Direct Ferry Links: Scotland and Mainland Europe

Debate between Kenny MacAskill and Neale Hanvey

Wednesday 12th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[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).

Offshore Renewables Wind Sector

Debate between Kenny MacAskill and Neale Hanvey

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered securing employment and community benefit in the offshore renewables wind sector.

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Today is St Andrew’s day, Scotland’s national day, when Scots at home and abroad celebrate their native land. There should be much to celebrate, as our nation has been blessed with natural bounty. Sadly, that bounty has not always been used for the benefit of the Scottish people. Decades ago, oil and gas were discovered off Scotland’s shores, as they were, across the North sea, off Norway’s. However, although Norway now possesses, from the proceeds, a fund for future generations that the world rightly envies, Scotland has seen its assets stripped and child poverty soar. Areas that should have been revitalised were instead deindustrialised. Nature’s bounty, which should have provided for all, was taken by the few, and what should have transformed our nation was squandered by Thatcher on smashing the unions and by Blair on waging illegal wars.

However, nature’s good fortune has seen another bounty come Scotland’s way, and once again the country has been blessed. For long, our geography was an impediment, seeing us distant from markets and facing additional costs, and our climate was a bind or even a danger, as last weekend’s winds displayed. However, our geography and climate are now also a natural bounty and blessing, offering opportunities and advantages held by few others. Onshore wind is well-established, wave and tidal energy are being developed, and offshore wind offers huge potential.

The Prime Minister has stated that he wants the UK to become the “Saudi Arabia of wind”. Indeed, the wind blows around the shores of the British Isles, as elsewhere, but Scotland has 25% of Europe’s—not just the UK’s—offshore wind potential, and it is off Scotland’s shores that the real boon is located. Where is the benefit for our country and communities? Where are the onshore jobs that should follow in its wake? Where are the industries that should be lured to locate and invest here? Moreover, where are the benefits for communities where the turbines can be seen from, are serviced by or where the energy comes ashore? What will accrue to them?

In many ways, East Lothian is a microcosm of Scotland in regard to this energy bounty. The Seagreen field is coming ashore at Cockenzie, as well as Neart na Gaoithe at Thorntonloch and Berwick Bank at Branxton, near Torness. These are not one or two turbines, or dozens, but hundreds. It is not only the numbers, but their size that is hugely impressive. These offshore turbines are almost 50% bigger than those sited onshore that people currently recognise. The power generated by them is massive too. It is claimed that Berwick Bank alone will boost Scotland’s renewable energy capacity by almost 30%. Such is its scale that Berwick Bank alone will be capable of powering 5 million homes. That is just under the population of Scotland, but more than double the number of Scottish households.

For Scotland is blessed with a surfeit of energy, as it had and indeed still has with oil and gas. It is capable of providing for all our own needs, but also providing for others beyond our borders. That is not just south of the border, but beyond the shores of these islands as it is a global energy market now. Having lost out on its oil and gas bounty, Scotland must not lose out on its offshore wind. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. It is why there must be action.

Scotland and its communities must benefit. Jobs must be created in providing for offshore wind generation. Work and industries must spring from being the point where the energy lands and where energy costs should be cheaper, and where it should be logical and economical to base a business. Communities that will face some disruption from the siting of the turbines offshore or the construction of transmission stations onshore must see tangible benefits from the wealth that will flow through them.

Sadly, that has not been happening, which is why the debate is required and the issues must be urgently addressed. I accept that not all responsibility or culpability rests with the Minister or his Government—although much does; I accept that the devolution landscape sees energy reserved, but planning devolved. Similar divides apply to industrial and fiscal policy. Accordingly, I do not exculpate the Scottish Government, who have failed to use their powers or demand the powers that are necessary. Their failure to deliver manufacturing jobs at BiFab or Arnish is shameful, but many more levers rest with the UK Government, which is why they too must act.

East Lothian may not have the yards, but Fife and almost every major Scottish estuary most certainly has. Scottish yards should be booming, building the turbines that are required. Some were shipyards, others came along through oil and gas installations, but all of them exist and others could be established. The skilled workforce is there, and it is crying out for this work and these jobs. The orders should be going to these yards, although I accept that such is the number of turbines required that not all of them could be constructed in Scotland. But as it is, only a few are being built in Scotland and most will be built south of the border in England, or abroad. That is simply not acceptable.

The UK Government are funding offshore wind manufacturing in Teesside and on the Humber. Around 1,000 people are employed at Siemens in Hull, and 750 people are employed at GE Renewable Energy on Teesside, with even more people indirectly employed in other jobs. They are providing for the Dogger Bank wind farm and other developments off the coast of north-east England. Good on them, I say, but where is the money for our yards and where are the jobs for the wind farms off our coasts? Levelling up seems to stop at the border.

Moreover, as the energy comes ashore, how will Scotland benefit? At the moment, there is cabling work going on at Branxton and in East Lothian. A cable is being constructed to take the energy directly from East Lothian to Redcar, in the north-east of England. A similar cable south is planned for energy coming ashore further north in Scotland from offshore wind farms located further north in the North sea. It is one thing sharing a bounty with others; it is quite another to be exploited and to see our natural resource being taken, with little benefit accruing to our land or our communities.

As well as the turbine manufacturing jobs, where is the onshore industry that should be springing up from being near to where clean and cheap energy is landing? Such industry will not locate in Scotland if the energy is just being cabled south, yet that seems to be what is planned.

Also, where is the benefit for the communities? One place in Scotland that did benefit from oil was Shetland. There, the council negotiated a small payment from the companies landing the oil at Sullom Voe. That impeded neither exploration nor extraction, having been set at a modest rate, which was a boon for communities without being a burden for developers. As a result, Shetland has facilities—such as schools and sports centres in small communities, and bus and ferry services—that larger and urban communities in Scotland can only look at and envy.

At present, onshore wind turbines attract community benefit from developments. Even a single turbine or just a few turbines onshore can see individuals and communities benefiting. But as it was no doubt never imagined that turbines would be sited offshore, no such system exists for offshore turbines. Why not? Surely communities are as entitled to benefit from those turbines that are off their shores as they are from those located on their land.

I know that communities on both sides of the border have entered into arrangements with developers, but two aspects remain outstanding and they must be addressed. First, community benefits should apply whether turbines are onshore or offshore; requiring such payments to be made to communities should be statutory and not made through guidance, or simply being voluntary or discretionary for the operator.

Secondly, the rate to be paid should also be set nationally and the money should be paid to the local council or community. It should be for them to decide where and on what they wish to spend their money; they should not be handouts from a developer, subject to the developer’s whim or fancy. Shetland shows that it can be done, and the benefit for Shetland’s communities shows why it must be done.

In summary, I seek to ensure that Scotland benefits from the renewables revolution off its shores, as it failed to do with the discovery of oil and gas. The North sea bounty must come to Scotland this time. First, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that funds are available to develop turbine manufacturing in Scotland, and to ensure that contracts for fields off Scotland’s shores go to local yards, as is happening in north-east England?

Secondly, what will the Minister do to ensure that Scotland benefits from job creation where the energy comes ashore, and not simply see the energy cabled south and the benefit enjoyed elsewhere?

Thirdly, what will be done to end the discrimination against Scottish sites caused by the absurd contracts for difference pricing regime that prejudices Scotland and will be referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) in his comments?

Finally, will the Minister meet me to discuss how communities, whether in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK, can benefit from offshore wind as they do onshore wind through a regulated regime, and a set fiscal regime that will benefit those communities? This is a huge opportunity for Scotland. Our nation lost out on the benefits from its oil and gas; it must not lose out on this renewable windfall.

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

rose—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I had not been informed that the hon. Member wished to speak. Has the hon. Member informed the mover and the Minister?

Shipbuilding and Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd Insolvency

Debate between Kenny MacAskill and Neale Hanvey

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.

Scotland Act 1998: Role of the Lord Advocate

Debate between Kenny MacAskill and Neale Hanvey

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.