tory Government thirled to a market-driven dogma and oblivious to Scottish needs, but it is entirely inexplicable for an Administration that claim to have Scottish interests at heart. What does it say when the Administration of Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale were more radical in providing air routes for Scotland than Nicola Sturgeon’s are in providing maritime links?

Scotland deserves better. It requires connectivity in all forms of transport, as in telecoms. It needs ferry services to Europe. Will the Minister commit to funding an equivalent to the EU motorways of the sea scheme, applicable to all parts of the UK, including Scotland? Finally, the Scottish Government must establish a ferry service route development fund to launch and sustain those routes. Scotland deserves no less.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

As ever, Mr Davies, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I start, as is customary, by congratulating the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) on securing the debate and making his case so passionately. I also thank the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) for their considered interventions.

The UK Government fully recognise that quality transport links are essential to economic growth, job creation, social cohesion and many other areas, and we are committed to progressing our work on increasing connectivity throughout the entire UK and beyond. I will come to some of the specifics that the hon. Member for East Lothian mentioned, but I first must correct the impression that he has given that there is no interest or investment in improving connectivity throughout these isles. First, specifically on maritime, there is investment going into Scotland, as we speak, to improve port facilities. If he looks to the other side of Scotland from where he represents, at Greenock, there is considerable investment going into the ocean terminal, specifically to boost the tourist offer. Leaving aside the disruption caused by covid, the demand there is increasing enormously. There is investment going in.

More generally, the hon. Member for East Lothian will be aware that the Government commissioned the Union connectivity review—it recently reported—which looks specifically at key transport links by all modes, whether rail, road, air or maritime, right across the UK and beyond, to complement the EU’s Trans-European Transport Network, or TEN-T. That looks at transport corridors as a whole. It might be that, to improve connectivity or capacity between two points, the right intervention is somewhere else. For example, he referred to HS2. It will benefit Scotland by significantly reducing rail journey times from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Does the Minister accept that, even in Northern Ireland, much freight is now heading south to the Republic to take direct ferry access to Europe, rather than following the land bridge? Accordingly, even in Cairnryan, Scotland is losing out.

[Iain Stewart]

I am very happy to respond to that. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Union connectivity review—it is a mark of considerable regret that the Scottish Government, out of pure dogma, refused to engage in the review—a central recommendation was to improve the A75 from Cairnryan to the main motorway network, which is one of the key impediments to freight and other traffic moving between the UK and Northern Ireland. So yes, we are aware of that, and we are taking steps to improve it.

To complete my point on HS2, another recommendation of the connectivity review was to improve connectivity between the HS2 line and the west coast main line, and to upgrade the west coast main line to achieve journey times from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London that mean it will be much more advantageous to travel by rail than by air, improving the environment.

Shipbuilding and Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd Insolvency

Kenny MacAskill Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

This debate goes to the heart of two Scottish institutions. The first is Caledonian MacBrayne—CalMac—which provides lifeline services to the Scottish highlands and islands and whose ships are acquired for it by Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd, or CMAL; both are Scottish Government agencies. The second is Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd, which operated the last shipyard on the lower Clyde—a river where ships admired around world were made—but which has been excluded from the most recent CMAL tender to build CalMac ships, and orders are going abroad.

CalMac and Ferguson are part of Scotland’s story, but they are also vital to Scotland’s future. Communities devastated by incessant breakdowns and cancellations need a fast and reliable service to maintain them and allow them to grow. For that, new ships are required. Not only should Ferguson be building them, but yards elsewhere along the length of the Clyde, not just in Port Glasgow but on other sites that can be revitalised. Instead, CalMac is floundering and Ferguson’s future is threatened.

In 2014, Ferguson was saved by the intervention of Jim McColl, and all looked rosy. What has gone wrong? Why have vessels 801 and 802 been so delayed, why have costs overrun so massively, and why has Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd gone into liquidation? At the core of those questions are procurement and administration, both of which are issues reserved to Westminster. I hope that Ministers will be able to provide answers, if not an inquiry, into a scandal that needs to be resolved.

First, let me rebut suggestions that the yard or the workforce were to blame. History shows what the Clyde can do, and the same skills still remain at Ferguson. Moreover, research by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has shown that of the eight ships that have broken down recently, only two were built on the Clyde, and they were among the oldest ships, where difficulties could be expected. CMAL recognised the skills there when placing the order for ships 801 and 802. In evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee inquiry, Jim Anderson, the director of vessels, stated:

“The shipyard was already building ships for us. It had a good history of building these type of ships.”

Even more convincing was Commodore Luke van Beek, a Dutch maritime expert appointed by the Scottish Government, who said:

“I was in no doubt it had the management expertise. Having rebuilt the yard, Ferguson Marine had a good shipbuilding system in place.”

For sure, mistakes will have been made and perhaps more could have been done, but it was and remains a skilled workforce and Jim McColl and his company have a global reputation for engineering prowess. His initial intervention was lauded by the Scottish Government. The suggestion that he can succeed around the world but not in Scotland is absurd. Procurement and liquidation lie at the heart of this mess, and responsibility rests with CMAL and the Scottish Government.

Dealing first with procurement, there are two aspects: the contract specification and the requirement for the vessels to be dual fuel—that is, operating on both marine diesel and liquefied natural gas. Dealing first with the contract, it is clear that what was signed off by CMAL was lacking in specification, and that most of the problems arose from that. There was a design and build contract for a ship at an initial price of £97 million, but many critical factors were not clear. That was a recipe for discord and, indeed, disaster. Costs rose as changes kept being made, and just what was to be built was never entirely clear. As Jim McColl said:

“We would normally expect the specification to be more fleshed out.”

He continued:

“Price was based on the specification that were had at the time. As we have said it was not detailed at that time, there were still some open ends that we had to resolve collaboratively with CMAL.”

The second issue was fuelling. Leaving aside why, environmentally, we would even consider LNG, basic engineering concerns remain. It is a relatively new technology, more normally used on larger vessels than on smaller ones, such as ships 801 and 802, where other options such as batteries or hydrogen are preferred. Whatever CMAL or the Scottish Government may suggest, dual-fuel LNG was the diktat of CMAL, not the want of CalMac. As Van Beek said,

“801 and 802 were not the ships that CalMac wanted… When I met the chief executive of CalMac, I was very surprised to discover that it was not and had not been involved, except in having made some observations right at the beginning of the process, when it had said that it did not want LNG ships.

It is also not surprising that CalMac did not want LNG ships, as there is no LNG infrastructure in Scottish ports. I asked CMAL what consideration was given to onshore supply systems, what was in situ at the time of requisition, and what the situation is now for LNG. This is the answer given:

“At the time the only load out facility in the UK was the Isle of Grain. There were 3 projects looking at the bulk storage in Scotland 2 on the East Coast and one on the West Coast—so far none of these have been built out.”

CalMac operates in the Hebrides and on the Clyde, which lie on Scotland’s west coast. The Isle of Bute is in the latter and the Isle of Lewis in the former, but the Isle of Grain is in Kent, on England’s east coast. No wonder CalMac did not want it.

Having messed up the tender, CMAL proceeded to make a bad situation worse. When co-operation between shipbuilder and vessel procurer was needed, CMAL refused to co-operate. That is confirmed by Van Beek, who said that

“CMAL had no interest in compromising”.

Most damningly, he added that

“the people who I met from CMAL were adamant that they did not want to discuss ways to make the situation better.”

FMEL offered mediation, but CMAL refused. This was the modern equivalent of the Titanic racing into the iceberg.

This was known to the Scottish Government, as Van Beek made clear, saying:

“I said exactly the same thing when I briefed Mr Mackay. I said that the relationship between the customer and the client was broken, and that some things that CMAL was doing were very unhelpful.”

The “Mr Mackay” is Derek Mackay, then the Scottish Finance Secretary. Knowing all that, what did the Scottish Government do? Did they remove CMAL? No, they did not; CMAL remains, running the show and tendering for vessels abroad when work is needed on the Clyde. Instead, they forced FMEL into liquidation. As Jim McColl said in evidence:

“The Scottish Government didn’t save the yard from administration, they forced it into administration by repeatedly refusing to instruct CMAL to engage in reasonable requests for mediation, an expert witness process or arbitration.”

Administration was not the recommendation made by their own expert adviser, Commodore Van Beek. He advised arbitration, but instead the Scottish Government chose administration. Why? I am afraid Mr Van Beek cannot help us on that, as he said:

“I have no idea why he chose that route. It was against my advice.”

The “he” is, again, Derek Mackay, who said that the CMAL board would resign on mass if he interfered. Many communities might have said, “Accept their resignations with alacrity.”

By the time we got to the Scottish Parliament inquiry, the Scottish Government line was that “contractor error” was to blame. That was put forward by Paul Wheelhouse, who was then the Islands Minister. Why were neither the First Minister nor the then Finance Secretary called to give evidence? Rather than the senior Ministers directly involved, it was left to a junior Minister with no prior involvement to speak for the Government and to put forward a position that was not the view of the Government’s own expert, who had been supportive of FMEL’s getting the contract and critical of CMAL’s actions and who suggested arbitration, not administration.

More damningly, if the contractors were responsible, why did the First Minister meet Mr McColl privately when the dispute between FMEL and CMAL was raging, outwith the presence and even knowledge of CMAL, and provide significant financial assistance to FMEL? If the contractor was in error, why keep funding it? Moreover, why ignore the advice of their own expert? No wonder the Scottish Parliament concluded that

“there has been a catastrophic failure in the management of the procurement of vessels 801 and 802, leading us to conclude that these processes are no longer fit for purpose”.

Liquidation followed, but the questions about this whole sorry saga only increase.

On 14 August 2019, FMEL went into liquidation. Aware of its financial difficulties, FMEL had already engaged KPMG to act in the administration it saw looming, but the Scottish Government appointed Deloitte, insisting that any administrator appointed had to be acceptable to CMAL. As disclosed to Lord Tyre in a related court case, Deloitte and the Scottish Government had been “contingency planning”, and the former was appointed by the latter despite the Scottish Government being only the second-ranking creditor, yet also the largest debtor.

On 16 August, Deloitte arrived at the yard—the same day the Scottish Government declared publicly that they had nationalised it. Yet administrators are required to consider the position and speak to all creditors before any disposal can take place. None had, but the position was not challenged by Deloitte. It would be some time before the administration was finalised, and the yard was not formally taken over by the Government until 2 December. Instead, having been appointed administrators at the behest of the Scottish Government, Deloitte in turn appointed Macrocom to run the yard. Macrocom is a company wholly owned by Scottish Ministers. Deloitte also refused to pursue any potential claim by FMEL—now in liquidation—against CMAL. That could have been substantial and might also have offered some clarity.

Former senior staff have been moved on, and non-disclosure agreements have been signed. Why? Surely experience was needed at that juncture and information should be publicly available. Questions therefore arise regarding the liquidation and the role of administrators. These actions have been raised with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and questions have been asked as to whether it acted with “objectivity and integrity”. Hopefully, we will be advised on that soon.

As things now stand, the yard is operated by the Scottish Government, but although the salaries of senior management grow exponentially, progress is still slow on ships 801 and 802. At the time of liquidation, work on military vessels had been agreed with Babcock, fishing support vessels were being built, with more to be won, and work was ongoing on the world’s first hydrogen-propulsion system, which had received an international award. Now, though, islands are still bereft of services, communities and businesses are threatened, and the yard is worried about its future as CMAL tenders orders abroad and other orders have been lost.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

Does my hon. Friend, as the biographer of the late Jimmy Reid, share my concern that this whole sorry affair, and the Scottish Government’s involvement in it, renders their protestations about Type 26 frigates risible and is deeply damaging to the proud history of shipbuilding on the Clyde?

[Kenny MacAskill]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The history of Scottish shipbuilding is a fantastic record, but it also has a future. To have a future, it has to be not simply on the upper Clyde but on the lower Clyde, and that takes me to what needs to be done.

There needs to be clarity on CMAL’s actions and the role of Government Ministers responsible. A public inquiry should be held. The Holyrood inquiry suggested an independent external review. That, I believe, is inadequate. This straddles reserved and devolved competencies. Will the Minister consider seeking to establish a joint inquiry with the Scottish Government, as happened, for example, with the Stockline explosion? Moreover, for the communities involved and for Scotland’s industrial future, action is needed. To use football parlance, sack the board and remove the manager. CMAL should be abolished.

CalMac, in consultation with the communities, which must have rights, should be responsible for the selection of ships. The management team that has been put into Ferguson needs to be removed. The replacement of the CalMac fleet, which will involve several vessels a year and over decades to come, should be placed out to tender, but with the stipulation that Ferguson and other sites in Scotland must be used for their construction by whoever wins it.

We need clarity on what went wrong, but fundamentally we need to secure a ferry service for our remote communities and provide a future for our shipyards on the lower Clyde.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although I am afraid it is not for me to intervene on a family feud, if I can put it that way, with the hon. Member for East Lothian. I am well aware that there are traditional courtesies, which should be maintained.

I am glad to hear that there is optimism in the constituency of the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan). I had the pleasure of visiting Greenock—I do believe that I gave him due notice of that—particularly to look at the new ocean liner terminal, which I hope will bring increased tourist footfall to his part of the world.

It is clear that the UK Government recognise and will show our support for the future of shipbuilding in Scotland through all the means that we have available—namely, in the form of military spending and support.

Let me turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for East Lothian. I am well aware of the challenges of providing reliable ferry services, particularly to the rural and island communities in Scotland, but when the UK Government have received various representations on the lack of suitable ferries in Scotland, we have been firmly told by the Scottish Government that this is a process for them and not for us.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Does the Minister accept that procurement, liquidation and administration are aspects of company law that are reserved to Westminster? On that basis, is he prepared to meet me to discuss the concerns that I and many others—not simply in Inverclyde, but in Scotland—have about the process that has taken place? The responsibility for ordering the services and the payment for the ships might be Scotland’s, but, as I mentioned with regard to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the law under which procurement and administration is carried out is reserved to Westminster.

[Iain Stewart]

Indeed, the framing of company law is a reserved matter. I would need to take advice from officials, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, as to whether a breach of that law was a reserved matter or, as I suspect, more a devolved one.

Scotland Act 1998: Role of the Lord Advocate

Kenny MacAskill Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

I believe that many of the ills that afflict Scotland can be laid at the door of this Tory Government. The Tories have not been elected in Scotland not just for the 55 years of hurt experienced by English football fans, but for 65 years—longer than I have lived. Independence is therefore essential, but not all ills rest there; some, along with our demons such as alcohol and violence, can and must be addressed by ourselves. The role of the Lord Advocate is one.

The Lord Advocate and Law Officers, along with Ministers, are part of Scotland’s offices of state. They are enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, which established the Scottish Parliament. That is why legislative change is required, so I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. I welcome the willingness of the UK Government to assist, and I hope that urgency will now be shown by the Scottish Government. Scottish democracy badly requires it.

Before the post of Secretary of State for Scotland was created, the Lord Advocate was the power in the land, and some postholders were despotic indeed. The transportation of Thomas Muir and the hanging and beheading of Baird, Hardie and Wilson, the Scottish radicals and 1820 martyrs, are crimes that lie with them. Thankfully, the post devolved and became a purely legal role, but an anachronism was built in, for the postholder is both principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government yet also head of the prosecution service—the Crown Office, as it is known. That is something replicated neither elsewhere in the United Kingdom nor, indeed, in any modern democracy. Conflict of interest precludes it. In England and Wales, an Attorney General advises the Government from within. Meanwhile, a head of the prosecution service is both separate and independent from Government. But not so in Scotland, and therein lies the problem.

To be fair, apart from those despotic years, postholders, irrespective of political hue and whether pre or post-devolution, have acted with the impartiality expected. Modest steps were taken to mitigate the conflict of powers. Under Alex Salmond’s Administration a convention was invoked that the Lord Advocate appeared at Cabinet only when legal advice was to be given and did not participate in wider political debate. But the anachronism still lingered. Under Nicola Sturgeon’s Administration it has been brutally exposed by both Scottish Government and Crown Office actions, with the Lord Advocate straddling both. Change is now needed, and fast.

Firstly, there has been an admission by the outgoing Lord Advocate of malicious prosecutions involving the administrators in the Rangers FC liquidation. That is unprecedented in Scotland, not just in recent years but since those days of the early 19th century. Even south of the border there have been no such cases since 1999, and high-profile cases before such as the Winston Silcott and Daniel Morgan cases were rare. It has caused alarm with the public and been of huge reputational damage in an organisation where impartiality is imperative. It has also caused consternation and anger within police and prosecution services, where the overwhelming majority of staff act without bias and free of any favour or prejudice. The reputation of the many has been traduced by a few.

It was the former Lord Advocate’s decision, and seeking to cast blame on his predecessor was shameful and inadequate. An inquiry, perhaps even by a non-Scottish judicial figure, has been promised. Additionally, there is the financial cost. The quantum of damages is for the court, but suggestions are that the final bill could reach £60 million or £80 million—this in an organisation with an annual budget of £300 million, struggling to meet existing commitments. The price will be paid by Scottish taxpayers and the loss felt by hard-pressed Scottish public services.

Secondly, and just as alarming, has been the role of the Lord Advocate and a coterie around him within the Crown Office in the Alex Salmond case, and the fallout from it. It is another instance of the public having to pay the price of Government incompetence, with the legal expenses bill in the civil case amounting to £500,000, but where the issue of impartiality as well as competence was raised. In the civil case, the presiding judge described the Scottish Government’s actions as “unlawful”, “unfair” and “tainted by apparent bias”. During proceedings, senior external counsel, Roddy Dunlop QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, expressed horror at the situation he and his colleague had been put in by their client. They could no longer rest on pleadings they knew to be untrue. The client was the Government, and their senior legal adviser was the Lord Advocate. A criminal case followed the failed civil case and was prosecuted by the Crown Office, where the same Lord Advocate remained in office.

Despite growing pressures on police and prosecution, nothing has been spared—nothing has been too trivial—but the targets always seem selective. The Alex Salmond case saw resources deployed that are normally reserved for serious organised crime figures or serial killers, for charges that, were it not for who was being prosecuted, would either never have seen the light of day or appeared only in the lowest courts, not the High Court. I say that as someone who was Justice Secretary for seven and a half years but also a defence agent for 20 years. As it was, Mr Salmond was acquitted on all charges, by a majority female jury.

It is standard practice in cases involving politicians that the Lord Advocate recuses himself from involvement in the consideration or prosecution of the case, and that was done here, with no direct involvement in the prosecution. However, at the same time, the Lord Advocate had been, and was, sitting on Scottish Government committees dealing with the civil case, where referral or prosecution was being actively sought and advised by the Administration.

Let us recall that a prosecution was sought by the Scottish Government, as the actions of the director of human resources in contacting the police confirm. Many—indeed, most—complainers were and remain at the heart of Government, or are officials or otherwise closely linked with the governing party. Prosecution was encouraged and pressed for by the chief executive of the governing party, who is the First Minister’s husband.

Chinese walls and recusal are entirely inadequate. In one role, the Lord Advocate was supporting a Government pursuing prosecution; in another, he was denying that it was anything to do with him. A separation of powers this certainly was not. When James Wolffe appeared before the Holyrood Committee considering the Salmond prosecution, he was frankly evasive and obfuscating, mirroring the actions of the Crown and the Government in a lack of openness and transparency. There was neither contrition nor candour. Open government this certainly was not.

The fallout and failures continue to reverberate. Following on from the Alex Salmond case has been that of Craig Murray, a writer and former diplomat. His conviction is under appeal at the Supreme Court; accordingly, I refrain from commenting on specifics of the case. Instead, I restrict my remarks to the decision by the Crown to prosecute Mr Murray for jigsaw identification of complainers in the case. Why was he prosecuted when others who did so—in one case certainly overtly, and in many others much more flagrantly than by Mr Murray—were not? No action was taken against them.

Moreover, publications that in any other case would have constituted a clear contempt of court went without censure by the Crown. They included newspaper articles as prejudicial as I have ever seen, but they were supporting prosecution, whereas Mr Murray, though seeking to report factually, was not. It seems that the Crown has one law for those supporting the Government line and another for those who challenge it.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the case of journalist Mark Hirst, who was arrested and charged with threatening and abusive behaviour. However, when that case went before Sheriff Paterson, he ruled that there was no case to answer, and that Hirst had simply been giving his opinion of the situation in the SNP and no more than that. There are also cases of police knocking on doors for single tweets, and others that are sub judice or where charges have yet to be brought.

All this is exerting a chilling effect on democracy in Scotland. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, even in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing or malfeasance, any continued failure by the Scottish Government to address the separation of powers reinforces talk of deliberate and targeted harassment of individuals critical of the Scottish Government, their policies and their leadership, including their role in the Salmond affair?

[Kenny MacAskill]

Absolutely. There is a clear perception of there being far from equanimity or, indeed, even balance by the Crown.

Now James Wolffe has stepped down as Lord Advocate, replaced by Dorothy Bain. Ms Bain has an illustrious record of service and I wish her well, but the structural flaw remains. Personnel changes, no matter how merited, cannot resolve the fundamental flaw of a lack of separation of powers. The impartiality of the Crown is an imperative in a democracy. It must be seen to act in the public interest, not that of the Government or their friends or allies. The coterie who surrounded Mr Wolffe and who were instrumental in driving these policies and actions, often against the wishes and views of long-serving staff, still remain—in particular, the Crown Agent, Mr Harvie, the senior civil servant. Unusually among senior Crown staff, his career has not simply been as a procurator fiscal in Scotland, but has included service in and secondment to British Government Departments.

The situation is now critical as a police investigation has opened into the SNP’s finances. The party leader is the First Minister and her husband is chief executive. This situation would be intolerable in any public body or private company, or even in a bowling or social club in any Scottish town. The idea that the chief steward could be the spouse of the treasurer would draw derision and rejection, but not so in Scotland’s governing party. Worsening that further is the fact that all three members of the SNP finance and audit committee resigned from their roles when refused information by the chief executive. That has been followed by the resignation of the elected treasurer, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), for similar reasons. Given what has happened, can the Scottish public be assured that the investigation will have access to all information, and that any decision to prosecute or not will be made on legal criteria and in the interests of justice?

Protocols have failed, been breached or even abused. Interim steps can be taken to separate the roles. Perhaps there should not just be a recusal, as there no doubt will be by the Lord Advocate, but, as with the Rangers FC investigation, the bringing in of an external judicial adviser. Moreover, the Lord Advocate has recused herself from involvement in the Rangers FC civil proceedings. Maybe she could recuse herself from all direct Government involvement. An in-house legal department exists. The duty to represent the Government in court and pursue constitutional challenges remains, but that can be dealt with by external counsel.

Change and a separation of powers there must be. The twin roles of the Lord Advocate in prosecution and in advising Government are an historical anachronism, and are entirely unsuited to a modern democracy. As a former Justice Secretary, as well as someone who has practised law in Scotland for over 20 years and cherishes our distinct system, I am appalled at what has happened, and I know that is echoed in legal circles.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am not going to comment on any of the particular cases that he has mentioned, but is he aware that the First Minister of Scotland has recognised that there is a case for reform and does he agree that all that is really needed is for this House to pass a Bill to amend the Scotland Act to give the Scottish Parliament the power to make alterations to the role of Lord Advocate? The Scottish Parliament could then properly consider what I think he is suggesting—that is, separating the position into roles akin to the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in England. I stress that I am not making any comment on the cases that he has mentioned. I am simply drawing to his attention the fact that the First Minister has recognised the case for reform and that this might be the best way to do it.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Recognition is one thing; progress is quite another. We are now in July. Holyrood is in recess. We have had an election. And we are still to see any action other than rhetoric from the Scottish Government. It is entirely inadequate. I do accept what the hon. and learned Member says—that it should be for the Scottish Parliament to decide what the structure should be. I think it has to be a structure that will mirror most democracies south of the border or indeed elsewhere. It should be for the Scottish Parliament to decide, but they have to show greater willingness.

I call on the Minister to engage with the Scottish Government as a matter of urgency so that changes can be made to the 1998 Act to provide for a complete separation of powers between the head of the prosecution service and the senior government legal adviser. Every modern democracy does so and so must Scotland. The failures have been too many and the risks are too great, for justice has not only to be done, but must be seen to be done.

Scotland: General Election and Constitutional Future

Kenny MacAskill Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]]

As others have mentioned, today is St Patrick’s Day. It is also a century on from when the United Kingdom, in its first iteration as the United Kingdom and Ireland, ended when the Irish Free State was established. Now the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland stand on the brink as Scotland seeks its independence to make its way in the world and to end the dystopian fantasy of post-Brexit Britain and its pursuit of a new age of empire.

What Charles Stewart Parnell said of Ireland applies to Scotland:

“No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his country—thus far shalt thou go and no further.”

Yet that is what Scotland is being told, despite support for independence being ever greater and despite Scotland’s democratically elected representatives demanding the right to hold a referendum. Instead, we are told that it is no to indyref2, and that now and forevermore it will remain that way unless and until it is set by the British on their conditions. That is simply unacceptable. Scotland cannot be subject to a British, or even Boris, veto. It is neither his nor their right or prerogative—it is the democratic right of the Scottish people.

That is why we have to consider what options are taken. Section 30 has been rejected by the Prime Minister. A consultative referendum is to be boycotted by the Opposition parties. It is for that reason that more and more people in Scotland see the need to make the Holyrood poll a plebiscite election. It cannot be, or will not be, boycotted because of its nature. The vote on the list can be definitive for independence and parties are signing up for that. It is simply not acceptable that Northern Ireland is entitled to a referendum and the Irish Free State was established on a referendum, yet Scotland is denied another referendum despite carrying out its actions democratically and without violence.

As Brexit Britain sails off into oblivion, it is for Scotland to gain its independence. There is a better way, and the people of Scotland are beginning to recognise that the tenor and tone of the debate has changed. In 2014, and occasionally in some of the contributions here, we have heard, “Please don’t go, Scotland, we love you.” Equally, it is becoming clearer and clearer that it is not a desire to retain Scotland for Scotland’s interests, but a desire to retain Scotland for the interests of those who are the British establishment. That was made quite clear by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who wrote recently of Scottish independence that:

“The rest of the world would instantly see that we were no longer a front-rank power, or even in the second row.”

So the whole position put forward by the British Government is not the advancement of the interests of the Scottish people; it is the preservation of the interests of Britain as it stands and of those who are currently very wealthy, as the chumocracy looks after its friends and others.

It is for that reason that the people of Scotland recognise there is a better way, but the better way is to be an independent Scotland where you can care for your own people rather than provide for the private profits of the few. That has to be brought about and if it cannot be delivered by a referendum, we have to make the coming election the plebiscite. Independence is the right of the Scottish people; it is not subject to a veto from Britain, or from a British Prime Minister.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I now have to reduce the time limit to three minutes, as we go to Wales. I call Jonathan Edwards.

Constitutional Law

Kenny MacAskill Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]]

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) has pre-empted some of the comments that I was going to make. This legislation does go back to my time in office in a different Chamber—indeed, in a different lifetime. It has taken a considerable period of time for it to come through, and I do not know the reason for that. The right hon. Member was correct to say that the situation is likewise with the victim surcharge. However, I think we all know that in dealing with subordinate legislation—with very technical not only cross-border, but multi-departmental legislation—the devil is in the detail.

I have no doubt that Ministers, especially those involved in drafting the legislation, would have found it very complex, as they would have had to engage across multiple jurisdictions and agencies, including the Department for Work and Pensions, never mind the police authorities and everything else. But we are where we are, and it is to be welcomed. It is rather regrettable that this matter should have been slightly politicised by the right hon. Member, as it should be welcomed and perhaps even considered south of the border.

It may be appropriate for me to mention the genesis of this legislation. The Minister pointed out some of the dreadful treatment experienced by officers during this time of crisis. As others have said, that should not be a matter of routine. It can never be accepted that it is just part of the job. No one’s job—a prison officer, a police officer, somebody working in the health service, or someone working in any other public or private sector organisation—should mean that they routinely have to put up with abuse and violence. It is simply unacceptable.

That said, we are aware that the police are required to go to incidents and deal with people who can be threatening and violent, and on occasions they do suffer injuries. Ultimately, it has to be for the court to decide on the sentence to impose, and it is appropriate that it has as many options available to it as possible. It can deal with such behaviour with imprisonment, which will often be the case for very serious offences, but it can also issue a fine or compensation order.

There is one other area that comes to mind, and that is the ability for police officers to receive treatment. The real genesis of this legislation came from a visit to the police treatment centre that is supported and sustained by individual officers. I believe that almost every officer in Scotland contributes voluntarily from their income to the upholding of the centre. There is one in Auchterarder, of which many Scottish Members may be aware. I understand that there is also one south of the border in Harrogate. Police officers can go to these centres to get treatment: to get them fit and well, to try to get them back to work, and to get their life on as even a course as possible. As I said, the centre is paid for by police contributions, and the cost is not insignificant. I do not think that a huge amount of public funds—if any—are put into it, because it is run on a charitable basis.

The service at the centre is professional. There are treatments available that may be available in some towns or communities, but certainly not to the same level of expertise. Indeed, hearing about my visit to the centre would put the Minister in mind of a football team, because it has professional support staff such as osteopaths and other experts, and it has its own swimming pool. Officers come to the centre in Scotland not just from Scotland but from south of the border. It is sometimes easier for officers from south of the border to get taken there or to access it, depending on where they are based in the north of England.

In summary, that is why we are here. This measure is not meant to take away from the right of a court to impose a prison sentence, a fine or a compensation order, but it is an opportunity for the court to impose a restitution order that would see some benefit. It would not simply—I do not mean to be disparaging in any way—be a penalty fine that might go into the public coffers, but one which can tangibly be put to use for the police service, and that can go to the benefit of the individual officer and of those more widely, because it will be used, in the main, to support the police treatment centres north of the border for officers from Scotland or elsewhere.

As I said, although it has taken a long time, we welcome this measure. It should not be routine, but officers who are injured are entitled to receive the best possible service. They cannot and should not always have to do so by going to their own private physiotherapist or whatever; they should be able to obtain it as part of the service. They currently do so through their pay packet. This measure can provide some alleviation of that and further support for it. I simply ask the Minister to consider whether, as well as ensuring that we have the relevant restitution order, other support can come from Governments north and, indeed, south of the border to support not just the institution in Auchterarder but the one in Harrogate, Yorkshire.