 Felly, Jim Hume is not in the chamber. Question 10 has been withdrawn, a satisfactory explanation on Mr Doris's behalf has been provided, and we therefore move to the next item of business, which that concludes question time. The next item of business is debate on motion number 14942, in the name of David Stewart, on keep CalMac public. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request of speak buttons now or as soon as possible, but before we start the debate, members will be aware that legal proceedings are on-going in relation to the procurement process for the awarding of the Northern Isles Ferry service contract. The case is therefore subjudiced for the purposes of standing orders. Therefore, I advise members to refrain from referring to this procurement process during today's debate. I now call on David Stewart to speak to and move the motion. Mr Stewart, you have 14 minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and could I start by moving the motion in my name? Presiding Officer, as a lifelong trade unionist, I warmly welcome to the gallery this afternoon officials and members representing CalMac and beyond. I would ask all members to congratulate them on their outstanding campaign to fight for jobs and services for CalMac. If anyone was in any doubt about the insidious trade union bill, which is weaving its way through Westminster, I say to them, come to the Scottish Parliament today and see in action trade unionism at its best. Dedicated men and women, steeped in their community, committed to retaining top quality public sector jobs and services. Presiding Officer, I also want to thank the local and national media for their positive coverage of our campaigns, particularly the daily record that has been four square behind the crusade to keep CalMac and carry on. Presiding Officer, a few years ago, I was in holiday and sky having lunch in a cafe and pretree and reading a local community paper. There was a story about Caledonian agreement brains, usually called CalMac, a publicly owned ferry company that has become an institution wedded into the Scottish psyche, as identifiable, as Stornoway Black Queding, Walker's Shortbread and Bar's Arnbrew. The story in the paper mentioned a poem that local children made up that went as follows, and to the Lord belongs the earth and all that it contains. Except the Ciles and the Western Isles, for they are all McBrains. Presiding Officer, CalMac was formed on New Year's Day in 1973 as the amalgamation of two companies, the Caledonian Steam Packet Company and Devonbury Rain Ltd, whose joint histories go back two centuries. Even the names of the CalMac fleet evoke images of the rich tapestry of Scotland's past. It's almost like the vessels themselves project a personality and character of their own. Lost Seaforth, Flenlaugin, Isle of Lewis, a west coast extended family, part of the DNA of the Hounds and Islands. But the very survival of CalMac is at risk. CalMac is currently engaged in a head-to-head competition with the Circle International Facilities Company for the Scottish Government contract for ferry services on lifeline Clyde and Hebrides routes. Loss of that contract would effectively mean the end of CalMac. Vessels to Circle, staff to Circle, routes to Circle, and without the Clyde and Hebrides routes, CalMac would disappear. There would be no public ferry service to challenge Circle in the future. It's not present or taken later, including the lifeline public services along with those to the Northern Isles, well and truly in public hands. However, let's not forget that CalMac has run the Clyde and Hebrides routes at profit in every year of the current extended contract. Around £8.42 million has been paid back to the Scottish Government in dividends or subsidy clawbacks since 2008-09. If the contract is lost to Circle, all dividends will be taken out of the Scottish ferry industry and sailed straight into the pockets of Circle's international portfolio of private shareholders. Remember that this is Circle that we are talking about. The same Circle that was banned from tendering for public contracts by the UK Government over its disastrous handling of the electronic tagging contract when they were caught charging for the electronic tagging of prisoners who were dead. The idea was that we should trust Circle to operate those lifeline public services is deluded, dangerous and absurd. Not presently. As the West Hanham Free Press said, I quote, Circle is not a shipping company, it's a multi-faceted specialist in outsourcing, which seeks to exploit the easy profits from privatised Government services. We know how the model works, Presiding Officer. The Tories privatise an asset, not currently, the Tories privatise an asset, Circle bids to manage that asset, cuts the services of the bone and posts a handsome profits result. They operate railways, speak cameras, prison, immigration detention centres, a young offenders institution and air traffic control. One investigation into Circle's past reports the tragic death of 19-year-old Ben Wollecott, employed by Circle as a deck hand on the Woolwich ferry in south-east London. Mr Wollecott died as all the injuries sustained at work have been dragged overboard by a mooding rope in 3 August 2011. The Martin accident investigation branch reported in August 2012 having found that Circle Woolwich ferries had no safety management system for the standard practice of a mooding vessel and a number of other safety shortcomings were evident. On 22 October this year, the inner London Crown Court ruled that Circle must pay fines and legal fees of £200,000 for the safety failings that contributed to Mr Wollecott's death. Circle also bid for NHS contracts in England with unacceptable practices resulting. For example, in September 2012 Circle were found to have reported inaccurate data 252 times to the Commonwealth Primary Care Trust over its performance in providing out-of-hours GP services. The contract for this out-of-hours work has now been awarded to a local GP collective. More importantly, in 2014 Circle had to repay £70 million to the UK Government following a fraud investigation. The question must be asked, are they fit and proper to run our public services? Margaret Hodge, who is the former chair of Westminster's powerful Public Accounts Committee, described Circle's overbilling of the Ministry of Justice on public service contracts as, I quote, "...an urgent wake-up call for the Government's disastrous contract management. Let us today, Presiding Officer, wake up before another disaster takes place and Circle wins this contract. For if Circle wins next year, then we paid over £1 billion by the Scottish Government, and how much of that vast sum do we think will be retained by Circle at the expense of passengers and staff?" However, some in the chamber today, Presiding Officer, may say that if the current tender stopped immediately, Circle might sue the Scottish Government for its losses, but Spice has helpfully provided a link to Transport Scotland's process overview for contract bidders that states that the Scottish Government would not be liable for any costs incurred by bidders if it cancels or suspends the contract process. Section 5.4.1 of the bid says that Transport Scotland may elect to discontinue or suspend the procurement process at any time without responsibility or liability to any participant. The minister continues to argue that the Government has no choice but to put those ferry services out to tender, that it is all the fault of the regulations enforced by faceless European Commission bureaucrats. However, independent observers and the trade union movement do not agree with the meek surrender of our national interests. It is either necessary or desirable. The RMT union has repeatedly stated that under a long-standing principle called the Teckle Exemption, the Scottish Government could exempt CalMac and other ferry contracts from the damaging and unpopular tendering requirement. I asked the transport minister if he had raised the Teckle Exemption with the Commission and he admitted that he had not in the parliamentary question answered in June of this year. Just after I make this point, minister, I take you in. I quote the Scottish Government has not discussed the Teckle Exemption with the European Commission. Of course, you would care to expand on the answer that I gave to you, which is that it is irrelevant in terms of the marine cabotage regulations that Stalming would have to undertake this exercise, so stop pointing to an irrelevant matter and return to the regulations that have compelled us to conduct this exercise. I note what he said, but I might have some news for him later in my speech. While I have news for the SNP Government, I have. Over the summer, I headed to Brussels, I met with commission officials who advised me that ferry regulations do allow for the Teckle Exemption to be weighed, should conditions of public ownership be met. I believe that CalMac makes the Teckle criteria. What is more, the updated 2014 EU procurement directives, which the Scottish Government have announced that they must bring in by 18 April next year, have relaxed the Teckle Exemption conditions further and brought more clarity in light of the increasing case law developments over the past 10 years. The Brent London Council and the Well and Hatfield Barrel Council cases of 2011 and 2013 show that Teckle Exemption is applicable to the UK. Furthermore, a key official within the director general for mobility and maritime transport at the commission, whom I met recently said, and I quote, Presiding Officer, regarding the possibility of the direct award of a public service contract, that is without tendering. That is, in principle, accepted by the European Court of Justice case 420 of legal 4 in the case of in-house service. And with a great sense of timing, Presiding Officer, RMT has circulated to members, including the Minister, the Council's opinion on Teckle. Gordon Nardell QC concluded, and I quote, neither the 1992 regulations nor the state aid rules obliged the Scottish Minister to hold a competitive tendering exercise before awarding the company, CalMac, a public service contract for the Clyde and Hebegy services. He goes on to make the valid point that member states are perfectly entitled to perform services themselves. Once an organisation such as the Scottish Government meets the Teckle Exemption, that is on control and function criteria, the funding of its operation, and I quote, does not constitute state aid. Presiding Officer, our purpose today is to stop the tender process dead in its tracks and award the contract to CalMac. Dead in its tracks and award the contract to CalMac and the Teckle Exemption. There may be a rare, brave and enlightened SNP backbencher who this afternoon agrees with me. I suspect not. But a decision today, in favour of our motion, puts the Scottish Parliament in charge, not Brussels. Last night, Presiding Officer, I read a speech by the late Donald Dure, a man who I greatly respected and who supported me with constant visits to the Highlandslands when I was a young candidate in the late 1980s and early 1990s. His speech at the opening of Parliament on 1 July 1999 was a spell-blinding classic. I quote, today we can look forward to a time when this moment will be seen as a turning point, the day when democracy was in use in Scotland. This is much more about our politics and our laws. This is about who we are and how we carry ourselves. Today could be a turning point when we put aside party interests, we think about who we are and how we carry ourselves, support the motion at 5pm, support the workers, services and customers at CalMac. All that is needed now is the world to do and the soul to dare. I now call on Derek Mackay to speak to your move amendment number 14942.3. I begin on a point of consensus. Whatever our disagreement on the legal opinion or matters of interpretation, I agree with David Stewart that whatever disagreements we may have had as a Government with the trade unions and I think we had a very positive and constructive summer, we agree with defending their rights to take whatever action they believe is necessary to represent their member's interests and on that we certainly agree in the face of the Conservatives who wish to remove the rights of the trade unions and representing the interests of their members. In terms of ferry services, the Scottish Government recognises Scotland's ferry services provide a lifeline service for our island communities and we are fully committed to the continued delivery of safe, reliable, publicly owned ferry services. We have invested a record £1 billion in vessels, ports and ferry services since 2007 and we have restored commercial shipbuilding to the Clyde with the construction by Ferguson Shipyard of world-leading hybrid ferries. The third vessel, MV Katrina, will be launched in Port Glasgow on 11 December and we have awarded contracts worth £97 million to Ferguson's for two new major ferries for the CalMac fleet. We have delivered the new MV Lock 3 fourth, invested around £30 million in harbour works for the Stornoway Ullapool route and we are also currently investing £18 million in the major redevelopment of the Brodick harbour in Arran. We have Ms Lamont's microphone on please. You said that this is the Scottish Government's position that they want a publicly owned service. Do you think that a private company can deliver a publicly owned service because of that logic? We didn't privatise the railways. It is the case as a consequence of our designing of the tender process that we will continue to own the vessels, set the fares, set the timetables and in that sense the vessels are still publicly owned. The suggestion that we are handing it potentially away for sale is not the case. Our investment in the road equivalent tariff has delivered significant fare reductions for passengers, cars, coaches and small commercial vehicles. We have frozen ferry fares for 2016-17 and we are in the process of finalising improvements to next year's summer timetables, delivering community aspirations and meeting the increased demand from road equivalent tariff. No previous administration has invested as much as this administration in support of our lifeline ferry services. All this investment would indeed be at risk if we were not to tender these services in line with EU rules. The administration is 100 per cent committed to developing and supporting Clyde and Hebrides ferry services under public ownership claims that these services are up for privatisation are totally untrue. As I confirmed in my statement to this chamber on 24 June, no matter the outcome of the tender process, all the vessels and ports currently under public ownership will remain so, we will continue to set the routes, timetables and fares and we will retain full control of the services provided by the operator through the public service contract as we do now. Let me also assure everyone who depends on these vital services that we are undertaking a fair, open and transparent tender process. In my statement to the chamber on 24 June, I announced that we would set up an independent procurement reference panel to provide assurance that nothing is being done that could be perceived as discriminating against either bidder. The panel's first report on the initial tender was published on Transport Scotland's website on 3 November. The panel concluded that the tender is fair, open and transparent. The panel further concluded that appropriate and relevant information must be available to both participants, and that is what Transport Scotland is doing. The panel will further consider the interim and final invitation to tender, and those documents and the panel's comments will also be published emphasising our commitment to a fair, open and transparent tendering process. The people who rely on these lifeline services can and therefore have the highest levels of confidence that this is a fair and transparent procurement process that does not favour one bidder over another. The current tendering exercise is no different to that undertaken by the previous Labour Liberal Democrat administration when they decided that it was a legal requirement to tender the current contract in 2005, although I will take an intervention. At what point will the minister acknowledge the difference that not just the existence of Teckall but case law on Teckall and the decisions taken have changed the circumstances? It is not practice to share legal advice with others, but there was a very useful exercise over the summer when that legal advice was considered. I am afraid that it has not changed from that position taken by the earlier administration, so that is indeed about compliance. I made the remark that the tender process has not changed, but I, as minister, have made some changes of material significance in terms of quality. For example, the quality ratio is now much stronger than was the case under the previous tender exercise, and I would not want the Labour Party to give people the impression that they handed the last contract to CalMac. It was in fact the SNP administration and the SNP minister that gave the award to CalMac under this administration. It was the Labour Liberal administration that put out to tender in the first place, setting the precedent that that is the road by which we had to go down. In terms of the maritime cabotage regulations, whenever a member stake includes public service contracts or imposes public service obligations, it shall do so on a non-discriminatory basis in respect of all community ship owners, so that is a process that we are compelled to undertake. However, I have done my best, and I think that that is reflected by the comments of the trade unions to safeguard the conditions and employment of staff that operate, of course. I understand the points that the minister is making. Does he understand that it is in his power today to bring in force the 2014 procurement directives, which makes it easier to take Teclan so that he does not need to tender? It is in your hands, minister. We keep returning. David Stewart keeps returning to the matter of legal opinion. It is our opinion that we have to undertake this process and you cannot escape from it. Within this process, I of minister have been doing everything that I can to safeguard the interests of island communities and, indeed, the staff's interests as well. Successive Scottish Administrations have attempted to achieve that exemption from tendering since 2000, and repeated attempts since to exempt ferry services have been unsuccessful. Like Labour and Liberal transport ministers before it, it has been made clear that tendering this contract is a requirement under EU rules. The Scottish Parliament motion at the time said that the Parliament welcomes the Scottish executive's further detailed consideration of EU requirements relating to the Clyde and Hebrides lifeline ferry services. It notes that the serious consequences of those services not being compatible with regulations recognises the executive's commitment to secure the continued employment of the Caledonian McBrain workforce in protecting of their terms, conditions and pension rights and acknowledges that the tendering of the Clyde and Hebrides lifeline services is required to protect those vital services. Many of the Labour MSPs presence know that, because they were there and that is the way they voted at the time. Why the change of position from the Labour Party when it is quite clear that we are still compelled to deliver that? The Scottish executive subsequently published its own consideration of the requirement to tender in September 2005. I have a copy of that document with me today. It addresses many of the issues that we are debating. It concluded that there was a requirement to tender and bring shifts in line with EU rules. Breaking the law is not an option. It would leave the Scottish Government open to challenge because of those European rules. That would be a challenge to taxpayers and the services themselves. It claims that the award of the contract that has been made before has been delayed to follow after the Scottish parliamentary elections are not true. Putting the contract issue in the invitation to tender and pause was through the summer period to have proper dialogue and engagement with the trade unions, from which the trade unions said that they believed that they got the best deal possible. It was right at that stage to pause to ensure that we allayed the fears that were present at the time. However, as a consequence, we cannot reduce the timescales at both ends to carry out due diligence and a fair, open and transparent process under procurement law. We have to do it properly. If I could announce it earlier, I would, but we are sticking to that very challenging timetable in terms of submission, analysis and announcement. I think that negotiations with the summer helped to inform that, as has the work of the independent procurement reference panel. I believe that it has been demonstrated by this and previous administrations that we indeed need to tender those services to ensure that they meet the requirements of EU law. We are doing it in a fair, open and transparent way. We are doing it in a way that ensures the future economic, social, cultural and sustainability of island communities, which of course depend on those vital lifeline ferry services. I have had an increase focused on quality and protections that I believe have given added safeguards appreciated by many involved and should in some way address the concerns that have been raised, but we will do our best for the staff and island communities in all of Scotland to ensure that we enhance and support those services in a way that this Government has been doing since 2007. Thank you and I move the amendment to my name. I now call on Alex Johnson to speak to amendment number 149 for 2.1. Mr Johnson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and may I begin by moving the amendment that stands in my name. Any student of politics of any duration who looked in on this debate today would be quite obviously inspired by the nature of the debate so far. Worse still, they may get the impression that they had fallen through a time warp back to the 1970s, because the nature of this discussion so far has gone back to the good old fashion, public good, private bad and no privatisation at any cost approach. That is an approach that I thought we had lost a long, long time ago. Let us first look at the notion that the Labour Party has presented us with today. The affection for CalMac is, without doubt, something which exists—no, thank you, not at the moment. The affection for CalMac is genuine, and it is genuine because so many people who depend on those services know that CalMac is the provider. We on this side of the chamber hold great respect for the work of CalMac employees and the excellent safety record of the company, having operated in Scotland for over 150 years. Scotland's ferry links provide a lifeline service to residents that will continue to be vital in the long term, particularly in supporting industry and tourism. However, the idea that this can only be done by a public sector company is something that we do not hold to be the truth. In fact, a large part of the opening speech in this debate seems to be a direct attack on Serco itself, pre-judging the outcome of the process in which we are involved. There seems to be a feeling that this should not be tendered. There seems to be a feeling on the Government side that it is only tendering this process because it is a legal requirement. I think that it is a failing of both the Government and the main opposition party for not embracing this process, which has the potential to deliver improvements in service, greater efficiency and something that will deliver more effective services and affordable services for both the fair payers who use those services and for the taxpayer who supports them. The fact is that we must get a handle on the cost of ferry services. We support in principle the notion that the Government brought forward of road equivalent tariff, but in order for that to be sustained into the future, we must know what the services will cost and we must be able to control those costs. That is why the tendering process does have the potential to benefit many, including the passengers and the taxpayer, as well as those who work on the ships. It is also essential that we understand that this Government has not gone as far as it could or should have. Scotland has a great many very effective small private ferry companies who have been excluded from the tendering process by the way in which the tender has been constructed. I think that it is fair for me to criticise the Government for having, in my opinion, assembled the process, stacked the process in such a way as to make it almost impossible for anybody to win other than the incumbent. As a member not except, that is partly to do the very aim that I have suggested of safeguarding those lifeline services and not having them picked off by individual operators, the bundling was requested by the trade unions and is the right thing to do. The process of bundling, the complete unbundling of the services, would have had that effect, but the Government knows and the Minister knows that the option to partially unbundle so as to make those contracts of a size that other existing ferry companies could have competed in the process would have been a great benefit. It is also the case that we have an unusual position in this debate in that, after I speak, there will be an opportunity for the Minister who handled the last tendering process to give his opinion on what happened during it. I look forward to hearing what Tavish Scott has to say, to bring to bear his ministerial experience of the process and to tell us what the truth is on this process that we are currently going through. It is the fact that, in my opinion, the Scottish Government has done the absolute minimum that is necessary in order to avoid crossing over European rules. They have missed the opportunity to take forward a tendering process that would have delivered much more effectively and, in so doing, they are failing service users and taxpayers alike. The guarantees that have been put in place during this process mean that the ships themselves and the handling facilities will remain in the ownership of the Scottish Government. The management of these services will be carried out by whoever wins this contract, but largely using the same staff and the same service providers that they have traditionally done. What we are arguing about today is not about a change in the way that these services are delivered, more is the pity. What we are arguing about today is efficient management and effective management to provide an affordable service in the long term. I think that this Government has not done as much as it could, but it has done what it was required to do. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The truth, Mr Johnson, is that we lost a vote, and one or two colleagues on the farer benches will remember it well. Back in 2005, lots of Labour colleagues were very exercised and rightly so by the requirement of the European Commission to insist on the tendering process. In a pretty heated debate that I remember particularly well, because I reread it the other night—I don't see a number of people commenting or following it—we lost that vote. I commend that to the Minister of the Day. It's not a bad thing to lose a vote on your own back benches now and again. I know that we haven't seen much of that of late, but it's not a bad thing now and again. It certainly keeps the Government very honest, and what happened as a result of that is that the Minister of the Day did spend an awful lot of time in Brussels. I remember the commissioner who was a very amable French gentleman by the name of Barrow, who spent—not the type of wheel but a different kind—who spent a lot of time in very clear English saying, this is what had to happen. The truth of it is that no matter what legal advice you come up with, the European Commission do expect these services to be tended exactly the same position then as it is now. On that point, I entirely agree with Derek Mackay. The point that I might take a slight issue with Derek Mackay, of course, is that the role reversal is, if I may say so, fairly entertaining. At that time, Fergus Ewing—not from you and Fendness, Mr Mackay, but from a number of others, some of whom are still in this chamber, who sat on that. Can I finish this point? I'm trying to help you here, Mr Stewart, because at that time Fergus Ewing, leading for the SNP, said, we will not tender. We shall not tender. He said that he went on to tell us that when the SNP took power, we will not tender. I'll finish this point and then give way, Mr Crawford, because then, and Derek Mackay rightly referred to the decision that John Swinney took in 2007 after the election. Mr Swinney said in response to Mr Gibson in the Transport Committee of 2 October 2007, when we came into office, the Government took the view that because of the existing approach to addressing European state aid issues was at a highly advanced state, it was best to allow these matters to run their course and come to a conclusion to ensure the continuity and the development of the Clyde and Hepaties ferry services. I rather agree with him. He's right then, and he's right now. Majority in this chamber, we hope that CalMac comes through this and can hold on to the tender. There's no dispute on that, but let me just make the point to Tavish Scott. I think that he'll probably agree that, in the past, when the SNP was in opposition, we were opposed to what was going on today. At that time, we were wrong then, because we can see the circumstances now, and they are wrong now in the Labour benches. I have to agree with that. Self-evidently, that's the case. What I think is important is to differentiate between Serco and the understandable concern that Mr Stewart and others expressed about Serco and the principle of tendering. I just would urge colleagues and Labour benches to bear that in mind. There'll always be more legal advice, and there'll always be a requirement on the Minister of the Day quite rightly to spend time in Brussels and to spend time with his lawyers seeking to improve what can be done in terms of the process of tendering. No Government—we've been through a few different models in this place now since 1999—have found a way round or achieved an exemption. Sarah Boyk was a transport minister. Lewis MacDonald was a transport minister. Sarah was, if I may say so, a transport minister under our first First Minister, Donald Dure, that David Stewart rightly mentioned. Exactly the same thing to my recollection happened at that time, too. We all argued for that exemption. We all sought to achieve it, but there was no way, as we found it, legally or otherwise round it without getting into at least a court of law and probably or more realistically infraction proceedings by the European Commission against whoever the Government of the Day was. I understand the points that the member is making. I wasn't criticising his time as a transport minister. I merely make the point that, before us today, is QC's advice saying that this is possible. The other point that the member didn't pick up was that both the Altmark criterion and TECO were both immature at the stage of the last Labour administration. It's case law that develops us. We now see a way through. It is possible to do it, but, in any dealings with the commission, you need to know the right questions to ask. Perhaps we haven't asked them yet. That was exactly the same position that Fergus Ewing used to take when he sat in that chair making a different legal argument, but we're using a different criteria. The Altmark case was highlighted at that time, too. I take the point about the passage of time, but I know it's not particularly helpful to Mr Stewart, but whoever the Government Minister is is going to have to take legal advice on the basis of those cases and then has to act on that. No Government of any political persuasion can knowingly seek to break the law. I don't think that Mr Stewart, if he was a transport minister, would be doing anything other than what Mr Mackay is doing right now. The important point about this is that if you wish to set up a tender and you wish to make it as tight as possible, that is perfectly possible to do. Mr Stewart will know well. He's a Highlands Islands MSP. We have circle running our services to Orkney and Shetland. It is the same skippers, the same crew, and the same people working on the service who are on those boats today. They provide a very good service, and they work very hard on behalf of local people. One of the best things, one of the most enjoyable days that I spent as a transport minister, was the CalMac crews on the sound of Slate and on the sound of Harris. I have the utmost respect for the crews. I read the peace and the hurdle today from a retiring skipper. I recognised him and I absolutely reflect all his concerns in terms of the future. That is why the Government just simply has to make sure, as Mr Mackay in fairness said, the importance and the fluidity and the transparency of that tendering procedure to protect the pensions, the terms and conditions and those other issues that Labour members have rightly highlighted in this motion. We now move to the open debate. I call on Mike Russell to be followed by Johann Lamont, six minutes or thereby, please. I am glad that the opportunity to contribute to this debate, unlike some members, I have been on a ferry this week. In fact, I have been already this week on four different ferries and three different routes. One of them yesterday, a crew member stopped me and asked where I was going. I said that I was on my way to the Parliament. They said, what are you going to do there, which is always a good question. I said what I am going to do. No, I said what I am going to do. The Labour members might learn something from this in terms of what the crew actually thinks. I said that I am going to speak into a Labour debate about the privatisation of CalMac. He said that the crew of this ferry know that CalMac is not being privatised, so the Labour message does not seem to be getting home. The reality of this situation is that CalMac is not, nor is any other organisation, going to be privatised. That is why I am wearing this badge. The reality is also that the vast majority of people who work on the boats and who live in the communities served, and I represent more CalMac routes than any other member in this chamber, they want CalMac to win this tender. There is no doubt about that either. I want CalMac to win this tender. What we have to do is to be honest about how that is going to take. David Stewart quoted Donald Dure at the start about what Donald Dure's views were. I sadly have to say to him that there is another quote from Donald Dure that springs to mind. When you say to this chamber that they can do something and they can do it now, and that will change everything, you are very guilty of something that Donald Dure warned against, because Donald Dure said that cynicism, together with unrealistic expectation, are the two great bugbears of politics. Alas, we have heard cynicism and unrealistic expectation this afternoon, because what we should be concentrating on is not who is going to win the tender process, except to say, I want, my constituents want for the sake of their lifeline ferries, they want CalMac to win that process, but then they want to say what is going to be delivered, what are the real issues that affect those who rely upon those ferries every single day, and that we should go through those and think about those things, because those are the things that crew members and others press me on as their representative. What are the big issues in ferries? The minister knows them, because I am never off his back on them. I have never stopped writing to the minister about the key issues that exist in ferries, which can be resolved. On Monday, I was on mull. It is a busy commuting route. RET has made an enormous difference. The price has been actually more than halved in the last month, and people have noticed it, but there are difficulties. There are difficulties of timetable. They need earlier and later access to the island to allow people to work on the mainland. There are other issues, too. Shortage of boats. When a problem occurs, whether it is on the mull route or on the isle route or anywhere else, it is a shortage of boats that is the biggest difficulty in making sure that there is a continuity of service. Why is there a shortage of boats? Because the previous administration did not build any. It is this administration that has started to build boats. As the minister knows, we are going to have to build more and more boats, particularly to overcome problems such as those that were experienced by Islay and Collinsay in the spring, where they had very severe problems caused by the breakdown of not one, not two, but three boats all at the same time. There are other problems that need to be resolved. I agree with the Denun ferry action group. I agree with them that the major problem in restoring a vehicle service there is not just finding a body to tender for it. It is the price that CMAL intends to charge for the pier in Denun. I think that one of the big changes that you could have in Scotland would be to remove CMAL from the equation. Ferry services operated perfectly effectively without this intervening body for years. I do not think that there is any necessity for CMAL to be there. If it is required by European law, here is a positive suggestion. As part of the legacy process for the transport committee, why does not the transport committee, on a cross-party basis, look A at the tendering process to see if there is a way around it and B to look as if they could take CMAL out of the equation? If a cross-party committee of this Parliament could find a way forward on both, we would have the last of the tender processes and we would also take out of the operation a body that does not contribute positively to it. On Friday—of course—I hear what the member has to say, but does the member accept that the responsibility for identifying the best means of letting a tender in order to ensure the right outcome actually lies not with Parliament but with the Government? The member has been a minister. He knows that that is true, but parliamentary committees are extremely important in helping to broker agreements or discover information that can be in help to Governments and to this chamber. I am sure that the member who has been an active committee member—I think that even a convener—would see that that was a useful thing to happen. We can look at some other problems that exist. We can look at the problems in Bute and we can look at the problems in some of the smaller islands. Mike Mackenzie, who is here today, is represented as he will say, lives on the island of Isdale. There are still a number of small ferry routes operated by the local authority, which the ferries plan anticipated should better be handled by a national operator. We need to get on with the process of making sure that there is a part of the national operator and we need to join up infrastructure. When that happens on an island such as Kerrera, the fact that there is no road north to south in Kerrera means that that investment is largely wasted. That is also true on Moll, where in actual fact a new ferry or bigger ferry would create problems with the amount of traffic that is coming. However, by and large, the Scottish Government should be happy with its achievements. It published a ferry plan in 2012. There was a vision of what could be done. That might need to be revisited every few years. That would be a good thing to happen. However, it is the SNP Scottish Government that took forward RET, discussed in the Western Isle since the 1970s, now in place and completed the task in time. It is an SNP Government that has started building ferries again. I want the Government to build more ferries, but it has started building them again. It is an SNP Government that has taken forward a fully transparent process of tendering, not like the last process and subject to community review. After the 2016 election, there will be a lot to be done, but I think that it is only the SNP that is capable of doing it. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have to say that that was an appeal for cross-party working. He could have been a little bit more positive and a little less partial in the comments that he had to make. I have to confess, Deputy Presiding Officer, that I have an emotional, if not sentimental connection to the issue of CalMac and the service that it provides to communities across Scotland. My grandfather worked for Caledonia McBrains and we knew from very early on the risks that he and his fellow workers took to deliver services to remote communities. My own life has been peppered with journeys to the islands, both to work and to meet family. I understand, as many in this chamber do, the significance of those services and the importance of this debate, which has to go far beyond simply making partial comments about which one of us got things wrong most often. Be clear, though. The case for defending CalMac and a publicly-owned lifeline service goes far beyond sentiment. It is rational and makes economic and social sense. It is central to supporting our island and remote communities. It is about sustaining those communities as thriving modern places, stemming the depopulation that my generation understood and creating real economic opportunity, not just economic opportunity to get skilled jobs working for Caledonia McBrains but for businesses to run businesses and develop enterprises that take advantage of modern communication and which can rely and thrive if there is a public transport service to serve them. Those lifeline services not only provide transport but because individual ferry services exist, which no private enterprise would ever have taken on. Because they exist, there are then opportunities to create business. For example, on the island of Tyree, they were able to develop surfing tourism precisely because there was already a lifeline ferry service there. I do not doubt, for a minute, that Johann Lamont care for the lifeline services that are delivered. Johann Lamont does not also appreciate that I have made the point that the vessels and timetables continue to be set by ministers and there is no threat to the ferry services, the routes or the timetables. Those matters will continue to rest with responsible Scottish Government ministers, whoever they may be. A second amendment? A force might have something to say about what their terms and conditions might be under a different employer. We do know that there has to be money taken from somewhere to provide private profits. Of course, that has always been, as was already said by Tavish Scott, a controversial issue. Indeed, it resulted, as I recall, in a number of rebellions, which shifted the position of the then Scottish Exeter, particularly around the question of unbundling the routes. That has been, I think, a very important step. In 2005, there was a reluctant acceptance, certainly on behalf of some of the needs of the tender, but then very significant work was done to ensure that any privateers looking to make a fast buck at the expense of workers' terms and conditions would be deterred. As a consequence, only CalMac did bid and CalMac secured that contract. As a consequence, CalMac has returned surpluses to the Scottish Government every year since the contract was let to them. We are in a positive place, providing a good service and returning money to Government. That approach, I have to say, is in sharp contrast to the Scottish Government's ferries review in 2012, which comments on the benefits of competition in offering the potential for reduced subsidies. I think that that is at the heart of some of this debate. The Government is trying to speak with two separate voices, recognising the benefits of competition and others trying to say that we have to do this in order to protect CalMac. We need to be clearer about what that position is, because we are now in a position in which there are two bidders, one of which is CalMac, which has delivered successful services, and the other is Serco, which, even in the private world of Alec Johnson, surely there is a contrast there in the quality of that service. A Serco, which cannot now bid for UK Government contracts on the basis of its history and its financial roadworthiness. Can I ask the Scottish Government, have they tested the viability of Serco to take on the contract? Do they have the option to decide that they are not suitable bidders? I believe that they do have that. Critically, we also have legal advice. We are RMT and from what my colleague David Stewart has said that it would be possible for the Scottish Government to seek an exception. What has been done to test this? Why not go to Europe? This is not a Government who has lived its life defending what the last Government has done. This is not a Government who has been afraid to take on Europe. Why, in this case, have they not satisfied us by showing that they are willing to ask that question? This is a serious time, a serious matter. I urge again the minister not to shoot the messenger but to listen to the message sent by the unions and local communities. Mike Russell may want to ask why those very crews, organised in their unions, are raising these concerns, perhaps because they understand and fear what may be ahead of them. Despite all the mythologising, but who said what when, there is really only one question. Which side is the Scottish Government on? Does it want CalMac to survive to deliver this critical public service and returning money to the public purse? If the answer is yes, then can we get the Government to test the argument to destruction? My suspicion is that there are genuinely people in this chamber on the Government's side who want CalMac to survive, but there are others who are quite content if they get for a cheaper buck circle to do the job instead. I urge SNP-backed benches to recognise the case that is being made and defend your communities, not simply defend your Government. Listen not to me, but to those who work and benefit from these ferry services. Listen to the member of RMT who came to the rally and put it simply to me this afternoon. That has been hanging over us for 20 years. It needs to be sorted. Please, minister, if you are serious in your protestations that you want to protect high-quality public ferry services on the Clyde and Highlands, test the argument, use the power that you have got, take on the legal argument, go to Europe and ask for an exemption. If you do that, I can assure you that people on this side and across communities across Scotland will applaud you. A little more time available than I had thought. I can now give you up to seven minutes. I will call on Mike Mackenzie to be followed by Duncan McNeill up to seven minutes. I find myself in a curious position of disagreeing with Mr Russell and agreeing with Mr Scott, because Mr Russell does not represent the greatest number of ferries in Scotland. I do. I agree with Mr Scott not that I did not share the concerns about Serco taking over the north-link ferries, certainly. Mike Russell. I think that I said that I was the constituency MSP who represented the most calmac ferries, but I defer to you as ever. I shared the concerns when Serco took over the north-link ferries, but I am forced to concedent to admit, as Mr Scott has outlined, that the service that they have been providing is excellent. That is not my view, because my view in these matters is not as important perhaps as the view of my constituents on Orkney and Shetland and having been an Orkney just last weekend and on Shetland a couple of weeks beforehand. I discovered that my constituents on these islands or on these groups of islands are pleasantly surprised to find that the service has got better, not worse. John Finlay. I agree that, for the staff who have been placed in short-term contracts, that is not an improvement. I can say to Mr Finlay that I also recently took the time, whilst aboard one of the boats, the Hamnavo, I think it was, to speak to the staff, to speak to a number of the staff, and most of them seem to feel that their worst fears had not materialised. No, I am sorry, I am now pressed for time, but there is no doubt, Presiding Officer, that CalMac, as the company is now known, has an affectionate place in the heart of all my owners, myself included, my grandfather worked for CalMac, my father worked for CalMac as a young man, although in their days the company was known as Caledonian McBrain. Even Parahandy himself worked for a time for CalMac, although in his time with the company it was called David McBrain, and it largely came into public ownership in 1948, and in 2006, as we have heard, the assets and the operating company were separated in response to EU state aid rules and CMAL was set up, but the point that I am making, Presiding Officer, is that the name has changed over the years and the structure of CalMac has undergone several changes over the years, but the public is essentially regarded as the same company and regarded as continuing affection, and it is worth reflecting that the connectivity to and from our islands, first made available by McBrain's predecessor, David Hutchison, in company in 1851, has improved enormously over the years, with the only exceptions perhaps being during the war years, and when I tap into the collective memory of my friends and my family and neighbours, many of them working for or with friends and family working for CalMac, many of them retired mariners with stories as varied and humorous as those of Parahandy himself, no thank you. I hear recollections that each of those changes in name and in structure have been preceded by a sense of foreboding and communal angst, and in each of those cases, all of those peers have failed to materialise. I am reminded, Presiding Officer, of Mark Twain's wisdom when he said near the end of his life, that I am an old man and my wife, my life has been full of troubles, most of which never happened. The fact is, Presiding Officer, that the service has continued to improve over the years beyond the wildest dreams and expectations of previous generations. The fact is that in real terms it has never been easier or cheaper to travel to our islands, and the fact is that no Scottish Government has done more to improve ferry transport than this Scottish Government, with more than £1 billion spent in ferries and infrastructure since 2007, with the completion of the roll-out of RUT by the end of this Parliament exactly as promised in its manifesto, with the added capacity now planned on almost all of the Clyde and Hebridean routes to cope with the anticipated increase in demand, and all in all, during a time when the Scottish Government budget has been falling, this is no main achievement. Presiding Officer, this is the face of good government. This is what good government looks like. This is the good government that was most noticeably absent in the years prior to 2007. The shame is, and shame on you, is that, despite this, the Labour Party seeks to be an asian provocateur. It seeks to stir up discontent. It blows on the small embers of discontent in the hopes that it will fan the flames into a bonfire, the hope that somehow, somehow, this will bring them some political advantage. The EU's day-to-day rules are clear. The routes must be timbered. The Labour-Liberal Democrat Coalition, as Tavish Scott has outlined, faced exactly the same problem in 2005. Presiding Officer, having spent some time at sea myself, I can confirm that our ships and boats are full of forecasted lawyers. The pubs in the bars ashore are even worse. They are sometimes crowded with sea lawyers, all of whom can make legal judgments with astounding and immediate certainty. I suspect that Mr Stewart has perhaps spent too much company time in the company of some of these sage advice. As an islander myself, coming from a long line of islanders, I can certify that islanders will always complain about their ferry services, sometimes with merit, often with merit but sometimes not. They are lifeline services, and it is lonely when you have been dependent on them for years that you realise how vitally important they are and how islanders can easily feel insecure about changes. You must close, thank you very much. That matter is not who sits in the boardroom. Thank you very much. I am now calling on Duncan McNeill to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I hope that my motors will not be miscued today. I have a responsibility to highlight many of the concerns that my community has. We have lots of interest in the future of this tender process. However, it has been an enjoyable meanderer through the years, because it is important to recognise that this has been long debated in this chamber. I do not think that there is anything bad about that, I think that that is honest, because we are dealing with a very difficult situation. The public record will show, I hope, that I have been consistent in expressing the concerns, including voting against my own Government at that time when the Government lost their motion that evening. I remember being taken in in front of the works as a consequence. It is not something that would happen nowadays, but it did in those days. We have, in the amendments today, predictable, given that we go back far enough to Michael Forsythe in 1993 or whatever it was, that we had this spectre raised and that it has been consistently coming back when we even had a parliament. I do not have an honest debate about that. However, one thing that strikes me is that, as well as I have been consistent, I think that Governments and politicians have been consistent. That is to insist that no stone should be left unturned in this tender process. No stone should be left unturned if there are opportunities to cease this tender. We should be taking them. We should not, as a Government and a Parliament, support the trade unions right to take them. We should be side by side with those trade unions to test this process. My interest, of course, which has to be declared, is not so much on the passenger side, but on the producer side of this debate. We have Calomac headquarters at Gwroch, which provides us with many hundreds of jobs, significant investment in our community and highly-paid jobs, which there are no certainties at all that that headquarters would. I see the minister and I will give way to the minister. I would just want to pre-empt the point for Duncan McNeill in a very helpful way. A lot of members do not seem to be aware that I have been led into the procurement exercise, a mechanism that disincentivises any bidder from stripping out headcount numbers. That mechanism is new and designed to try to protect the staffing numbers within organisations to remove any incentive to just strip out staff that I know that people are concerned about. Does that go some way to allay the fears of members? We have one of the other different things that we have from the historical discussions about this, as we have a circle on the scene. They gave quite clear assurances that it was not their track record to reduce staffing. However, the chief executive of Circle Northlink boasting at a transport event quite recently, it may be the same captain on the ship, it may be the same people on the ship, but after their actions there has been 85 less of them, and those who are employed are not necessarily employed in the previous contract. Please give some respect for the concern for the people who are here today. Their concerns are serious and worrying. In addition to the CalMac headquarters, I do not believe that there are sufficient assurances in there for the headquarters themselves. I understand that Seymal owns the headquarters, so I do not know whether that transfers at all to the winning bidder of that circle. That is just another complication. However, we should at least try very hard to get those assurances. I have been asking for two years to get those assurances. I do not know whether in place yet. I am limited for time. I think that there is genuine dubiety about headquarters, and as the member knows, Circle is not being clear about where its headquarters will be, but it appears to be saying to anybody who asks it that the headquarters might be on their island, which is a bit confusing. I am pleased that I took the intervention now, because it allows me to say that the team that has been engaged in those island communities has told the good people of Dura, and it was reported in the local newspaper, that there will be no headquarters. How do we create a situation that could cost my community 200 jobs? I should go on to say that, as I mentioned earlier, we have a cluster of marine businesses and experience in the Irmaclide area. We have Seymal and Port Glasgow, we have Ferguson shipbuilders, and we have recently built up good news. We have also got Garville, Diedog, and Forth Marine, who carry out maintenance and repair to CalMac vessels. We build vessels, we help to procure and develop new models of vessels in the area, and we have a headquarters function that supports jobs. Unfortunately, there are not enough assurances about the headquarters, the people who employed there, the impact that that will have on my community, and indeed the knock-on impact that that could have on the other businesses in the Irmaclide area. Until that happens, I will not be supporting it, and I do not believe, with all those consequences in play, that we should leave any stone unturned to ensure that we get firmness in this process. I thank you, Presiding Officer, as MSP for Culliam North. I am lucky enough to represent the island communities of both Arran and Cumbria, and with a total of three CalMac ferry routes in the islands. I am more than aware of the vital role of ferry services playing ensuring that the island communities that I represent remain resilient. CalMac and its workforce play a key part in that. Of course, the hard work of CalMac employees is extremely well regarded and well respected, not just by islands but also by visitors themselves. One of the reasons is that CalMac employees, particularly in bad weather and other adverse conditions, often go that extra mile to ensure not only that visitors are safe but also comfortable as far as conditions allow. As we have heard, since taking office in 2007, the SNP Government has recognised the unique needs of our island communities. The transport minister is also a minister for the islands, and we have invested heavily to ensure that they are well connected to boost tourism and their economies and enhance export opportunities. A record billion pounds has now been invested over the past eight years or so in port infrastructure, new vessels and ferry services. Brodych Harbour and the island of Arran is soon to benefit from the SNP Government investment with a contract to transform that ferry terminal. It is worth more than £22.2 million. That contract is only part of a major investment of around £30 million, which will secure a safe, efficient and reliable ferry terminal and service with work duty start this winter and finish early in 2017. The harbour development includes a linkspan, which the previous Labour and Liberal Democrat administration should have renewed in 2002, but it never did, despite having greater resources and huge cash underspends. It has to be said that many people on Arran take the view that that island was just not important enough to those parties when they were in office. Working to ensure that services are improved further, the SNP Government has awarded a £97 million contract to the once ill-fated Ferguson shipyard on the Clyde to build two large dual fuel ferries that will serve the Clyde islands, as well as other islands in Scotland. Each vessel will have increased passenger vehicle capacity with 1,000 passengers and 127 vehicles, creating and sustaining hundreds of jobs in the west of Scotland in the process. On top of that, the Arran summer ferry service with the MVL of Arran working with the Caledon Isles has been extended to five months, and in 2008 it should be extended with a new vessel replacing the MVL of Arran to an all-year round service. Of course, each year, the SNP Government is supporting a road-equivalent tariff policy to Arran and Cumbria to the tune of more than £2.8 million just for those two islands each year. I can say from first-hand experience that the introduction of this policy has made huge differences to island constituents with the cost of taking the car to the ferry, reduced by some 57 per cent. Not only is that of great financial benefit to islanders, but the boost to the tourism sector on our islands has been marked. I am confident that, with new ferries in place, increased capacity and a targeted marketing strategy, visitor numbers will only grow, helping to support dozens of businesses on the islands of Arran and Cumbria. Based on the unprecedented programme investment that can be no doubt the SNP Government is intent on delivering the best ferry service possible for islanders and visitors across Scotland. Although I understand some of the concerns of members opposite, I think that that at least should be accepted. Keeping our ferry service in public hands is critical to achieving the same and allows the Government maximum flexibility in ensuring needs and demand is met. Of course, the fact that the Scottish Government has not unbundled the services has shown great intent in that regard. For that reason, the SNP Government, as a minister, has made clear, has absolutely no plans to privatise its vital transport network and will continue to keep our ferry services in public hands despite financial challenge. Although we have heard claims that legal loopholes could be used to avoid the tending process entirely, since the last tender process and exhaustive European Commission state aid investigation has strengthened the legal requirement. With regard to the technical exemption that has been raised with RMT and some members opposite today, it remains the case that the European Commission's maritime cabotage regulation still requires Scottish ministers to put those services out to tender, given the provision of state aid. I will be happy to take an intervention. I mentioned the RMT's QC's advice on that, which says the opposite of what the member just said. As the member had the opportunity to look at the advice, I appreciate that it was fairly near before the debate, but the advice is very clear that the Government can use the technical exemption to avoid tendering for the service. The Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities met senior officials to explore the potential to avoid tendering of the contract. The commission reiterated its position that the maritime cabotage regulation, in line with the principles of the EU treaty, requires non-discrimination between operators. Therefore, the open and transparent competitive tendering exercise, which is now being undertaken, has to proceed. The SNP Government is committed to maintaining standards of service, and we wish to see work as rights protected. I am therefore pleased that, along with the First Minister, the Transport Minister and the trade unions, an independent procurement reference panel was announced on 24 June to ensure fairness, openness and transparency, and provide assurance of no discrimination against either bidder. Scottish ministers have further made it clear that they will protect employees' terms and conditions, including a fair, affordable and sustainable pension scheme and the inclusion of fair work principles in the next contract. Ministers are also seeking a no compulsory redundancy agreement from the bidders during the tendering process. I believe that, within the confines of procurement law, the Scottish Government is doing an excellent job to ensure that successful bidder provides not mere value for money, but a high-quality service for the people who use those services, which is fair to employees and delivers for our customers. Of course, talk of privatisation is far from the truth, and any service whereby the Government retains ownership of vessels, ports and harbours, whilst also setting routes, timetables and fares cannot be considered privatisation. Coupled with the huge levels of investment in port infrastructure, RET, new vessels in the Scottish Government's ambitious ferries plan, it is clear that, under the SNP Government, Scotland will continue to benefit from a world-class ferry service that will improve the standards of living on our island communities and provide a boost to tourism, employment and island exports. Indeed, in my constituency, we have already seen such progress. I apologise to you in the chamber for missing Mr Stewart's opening remarks. I attended school in a McBrains bus for many years, and there was a McBrains haulage. CalMac has its origins in that highland history, as has been said, and deep part of the highland history in the DNA, someone said. That used to be the case with another public body, a hydroboard that was great affection for the hydroboard. From the period of construction, Tom Johnson at the end of the Second World War, to the operation, to the large workforce that it created, it all had a lot of housing connected with the work there, and it had a special place in the communities. That is no longer the case because of the privatisation of the utilities. It ended all that. The profit won't have ended all that. That is not a model that I would like to see repeated in respect of these important services. I am grateful to the many people who have provided briefings for today's event, and I am sure that we can all do some selective quoting from it. I certainly intend to. Under the procurement directives, and I quote under the previous regime, waterborne transport services were non-priority services. I do not think that the importance of the ferry service to our communities can be underestimated. The term public sector obligations can mean different things to different people, and on a political level it does mean do you see a role for the state in people's lives? I have to tell you that I view transport services as much as I view education, as much as I view health and social care. People have talked about the tackle and, again, I would choose to use selective phrases. I share David Stewart's view, and I have to admit that I did not get through the 26 pages or whatever—I got through 14 of them—but, of course, the meets in the initial opinion and that advice is unequivocal. If, as expressions appear to come from the Government-backed benches, people are genuinely interested in CalMac securing, I commend that to them, and I will return to that later. We know that there is support for rail services to be in the public sector, and there is, again, plenty of evidence about that. Touching on Mr Johnson when he declined taking an earlier intervention, we know that East Coast failed twice in private franchises. It ran very successfully as a state enterprise. You and I might see the opportunity to run that model out to other rail franchises—not the UK Government, but they now intend to hand over those profits to their friends in the city. People are looking for consistency about that, and people have talked about the various positions that the parties have adopted. I have to say that my green colleagues have been consistent throughout that, but it is right to say that events change and are shaped by case law, and it is important that we pay attention to that. Of course, case law counts for nothing if there is not political will. I think that that is the most important thing that will shape that. There are many obligations that are placed in a government, and there is also an obligation placed in a company—a limited company—in that obligation to maximise profits for its shareholders. There is no doubt that commercial concerns can run public services. Unfortunately, many do, but at what price? The first occasion that I spoke in here was about care of older people, and I am concerned that there was a profit motive attached to the care of older people, likewise with prisons. I declare my membership of the RMT parliamentary group and the RMT campaign states that CERCO is the specialist in failure, and it tells us that that is based on an appalling track record in public services. Of course, we do not just need to take RMT's word for that. Mr Johnson's colleagues in the UK Government, as we have heard, formed that view, too. If Tories in London are saying one thing and are recognising the frailties of that organisation, we are setting that aside here. Of course, the union briefings also tell us something that we would know already, and that is, I quote, that profits among companies in the UK and international industry are reliant on keeping labour costs down at the expense of seafarers employment, pension and other rights. We have teat up on the horizon and we have the trade union legislation, which, ironically, the Government seems to express concerns about. Of course, we also know that, in many instances, with public services, those are driven, as one of the quotes says, by a policy of aggressive profiteering. I was grateful to my colleague Mike McKenzie for accepting the intervention. I raised the issue of the president, because we can go on president. I said short-term contracts when I should have said, indeed, zero-hours contracts, because, despite assurances given to the RMT that they would not change crewing levels before winter, Serco announced redundancies in October without prior consultation, barely three months into the contract. That caused the first industrial action on Scottish ferry services for 30 years. I corrected my earlier comment, the company also used zero-hours contracts for staff on vessels on these routes. That is not the sort of ferry services that I want to see. CalMac has its critics. Those critics are very specific. I was unhappy about this performance in this particular ferry. I wish that the ferry had sailed on this particular occasion, but they are highly regarded and they are profitable. I am fascinated by the notion that this is not privatisation, because we know that CalMac is profitable and that profit comes back to the Government coffers. Where will any profit that any private company would make? We know where that is going. That is going to the shareholders. It is not coming here. We can play with words all day long, but, as far as I am concerned, that is privatisation. I have to tell you that I am a very old-fashioned guy. I think that I like my public services run by the public in the interests of the public. Johann Lamont and I find speak talked about— Yes, indeed. Who owns and who will own the assets of the company? It is completely irrelevant to the people that I represent. They are interested in the quality of service and they are interested to know that the people who work for the ferry services are respected. We know that private companies will drive the terms and conditions—hard fought for terms and conditions—down. I like my service, and I think that we need to test the destruction. I do not think that people—if they have not had the opportunity to read an opinion, I do not think that they should be expressing a view on an opinion. I hope that the minister will be open minded in that. There is a phrase, knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing, and that very much applies in this instance. I am very happy to take an intervention from the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just was not sure if the member had time. Repeatedly, I ask, as Labour members, have we tested the legal opinion to destruction? Is the member aware that trade union solicitors and government solicitors did spend some of the summer discussing matters raising awareness without sharing legal opinion to understand each other's position? Therefore, I am convinced that we have tested to destruction the legal opinion that has led us to the conclusion that we have reached. As someone who, in a previous job, used to seek legal opinions, I can say that, in some instances that legal opinion can be, can you give me everything that would sport my assertion that A is B? What I am saying to you, minister, is that it has come in with in the last while, and I hope that you would take the opportunity to look at that, even at this 11th hour, because if there is a genuine commitment—and everyone seems to be saying that they want CalMac to win it—if there is a genuine commitment to that, then I am sure that, if you take that on board, everyone would be appreciative of that, and I certainly want to see CalMac to be in the service. I thank David Stewart for bringing that motion to us today. Thank you, Presiding Officer, as they say, Deja Vu all over again. This kind of debate took place in 2005. We have had references to that, and I think that it is important to state for a fact that I am now the constituency member for Kate Newstallol and Ross, so therefore I have both the CalMac service from Allapole to Stornoway and the circle services across the Pentland Firth from Scrabster. I can compare and contrast, but I also have a wider experience. Indeed, the land reform work of our committee took us to Islay and Dura recently, so we have been using a number of ferries—indeed, I went via Arran and Cintair—so I have witnessed what is going on in the ferries in that respect, and that does not give me an overall view of what the state of the ferries are. However, the debate is about a whole issue that the crews and the unions and others have once settled for good. Whether it is possible, Presiding Officer, to get to a stage where TECL is a solution to that is quite complicated. The EU states that tendering is needed by law, as established in the executive's time and which we have followed in the SNP Governments. However, if TECL is not a silver bullet and is very complicated and, as the minister said, is not a ffeta comply, how could we spend a lot of time at this stage putting back a tendering process that we might be found to be in infraction over? As Maureen MacMillan said, we have a face-facts—this is in 2005—if we fail to comply swiftly with the European directive, the tendering of the ferry services could be taken out of the executive's hands. I do not think that we should take that threat likely from a Labour member—that was quite an important matter to say, not at the moment, thank you. There is a risk that is being run in order to be able to suggest that this is new information and opinion. One idea about how TECL would work is all very well. As my colleague Mike Russell said, if that is something that really matters, it is possible for that to be explored at length, not in the middle of a tendering process, because Maureen MacMillan's stricture is there. It is also the fact that, as Tavish Scott said, we are not dealing with the other aspect of Labour's motion about privatisation. The hardware stays in public hands—the ferries, the services, the timetables, the fares—and, most importantly, because of the tender conditions, the pensions of the workforce that have been safeguarded in this tendering process, which were not safeguarded in the tendering process in 2005, I mentioned it at that time myself. As far as I am concerned, I am sorry that I am not taking one at the moment, but I may in a minute. The employees are being safeguarded. There is not a question of non-compulsory redundancies being able to be carried out without consultation with the minister. The kinds of conditions that are being put into this contract are very different to the ones that pertain in the past. As I said, we have got CalMac as it is at the present time. There has been some discussion about just exactly what kind of job it does and whether it could do a better job. There has been a lot of discussion about the way in which the parts of the CalMac organisation suggest particular types of vessel that should be investigated at greater length. It has been suggested, for example, that the recently-built Loch Seaforth, which runs in the other full run, which costs over £43 million, could instead have been used to create three 140-car rough-water catamaran ferries, which might have been more flexible to use on many routes in CalMac. We have to use world-wide experience when we are thinking about the best way to use the public services that CalMac provides. That is a part of the debate that we have got to get on to. However, I suggest to you that if Labour is going to continue to advocate an approach that does not work such as TECL, is it then suggesting that we should fly EU law? As I said at the beginning, in the middle of a tender process, if you stop it at that point, are you then saying that you are prepared to fly EU law? If that is what the motion is saying today, then I am sorry, as far as I am concerned. I cannot accept that approach. What I understand is that it is a full argument because this is not about privatisation, this is not about anything other than grandstanding. The interests of the workforce in CalMac and the communities that they serve are best looked after by the SNP Government under this Minister. CalMac ferries not only provide vital lifeline services to Clyde and Hebrideen islands, they are also a much-loved national institution. I know what a vital service CalMac provides. My brother used to work on the ferries, my wife's family lives in the Hebrides and, like many, I also regularly visit places that are in Milport and Northsea using the ferries. I therefore strongly believe that everything should be done to protect CalMac's services from privatisation, and we should listen to those passengers who use the service and the workers who run it. That is why I welcome the debate today in Scottish Labour's motion in the name of David Stewart. CalMac is today, in 2015, thankfully in public hands, but unlike in 2005, we have a very serious and very real threat of privatisation. It is a very real and very serious threat because the Minister of State, the Deputy Minister of State and the Cabinet Secretary of State, simply cannot give a guarantee that Serco will not be successful and cannot promise that this private company will not be running those services next year. What makes the threat of privatisation all the more real and worrying is that the Government has said that the tendering process will not be completed until after the next Scottish Parliament elections in May. The motion today rightly recognises the sterling work of all the workers and members of the RMT, UNITE, TSSA and Nautilus, but we should not just recognise the workers, we should listen to them and the unions on this issue. Many of whom I met outside at the lobby today and in the chamber this afternoon, and I have got to say, Presiding Officer, I did not see many SNP MSPs outside meeting the workers this afternoon for all the talk of listening to the workers. We should listen to what they have to say and we should listen to what they have to say about some of the bizarre claims from the Minister, particularly that this tendering process does not represent privatisation. I will tell the Minister what Mick Cash, the RMT general secretary, has said about that claim. He said that it is extraordinary that, rather than standing up for Scotland's lifeline ferry services, those who hold political power have resorted to ludicrous arguments about what does and does not represent privatisation. That is a kick in the teeth for loyal and hard-working staff. He also rightly said that if a private company is allowed to take over a public service for profit, that is privatisation whether it is on railways, hospitals or ferry services. Like Brian Wilson and others have said by the Minister's definition, nothing has been privatised. We should also listen to the concerns of workers over the reported plans by circle to de-engraed the headquarters. As my colleague Duncan McNeill said, around 200 people were employed at the Gwrick office in Inverclyde and the insufficient assurances have been given on that matter. That is yet another reason why we should not be proceeding with the tender. Crucially, the SNP Government must now act upon the new legal advice that was published today by EU procurement law expert Gordon Nardell QC. As my colleague David Stewart said earlier, this advice has shown that, by applying a provision known as the Teco exemption, the Scottish Government does not need to put the service out to tender. In Gordon Nardell's QC's opinion, this case satisfies both the control test and the functional test that is required by the Teco exemption. I will take Mike McKenzie. Mike McKenzie would not agree with me that it is a very common thing for one lawyer to say one thing and another lawyer to say another. That is why we have court cases. Neil Bibby. Your speech said nothing at all. I would rather take Gordon Nardell QC's advice on EU procurement matters rather than Mike McKenzie's, but thanks for your intervention anyway. Gordon Nardell QC's legal advice is clear that Scottish ministers are not obliged to hold a competitive tendering exercise before awarding that company a public service contract for the Clyde hybrid services. Nardell is clear that, once the Teco exemption is satisfied, that is a highly significant intervention. It begs the question why the minister and the Scottish Government have not asked the European Commission for a Teco exemption. I have to point out to the minister and other members that, on page 23 of Nardell's advice, he states that, once the Teco exemption is satisfied, the funding for that operation does not constitute state aid, which has been the previous reason why the minister has been reluctant to take that. Yes, it certainly will. The member has, as many members have, returned to legal opinion. Let's turn to the opinion of European commissioners, who have said that, consequently, the commission strongly advocates the widest possible use of open and transparent tendering procedures when public authorities entrust companies with a public service obligation. That is the view of the commissioner, that is the view of the commission. Does he not understand that that is a significant statement that suggests that we are right to have to undertake this procurement exercise? I am not even sure if the minister has read Gordon Nardell QC's legal advice, but I encourage him to do so because of what he has said. Surely it is only reasonable that, if there is agreement, we do not want to tender and legal advice backs us up, that we stop the tendering process and go back to the European commission for that exemption. It would be indefensible now not to, given the publication of that advice today. I have a number of other questions for the minister. The tender process is time consuming, but we also know that it will be costly. Can the minister give us an updated estimate on the total costs of the tendering process? Can he also confirm, as Spice and Gordon Nardell QC have done, that the Scottish Government has the unequivocal right to cancel a tendering process at any time without any liability? Lastly, if he is so confident that these services will not be privatised, can he give a guarantee that Serco will not be running these ferry services next year? Of course he can, and he knows he can, unless he wants to tell me Serco will not be running the ferry services next year. As the member knows very well or certainly should know if he is an expert on legal opinion, if I was to prejudice this exercise, yes, the Government would be in difficulty, as would I, and as would our ferry services. Of course I cannot prejudice the outcome of a tendering exercise. We will continue to monitor the costs of it, and we cannot absolutely prejudice the outcome of it. We will run it fairly, openly and transparently to ensure that it complies with European law. Neil Bibby, I will give you your time back. That is all very well, minister. You are saying that it could be privatised, and that is exactly why we are saying to stop the process. I have to say, Presiding Officer, I would have thought that the SNP would have been working with us today to ensure that we keep CalMac in public hands. I thought that because it has been mentioned. As has been mentioned, SNP MSP Fergus Ewing said in 2005 that an SNP Government would not tender, instead it would protect CalMac and its workforce and improve the ferry services to our island communities in Scotland. I have to say that it is all very well for SNP MSPs to come to this chamber and say that they stand up for Scotland, but the reality is, Presiding Officer, SNP MSPs like Kenny Gibson are not even standing up for Milport on this issue. I was in Arring just two weeks ago and I spoke to people there who were in no doubt that CalMac should be kept in public hands and the tender should be stopped. Other SNP MSPs like Alasdair Allan and Mike Russell need to realise that they are only here because people in island communities voted for them, and to be complicit with a privatisation process would be a betrayal to those island communities. I think that the word complicit needs to be considered carefully by the member. I have already explained to him what the position is in terms of the crew that I know and speak to in my constituents. Perhaps he would like to come and speak to them. He will not hear much about ferries in Paisley. If he wants to stand up for his constituents and he wants to stop this privatisation process, he will vote for the Labour motion in Dave Stewart's name tonight. CalMac ferries are lifeline services. CalMac is a national institution. As the RMT has said, privatising these services would be a betrayal to the Scottish people. We have the legal advice and the public on our side. Let's resolve to keep CalMac in public hands. I will stand up for my constituents and I will support the motion in David Stewart's name. I think that that was a very selective rewriting of the actual situation. As a member who lives on the beautiful Firth of Clyde and who started my work in Greenock, this is an important debate for me personally. Let me first make the following point. I am not interested in the creation of division. The desire should be to meet the employees' needs, the needs of the customer, the legal needs and the productive needs of this debate. I said last week in the trade union reform bill and I have made the point very often about employee participation in the ownership and the running of companies properly constituted. They have a great role and continued great role to build the foundation of efficient, productive, good and sound labour practices and, hopefully, by higher immunisation practices across all of our critical economic sectors, including maritime transport. While, with great respect, I embrace some of the intent of David Stewart and Labour's motion today, its content, its motivation and direction with which I have problems. Let me share some of my concerns. Firstly, and importantly, there is no mention of the customer, the taxpayer, the clients, the many islanders, those who are resident on the island who contribute so much to Scotland's economic and cultural spectrum—no mention at all. Secondly, I do pay—no, not just now. Secondly, I, too, pay tribute to our ferry workers—in fact, all workers involved—who helped to breathe continued life into our rural and island communities. I suggest that their commitment will not change. The Scottish ministers have already indicated that they will protect employees' terms and conditions with a fair pension scheme, as was just mentioned, in the next contract, as will the seeking of no compulsory redundancy agreements from the bidders. Any other suggestion that might be otherwise, frankly, are misleading. It is not for me to draw the picture of Caledonian McBrain—no, not just now—let me carry on. I know that I am coming to an important point that you should listen to. Its whole lifeline services across the 22 islands off the west coast, but rather the Clyde and Hebride services. I go back, remembering even the strickers that the competitive Clyde ferries to Rossi, but things have moved on. As things have moved on, and regrettably in my interventions, which were not taken today, I wanted to ask what Dave Stewart and John Lamont feel about the people in Hampshire who wanted to have their own local bid—or ferry bid—accepted, but it was not accepted. Under the principle that is being applied here, under European law, the bid went to another shipping company, and it was that of a joint bid by David McBrain, Kalman, who won the tender. There is a recognition, at least by some in Kalman, that they progress bids in the competitive environment. It is not for me, as I say, to make any more comment on that. That outcome is quite clear. Based on competition, I do not understand that we know how the creed occur, which now shouts that there should be no competition. I have just indicated a situation where the parent company of Kalman accepts that and gets involved in the competition successfully and happily, as far as we are concerned, in winning that bid. The contract is out to tender as required by competitive European law, despite what Mr Mardals said. It is council regulation number 3577-92 applies. Since decisions and implications of the Altmark case, which has been referred to, the requirements for public tendering of public ferry services stem from the European maritime cabotage regulation. That was recognised by LibLab Transport Minister Nick Steven, in 2004. Regardless of the issue, would the member accept that laws in evolving things—it is not static, it can change, and this could have changed. That is for that reason that the minister should examine it. That is a very good point, but I am just coming to that, because it would come as no surprise that the volatility of some undesirable actions of some fellow member countries of the European Union, even wherever those actions are, shed a light in the intervening years. As you have pointed out, they shed a light on the practices and actions that are unacceptable, and therefore there is an on-going review, as Mr Finnie has just pointed out, by EU legislators. That is why we have had changes to the requirements in this case, procurement service contracts. If we espouse a desire to be part of Europe, and most Scots apparently wish to do so, then we must, and I quote, pursue legal arguments with the European commissions to exempt lifeline Scottish ferries services. We tried that, and they made the position absolutely clear. It is also a nonsense. In fact, defamatory to suggest the process is a biased process towards private sector business. Where is the evidence that is biased? Where is the evidence for that, when any successful competitive bidder has to meet the same detailed service specification defined by our Government, where our Government retains control over fares, timetables and frequency of sales, where the Government still controls the assets, the routes, the services— Urgent, please. Can we start the sedentary interventions and ask Mr Brodie if he wishes to intervene? On that basis, Presiding Officer—I will not take any more interventions—we are talking about a base for competition of operation, and what I do not understand is the apparent fear in the message that we must maintain it publicly, instead of getting out there and fighting to win it. Those who argue against alleged privatisation of the ferries, which, given what I have just said, is clearly not seen to defyde the motion with a strong, skilled workforce and experience, there is the opportunity to compete. If you keep talking as if you are going to lose, guess what happens—you lose. That is a notion. That motion defyde the capability to calm back its workers and its representatives to go out and win it, and does no favour to its causes of fear of loss. The Labour Party should heed this. In other cases—I have just finished, Presiding Officer—the words of Charles Kettering have said, if you are still doing things the way you have always done, then you are doing it wrong. Get out there and compete. Thank you. I can ask our next two members to keep to their seven minutes, please. Rhoda Grant, to be followed by Dave Thompson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Bruce Crawford said in his intervention that the SNP in opposition had been wrong in their response to the previous tendering process. He said that they were wrong and seeks to tar us with the same brush. We were posturing then, therefore, so are you now, he infers. I can say that he is wrong now. This debate seeks to give the minister the facts that he needs to stop the tendering process. If he does that today, no one will applaud him louder than I will. That may help Rhoda Grant's voice and a fair challenge that a number of Labour members have put. Whatever the outcome of the vote today or the continuation of this debate, I will meet with the Opposition spokesperson and can staff this legal opinion in the spirit that members have asked me to and I make that commitment in the chamber now, if that is the case this debate. Rhoda Grant. Can I really welcome that intervention from the minister, because I think that that is one of the first positive things that have come from his benches today. Indeed, that is all we are asking in this debate, that he examines the truth of the matter, because we believe that it is a fact that the tendering of CalMac routes is not required. We know it to be the case. The technical exemption is there. It has been tried in case law over recent years and directives have strengthened it. The Scottish Government knows it is there and I am really glad that it is now willing to look at this exemption. David Stewart went and spoke to the directorate general of maritime affairs. Surely, the minister can do that too. Surely, he can look at the QC advice obtained by the RMT that upholds the position that the technical exemption can be used. That is legal advice, it is not political posturing. If it can be used, it should be used because those are lifeline services, not for profit making opportunities. A Government-owned provider can be instructed to change the routes and the sailings at any time. Those changes can be made at cost price rather than additions to a contract that can then be charged at the price that the contract holder demands. This is a point that was made by Captain Norman Martin. He said, The Government owns CalMac. It is a private company but owned by Scottish ministers, so they have the authority to instruct you to do what they want you to do. They have the authority to appoint the directors and set the strategy. If you go to another private operator, they are delivering a contract according to the contract that you have struck. It is very difficult to foresee any variations that you might need in advance. We cannot ignore the advice of someone who has served in our communities for many years. Serco is the only alternative bidder, and its record of service delivery is not good. The RMT are in dispute with them about their unwillingness to respond to health and safety concerns on the railway. They run northlink services. When the Hamnavo broke down a couple of years ago, they did not replace it with a similar boat. It was cheaper for them to pay the fine rather than pay the cost of the replacement. That shows a total disregard for the public good and, indeed, a disregard for the people that they serve. It is the difference between having a privatised service and one that is run by public servants who serve their communities and react to their needs. Is it not the case that, when the Hamnavo broke down, much of the slack was taken up by privately run ferry unsubsidised? Yes. I privately run ferry service on extra sailings, but that is a disgrace because Serco was getting the public funding to run the public service and did not do that. If you travel on northlink, you will see that Serco has introduced passenger segregation. People can pay a higher price to access more stable midship seats, which are used to be available to people on a first-come, first-served basis. You can pay additional amounts to access an executive lounge and dining area. Indeed, it feels as if you are travelling steerage when you opt for a basic ticket. They use sharp practice. David Stewart talked about them claiming from the UK Government moneys that were not due to them for attacking contracts. They were banned from holding contracts because of that, and we are still allowing them to bid for public contracts here. If they are in the bidding process to make a profit and their record and the tagging contract shows that they are not above sharp practice, they will maximise their profits in any way that they can with those contracts. Like others, I believe that there are things that can be improved by the Scottish Government and its governance in CalMac. The Scottish Government appoints the board of CalMac, and it is perplexing that it does not see fit to have someone who lives in the islands appointed to the board. There are people with huge experience and knowledge, and they would bring an island perspective to the board, and they would understand concerns, for example, of the people in the sky with regard to the Malig armadale route. The new arrangements will not provide an adequate service, and they see demand increasing with the introduction of RET. The crossing will now be cost-effective and provide an alternative to the round-trip by road, and therefore they must have capacity to meet the demand, and they want to retain the MVC risk. The constituents in Dynun are also calling for the MVC risk to provide a safe and reliable service to their community, especially in the winter months when the journey can be terrifying because the purpose-built vessels are not fit for purpose. It is not right that the Scottish Government is allowing community to be set against community. Those communities need services to meet their needs and develop their economies. Sky needs a dependable service, as does Dynun, and they both need boats that are fit for purpose. The Scottish Government had eight years to build boats, and it needs to do that now. This tendering process must be pulled. The Scottish Government can do this if they wish. There is no comeback under the terms of the tendering process. It is often said that where there is a will, there is a way. We know that there is a way, and we hope that the Scottish Government has the will. As a former resident of Lewis and a regular ferry user up and down the Western Isles and also to the mainland, I welcome David Stewart's motion. I pay tribute to the ferry workers of Caledonia and McBrain, who provide vital ferry services to much of my constituency of Skylach, Aberann, Badenoch, and right along the west coast of Scotland. When I was in Lewis in the seventies and early eighties, there was much debate about road equivalent tariff, but successive Labour and other Governments refused to implement it. It has only been done now by our SNP Scottish Government, and they should get credit for that. That is a huge boost to our west coast communities and those who work for Caledonia and McBrain. That debate will rightly focus on ferry service contracts and the EU legal requirement to put them out to tender. Of course, your SNP Government has already extended the current tender by three years, thus giving more security to staff. Indeed, it will have the effect of having given time to CalMac to better prepare for its bid. I am a lifelong trade unionist, so I understand the importance of this debate to fellow trade unionists, many of whom are watching the debate in the chamber today. I believe in the preservation of publicly owned ferry services, and it is something that our SNP Government also supports. I want CalMac to succeed. Credit must also be given to our SNP Scottish Government for refusing to unbundle the routes that would have allowed the private sector to cherry pick the profitable ones, with the public sector being left picking up with the loss makers. The minister has also just offered to meet the Labour transport spokesperson to discuss this matter further to show his goodwill towards all involved in the debate. However, in the current tendering process, CalMac must sharpen its pencil and ensure that we have the most efficient services possible. As an example of how it can do that, we only have to look at the new ferry proposals for the Mali Armadale service in my constituency. The new proposals initially look attractive because they offer an increase in capacity. However, there will be unintended consequences that will damage the local economy and reduce CalMac's income, thereby making it more difficult for them to compete with Serco. If CalMac is to compete with Serco, it must use its vessels as efficiently as possible and boost its income. However, the current proposals for Mali Armadale will not do that. Would the member agree that CalMac has provided itself to be efficient and has delivered money back to the Scottish Government, although Serco, at the same time, in various contracts has shown itself to be far from adequate? Why would he even imagine that, in that competition, it would be possible that he would want to give it to Serco given their record? I am pretty certain that CalMac will put in a very competitive bid, and they will win that contract. That is what they need to do. The conditions are exactly the same for them and for Serco. The problem with the current proposals for Mali Armadale is that the MV Lochanvar is much slower than the current ferry, the Carousc, and we would have an increased journey time of 40 minutes. There are no catering facilities for passengers. Also, potential reductions in Sunday sailings, just using the MV Lochanvar, may well lead to unacceptable 42 per cent reductions in capacity, and that must be resisted. Those changes will affect the economics of the route and CalMac's profitability as well as damage the local economy. Of course, the Lochanvar will be supplemented by the Lord of the Isles during the week, which should provide four crossings each day when it is not sailing to and from Lochboisdale. That would see it arriving in Mali at 10 am and departing again to Lochboisdale at 6.10 pm. That means that it will not be available for early morning coaches, which the Lochanvar will not have the capacity for, and in which many tourist businesses in Skye and Westlachober rely. That will further undermine CalMac's ability to generate income on that route and compete with Serco and will also further damage the local economy. The Mali Armadale crossing has in recent years been recognised internationally as one of the best ferry sailings in the world, and increasing numbers of tourists are using it. CalMac traffic statistics have seen a continual growth in vehicle and passenger numbers, which is set to increase dramatically this coming year following the introduction of road equivalent tariff. Something that my constituents and local CalMac employees are very grateful for. That will again add considerably to CalMac's income and their ability to compete with the private sector. The answer, of course, is to leave the carousque where it is, supplemented by the Lord of the Isles, which would support the increase in traffic and therefore provide a boost to the economy and CalMac's ability to compete with Serco. Further revenue increases could be achieved if the Government commissioned a new vessel for the open to Craig newer route, which is where the carousque has been allocated to go. While the new vessel is being built, possibly at Ferguson, so a win-win situation, an interim vessel can be chartered to increase capacity there. That would be a huge boost to the west coast and something I would ask the minister to consider very carefully. Many thanks. We now turn to the closing speeches and I call on Tavish Scott up to seven minutes, please, Mr Scott. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Rhoda Grant's voice may be breaking, but I totally understand the passion with which you made the case. As lots of members have across the chamber today, it was no different 10 years ago when lots of colleagues from all political parties expressed their concerns about shipping. I know what it is about shipping that gets us all up, but it is certainly relevant to this afternoon's contributions and I want to recognise that right at the outset. I also want to just slightly take issue with the suggestion that everything run by the state is perfect. I will go home on Friday and get on a ferry that is not run by CalMac, is not run by any Government contracts, is run by our local authority at home in Shetland and I believe me. There are plenty of folk in the island that I live on who are less than anamored with that service, so I do think that we need to at least have somewhat of a more open mind about the best way to configure really important lifeline services, whether they be shipping or otherwise. It seems to me, Presiding Officer, that there have been two main points that the Labour motion today have raised and rightly raised in Parliament this afternoon. The first is, does tendering have to happen for the west coast shipping services? The onus is, of course, on the Minister of the Day to take the latest literations of legal advice and have the Government lawyers look at that and test that to destruction. Duncan McNeill made a fair point and I am sure that Derek Mackay accepts that, that there is nothing to be lost and potentially something to be gained, although it is not wholly clear what that might be, from at least testing the legal opinions that have been quoted so extensively on the Labour benches today. Nothing to be lost by that at all, apart from some lawyers' time in Edinburgh, where we pay them plenty as it is. I hope that the Minister will at least accept that challenge, it seems to me, to be fair. I think that successive ministers of different persuasions have always at least sought to consider that. That is what the pressure I was under from the SNP benches back in 2005. We did test all those things to destruction, and I chaired what I could at the time with opposition spokesmen. They did not necessarily agree with it, but it seemed to me a reasonable way to do that. I am sure that Mr Mackay, who is a reasonable man, will at least explore that. The second one follows from that. The second issue that David Stewart has rightly raised this afternoon flows from that, and that is if tendering, if public procurement of the west coast shipping services, just like the Northern Isles, is a requirement of EU law, can the process itself protect the terms and conditions, the pension rights, the services and the other aspects that many members across the chamber this afternoon have rightly raised? I completely recognise that reasonable points have been made again by a number of colleagues, including, if I may say so, particularly Joanne Lamont, about the difficulties, if I can express it in that way of circle. She and others were quite right to say that terms, conditions, do and can and have changed, both in respect of the services that I depend on every day in my constituency. Of course, that was a contract let by this current Government, and it is open to them to reconsider, and Mr Mackay was making a point that he has had an independent procurement panel, reconsider how best to tighten that still further, which would recognise the entirely legitimate points that members on all benches have made this afternoon. I hope, surely. I thank the member for giving way. I share his passion for all things to do with shipping, not least because of the strength and feeling that our respective constituents have on that. Would he likewise acknowledge, as he mentions, pensions and conditions around that, the extent to which the Scottish Government has gone to ensure that those are dealt with more successfully in this tender than in the last? The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I hope that Mr Allen will accept that, and that is the concern that is there. It will be for trade unions, who have made their case to Parliament today in various ways to, I suspect, test that, but it is in the Government's interests, I hope, to be able to be proved right on that. I think that that is now their task. Can I just take up two or three points that have been made in the debate by particular members? First, Duncan McNeill raised good work. I think that I should say in fairness to Duncan McNeill. Not only was he right about the 200 jobs, but he resisted with some determination, a proposal back then, when we had a relocation policy in Scotland, a relocation policy to take civil service jobs outside the central belt, which I still think was the right policy. It's sadly been abandoned by the current Government. A relocation policy to move the headquarters, I think, if I remember rightly, to Stornoway, which is very popular in Stornoway, but extremely unpopular in Gwreg. Duncan McNeill made the right arguments at that time, and that proposal went no further. Some of it was because of the arguments about the future of the tendering of the west coast ferry services themselves, but I do absolutely recognise his point that every effort needs to be explored to see if there is a potential exemption from EU tendering rules. Personally, I don't see that happening, but I recognise the point that was made. The second point that I wanted to pick up was from Johann Lamont on bundling, or more accurately bundling is a hell of a jargon word, but what she rightly was describing was allowing other ferry companies to cherry pick the routes. If I can say on that, it just strikes me that the Scottish Government did have an option when they tended the North Wales routes to take out Scrabster to Stromnes, a point that Rob Gibson was making. No-one in Orkney wanted that. I can't, of course, speak for Caithness, but I don't suppose it was particularly thought of in Caithness. There is, at least therefore, a track record by successive Governments, including the one that Johann Lamont and I served in, of not allowing that unbundling—sorry, I've just used the word—of not allowing cherry picking to take place. I actually accept the Minister's arguments on this. I don't believe he believes that cherry picking would be good news for the west coast of Scotland, and I suspect that we are all at one. The final point that I wanted to make was just about the importance of making sure that this debate ultimately does concentrate on the service and on fares. If I pick one issue that I wouldn't agree with the Government on, I believe that if you want to have a fair fares policy, just as we introduced again in the Government that Johann Lamont and I served on air fares, then if you're going to decrease—sorry, yes—cut ferry fares by 55% on the west coast, which is tremendously good news. I recognise for Mr Allen's constituency, Mr Russell's constituency and others, and I welcome that. I think that's very supportive and a good thing for those west coast island economies. Then you need to find a way to make sure that policy applies to other areas as well, because certainly Auckland and Shetland see no benefit of that approach. Road equivalent tariff does not work for us in the same way, but that doesn't mean you can't have a fair fares policy that allows improvements to be made for the economies of those islands. I hope that in the round, the approach that the Government will take will not just be about the vital issue of terms, conditions of pensions and of the rights of the men and women who work for CalMac, but also about the fares and service that those of us who are islanders depend on. I always welcome the opportunity to talk about the lifeline services that are vital to the people of my region of the Highlands and Islands. I have used CalMac services myself for nearly 60 years, and I know the affection in which CalMac is held by many of my constituents. In today's Scotsman newspaper, there is an article on CalMac that features Captain Norman Martin, known as Nor West Martin, who is retiring after 39 years' valuable service. He makes the point that CalMac is a private company owned by Scottish ministers, so I hope that, of course, they will be declaring an interest. He also says that CalMac is delivering a difficult job to a great standard, and I think that sums it up pretty well. I would like to join other MSPs today in paying tribute to all the hardworking CalMac staff who have helped consistently to ensure that CalMac's safety record is so impressive. Anyone who has travelled on those routes in high seas, thank God that they are in a big boat. I can assure you of that. CalMac's safety record is so impressive, and it gives our tourists such a warm welcome, which is another very good point. As others have pointed out today, I am afraid that Labour MSPs who are seeking to make political capital out of this tender process are, I am afraid to say, possibly guilty of serious double standards, because this SNP Scottish Government, by following EU law on the need to tender, is acting in exactly the same way as the then LibLab Executive did when it tendered the current ferry contract. Of course, the SNP, then in opposition, acted in exactly the same way as Labour are doing now, criticising ministers for tendering. We have a reversal of roles, and round it goes. However, the reality remains that, were the Scottish Government simply to award ferry services to CalMac without a tender, it seems almost certain that the Scottish Government would fall foul of the European Commission's maritime cabotage regulations and be subject to legal challenge and likely defeat with all the consequences associated with that. David Stewart. Has the member read the QC's advice on that? That is what the whole emphasis behind our debate is. The technical exemption is designed with Europe—it was an Italian case—it has happened in Britain through Brent Council case. It is possible to do, but you just have to follow it through. The idea that you cannot do it without seeking advice from Europe is a bit strange. Tim McGregor. I am grateful to the member for that advice, but some seem to think otherwise. At the end of the day, all of us want to see the new CHFS tender ensure that we have the best possible level of ferry services for our island and coastal communities. That is what we expect ministers to deliver through the tender process. The Scottish Conservatives are also very aware, not least in the times of real pressure on public spending, that ministers have a duty to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent as wisely as possible. That includes getting the best possible value for money from our publicly supported ferry services. Constituents in two parts of my region, namely Danoone and Cowell and Orkney, are fortunate to have the option of using services provided by private ferry services, western ferries and pentland ferries respectively, which are frequent, reliable and affordable. I commend western ferries and pentland ferries and their employees for the excellent work that they do without one penny piece of public subsidy and would hope that we can learn some lessons from those good practices. However, there are a number of topical ferry issues within the CalMac network to which I wish to refer briefly. Dave Thompson talked about the concerns of our constituents in Loch Harbour and Skye and what they see as the unwarranted and very unwelcome plans to downgrade the Malag Armadale service. I will remember some years ago joining the opening day sailing of the Corusc, which was built as I can remember specifically for that route. I share local concerns that it is to be downgraded to a lesser vessel of a smaller car capacity, which is also very much slower—I think that it is nine knots instead of 15. I am asking the minister to intervene on this and back the calls from the Slate Transport Forum for those plans to be reconsidered. Constituents in Cambellton and Kintire have asked me to press the minister again to make an early decision on whether the Campbelltown to Arn Brosn ferry service, which has been trialled now for three years, will be made permanent. There is significant community and business support for this service, which has the potential to provide Kintire with a really economic boost. It is important that we have an early decision so that local companies, including tourism enterprises, can plan ahead for next year. Constituents in Denun and Cowell have on-going concerns about the reliability of the Argyll ferries passengers' only service between Gwyrrach and Denun. Ministers need to continue to monitor the performance of the service. I will say one more personal thing. I remember in the late 50s going to the island of Cowell and having to get out of the side of the claymore ship in those days into an open ferry boat. This was crewed by Guy Jardin, John Allen and Neely John MacLean. All of these characters are portrayed in the famous Kirsty Mooragh books by Mary Hedlowig. I would have to say that it was very hairy and very scary in those days. I don't suppose health and safety would have liked it very much. CalMac has moved on and it is an efficient service, and I wish it well. Thank you very much. I begin on that note about appreciation of CalMac and its staff. Yes, I have the role as a determining minister in terms of the procurement exercise, but of course the sponsoring minister in terms of service provision. I share all the positive comments around the staff and the services that are provided, but members have challenged me on making an early decision when we are together. Of course, I cannot prejudice the outcome of the process. I think that members on all sides have been passionate and politically robust, but I think that some consensus has emerged and surely if we are genuine and altruistic about our motive has to be appreciated, acknowledged and then acted upon. I do believe that the legal advice and policy advice have been given as robust, but if there is merging new advice, of course it would be wrong to rule out even looking at that, and it is in that spirit that I agree to have a further meeting with the spokesman for the opposition to do that. I did it comprehensively note that the Labour members have appreciated that comment, and I think that that is a very healthy environment that I can have an open and frank discussion on the advice. I did it comprehensively over the summer with the trade unions. Obviously, Government cannot share our legal opinion, but we can certainly test it and use the information that you have to challenge it so that I am continued to be convinced that we are conducting this exercise because, if we did not believe that it was necessary, we would not be embarking on it. However, it takes me back to a point that Tavish Scott has made. I thought that it was a very helpful speech in terms of the experience of a number of previous ministers, the advice that has been given and our understanding of the European Commission position. The EU, when challenged, referred us back to the advice repeatedly that it is an exercise that we have to undertake. I have done, as ministers, not just to say that we will embark on the exact same process, but to look at the process, at the tendering exercise, at the invitation to tender, at the issues that we will take into account, to try to address a number of the concerns that many members have raised with the exception of the Tories and Alex Johnson, who quite simply want wholesale privatisation of public services. Apart from the Conservatives, no-one else supports you on that, Mr Johnstone. We will see what through the spending review is on the hit list for Tory privatisation today in Westminster. However, in terms of the kind of decisions that I have been able to make to try and reflect the concerns, in terms of spending on our ferry services, it has massively increased to reflect on the importance to island communities when the administration entered office, the figure for 2007-08, just for the ChIFS network, was £42 million, and this financial year or the forecast for 2015-16 will take the figure from £42 million to over £100 million. Substantial investment as well as the vessels and the ports and harbours that members have discussed as well as the implementation of RET. However, this Government is serious about the fair work convention and those principles, and we are serious about protecting as best we can the interests of staff as well, which is why I engage so extensively during the summer months. In the words of the trade union RMT and TSSA, they said that those unions believe that we have reached the best possible deal achievable for our members, which will protect the current terms and conditions, and in so doing we have also received the written assurances from the transport minister that there will be a requirement by any successful bidder to provide current CalMac pension scheme. The pension scheme issue is important because the previous process just said a comparable scheme. I committed the Government to the CalMac scheme, fair, transparent and reasonable, and, yes, there are challenges within that pension scheme, but that is something that we will discuss by negotiation and a reasonable outcome. However, the fact that there will be a CalMac scheme written in to this process should be reassuring, as well as a mechanism to ensure that any bidder can simply go in and strip out cost and profiteer from that. There is a mechanism that disincentivises that kind of approach in any discussions that will be had with the trade unions in terms of staffing levels. Another innovation was around the independent procurement reference panel. Can I make some progress? Those points are very significant. The independent procurement reference panel to ensure that the process is open and fair and transparent and that there is an independent view that it was. Another significant change was around cost equality. I have moved that away from just cost analysis to quality, and the ratio is 65 per cent to 35 per cent, and there is a stronger emphasis on quality. There is no unbundling so that services cannot be unpicked. I think that those kinds of decisions, as well as investment decisions around our ferry services, show that this Government is serious about the islands and, of course, public services. I know what I will take David Stewart. I thank the minister for his comments, and I certainly welcome his consultory approach and his wind-up. I will certainly be happy to meet him to discuss that further. Just a very quick point on procurement. I mentioned in my speech that there are still three outstanding procurement directives that help to tackle, and just for the record, there are 2,014, 23 to 25 EU. They have not yet been incorporated in Scots law. If they are incorporated in your power, it will help to tackle the exemption greatly for this tender. I said in the spirit that the advice is offered. I will take it, but the cabinet secretary, for example, in his discussions with European authorities this summer, emphasised that we need to undertake this process. I will look at your information, and I will be honest and transparent about what we can do, but I believe that we have to undertake this process as per the timetable that has been outlined. I will take a further intervention. Minister, I am only encouraging you to innovate one more time and let us know when the innovation on the Camelton service will be made permanent. Well, since two members have raised it, I am waiting for advice. There will be an imminent decision, so I will put a timescale on that of two weeks to make a decision and then share that with everyone concerned, so I can come back to this debate. With significant investment, with the consensual approach, I will look at the advice, but the current exercise will continue in an open and transparent way that inspires confidence from all involved with the mechanisms that I have built in to try to protect the interests as best I can of staff and island communities. It shows that we are serious about public services, serious about the issues that members have raised, and to be fair, two major points I think were acknowledged in this debate. The first was around the lifeline nature of the services that no routes are under threat. That was acknowledged, I think, by the chamber. The other fair acknowledgement is that there is no bias in favour of any one bidder, so those who said that this was about handing it away to Cerco, I think, when challenged. I do not know if Chick Brody meant it or not, but when that question of bias was raised, the chamber agreed that there is no bias in favour of anyone. We will conduct this process competently in accordance with European law. We will listen to the advice. I will continue to take the decisions that I think are right about enhancing services. I have to make one party political point, if I may, whilst trying to keep with the consensual nature of the debate. As long as you can make it well, conclude, minister. It is difficult to take lectures from the Labour Party on privatisation when I think about PFI and the services that were handed over to the private sector. However, however, if this is a day of role reversal, let us work together on the issues that members have said concern them. They are important to island communities, and I give you that commitment as a transport minister and minister responsible for the islands so to do in the most constructive way I possibly can. I tell you that will be continuing what I have been doing since my appointment about a year ago. Thank you minister. I now call on Sarah Boyack to wind up the debate, Ms Boyack, that you have until 4.59. I was thinking that that was a pretty short speech. I think that this has been a very good debate, and I think that there is acknowledgement that we have brought this debate to the chamber because we believe that there are issues that need to be properly tested. We firmly believe that the change in relation to Teckall, the case law that follows from that and the 2014 procurement directive do offer a new opportunity for the Scottish Government. If I can seize in the comment by Duncan McNeill, the idea that we leave no stone unturned is one that I can wholeheartedly agree with. This is about lifeline ferry services. It is about supporting the existence of our island communities who need our ferry services for food, supplies, for exports, for travel to work, for tourism. As Johann Lamont passionately argued, for the very existence of life in some of our remote rural and island communities, those are crucial lifeline services. Those who work on our CalMac services deserve our praise and our thanks because they work in some of the toughest weather conditions anywhere in the world, and they do it day in, day out. They deserve our thanks for that work. When I was the first ferry transport minister, that reality drove me because I was told in the early days that we could not have a single network, that we would have to unbundle it as Tavish Scott avoided or tried to avoid saying and that there would be the opportunity for cherry picking. I argued at that point that those were lifeline services and that we had to go back to Europe. We had to make the case to them to say that this was vital to all those communities and that if you began to unbundle those services we could not provide those services and we knew that there would be islands that would not be served in the future. To do that, to get the right to give public subsidy for one network, I had to win a battle. I had to take that battle with colleagues. I had to win support across the political spectrum. I did it in an open, transparent way with a Team Scotland approach to the EU, to build consensus amongst MSP colleagues, to bring the UK Government with us. I even did briefings for the MEPs because I wanted to test the difficult questions. I wanted to make sure that I had gone every single mile that I could do to make sure that we won our case. We won that vital security and that future. There was no cherry picking, there was a cost-effective subsidy and above all a quality of service. The job of any minister is to ensure that we have those services, the skilled and qualified and committed staff, that is vital to the delivery of the service as well. That is why we have acknowledged the work of the members of those ferry unions. We are holding the debate today because we have great concerns about the current tender process. We do not think that the current tender process, as is being carried, needs to be done because of the tecle exemption, because of the case law and because of the change to procurement directive. As Dave Stewart eloquently argued, the changes that are now set out in the 2014 procurement directive, we believe, have changed the game. We think that they are extremely helpful. If they are incorporated into Scots law, if the minister takes all those things together and he takes that case to Europe, we think that there is a case that can be made. I want to thank David Stewart for the work that he and the ferry unions and the STUC have been doing for months now. It is really hard work digging out those legal options and giving us the opportunity. David himself has been to the EU commission to test out what is possible. That is why we came forward with our debate today, so I welcome the minister's commitment to meet us. What we are calling on is for a pause in this whole process. A couple of the SNP-backed benches have said that the clock is ticking. Actually, one of the lessons in the first few years of this Parliament is that, although the clock does tick, there is always space. As long as you demonstrate to the commission that we are serious about abiding by commission rules, we merely want to ask whether we can bring those rules together in a certain way. The commission will not chase us if we are straight about that and if we are upfront about that. There is an issue about having our ferries that are influenced by the public sector. Yes, I will take an intervention. I thank the member for taking an intervention. When she was transport minister, I remember that you promised us an integrated transport policy. I wonder how close to that dream you think we now are. If I had another half hour, I would be more than happy to give you my view on that. The point is that we are now in a position where we can act. The difference between public sector and private sector ferry services is that there is clear accountability and direction. That is one of the tests in Teco. If a company is owned, it is in the public sector. If it is clearly in the public sector, if there is clear accountability and direction from the public authority, Teco can apply. I think that that is what we have with CalMac. The legal opinion that we have had—very helpfully presented by RMT—needs to be addressed in full by the Scottish Government. The procurement directive also gives us an opportunity. It has already been transposed by the rest of the UK. We need to get on with that as soon as possible in Scotland as well. Nicola Sturgeon made a commitment to the STUC conference in April to the RMT representatives that CalMac would not be privatised. We clearly, across the chamber, have a difference of view on technically what means privatised, but many of us fear that if CalMac does not win this contract, there will be no CalMac, and the ferry services will have been privatised. For those who laud the experience in the Northern Isles, I will say that we have had reports of worries about ferry cancellations, about concerns about safety, about maintenance on the routes and the chair of the transport partnership in the Shetland Isles has commented that there is now a groundswell of cynicism and resentment on the new services. He was willing to let it go for a year, but people are getting more and more disenchanted with the service. Berries are always going to be controversial because it is about people's livelihoods, the attraction of it being directed by the Scottish Government with the terms and conditions set and with a public sector company is that they are accountable to all of us in this chamber, not just the ministers. That is the point about CalMac. It is held in affection, it is loved, but in no way is it above criticism, as members have demonstrated across the chamber tonight, but it is accountable. A key issue that I will want to raise with the minister when we have a meeting is the issue about what happens to the 200 jobs in the HQ in Gwric. Duncan McNeill and also Mike Russell will write to point out the concerns that have been expressed because circle representatives have replied to questions from local communities that there will be no head office. Issues will be dealt with as they arise and meetings will be held on local communities. There are concerns about jobs and after the first year it will be possible for reorganisation by whoever wins the service. I think that we have a right to be fearful. The comments that several members have made—David Stewart and John Finnie and Neil Bibby highlighted the concerns that people have about circle and the experience that they have been with several public sector contracts—it takes an awful lot to be banned from providing a service by the UK Government, especially one that is a Conservative Government. We need to heed that warning. Rob Gibson suggested that, within this Parliament, time is off the essence. I think that the key thing is that we need to use our time wisely. We need to try and work together. We passionately believe that there is a new option on the table that our empty advice needs to be looked at. Neil Bibby's comments about it being highly significant were true. There is an issue about pursuing this issue to the end degree, the detailed submission to the European Commission. We think that that is what needs to be done now. If you listen to concerns across the chamber, there are serious questions that need to be answered, and the Scottish Government has powers that it needs to use. We are here to do our job as an opposition. We are not here as asian provocateurs. We are here to do the job of raising the issues that our constituents bring to us. The issues of ferry trade unions and the issues that the Scottish Government has brought to us need to be addressed. That is the test of our job in this chamber, is to hold whoever the Government is to account. That has been the case in all the CalMac discussions that we have had. That is our job tonight. We will do that. We welcome the minister's offer to discuss with us, but we believe that this process should be delayed. As Mick Cash, the RMT general secretary, has said, the advice from a highly respected specialist source clearly demonstrates that the Scottish Government does not have to continue with the unnecessary and popular tendering of CalMac ferry services. We are there for calling on the Scottish Government to stand up for Scotland and the communities that rely on those ferry line services and use its powers to apply the tickle exemption and also to cancel the tendering process forthwith. At the very least, it should carefully examine the advice and do what it has not done to date, which is to explore all options to cancel the tendering and keep CalMac public. This debate tonight has enabled us all to raise this issue. There would be no penalty to the Scottish Government for delaying the process or for cancelling the process. We will meet with the minister. We will leave no stone unturned. We will do the job of the opposition, which is to make sure that the people who live in our islands and our rural communities and the people who work on those lifeline ferry services have every effort made to defend their position, to defend those lifeline services on which jobs and rural communities' lives depend. That is the test that we need to live up to as a Scottish Parliament. Our motion today is a vehicle to bring that about. I hope that members will set aside their party interests and support our motion tonight. It is the way forward. It is constructive and it will do the job that our island communities need. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 14959, in the name of Dolfitt's Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a revision to business programme for Thursday 26 November. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-to-speak button now, and I call on Dolfitt's Patrick to move motion number 14959. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 14959, in the name of Dolfitt's Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 14945, in the name of Dolfitt's Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-to-speak button now, and I call on Dolfitt's Patrick to move motion number 14945. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 14945, in the name of Dolfitt's Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of a parliamentary bureau motion. I would ask Dolfitt's Patrick to move motion number 14948, on approval of an SSI. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-to-speak button now. I wish to speak against the motion, so I now call on Mr Finnie. Mr Finnie, you have got up to three minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This order relates to the international organisations of immunities and privileges, and the request is that they apply to an organisation called the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We are told that the privileges and immunities will protect the independent exercise of their functions. One might reasonably ask what functions require criminal immunity. We are told that this will also provide a level playing field with regard to the operation of this bank, but the level playing field that I would certainly want to see is a level playing field where everyone adheres to the law. We are also told that the purpose of this would be so that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank would be free from undue influence in their affairs. That, apparently, is the requirement to adhere to the law of Scotland and, indeed, pay taxes in Scotland. There are two groups who will benefit from that. There is the organisation, and the organisation will benefit from immunity, from suit and legal process, inviability of its archives and premises, relief from non-domestic rates, exemption from devolved and local taxes, and exemption from prohibition and restrictions on imports and exports. The other group who will benefit are individuals, and they are termed as staff, and I quote, experts on a mission. They will be immune from suit and legal process and respective, and also exemption from devolved and local tax. This request, Presiding Officer, is not coming from a business person, it is not directly coming from the UK Government, it is coming from the… No, it is coming from the… Well, yes, I will take an intervention. As the member knows, the Justice Committee reported on this and by 8 to 1 voted in favour of this going forward. Is that funny? Yes, I am grateful for that piece of information that I was aware of. This request has not come from a business person, it does not come directly from the UK Government, it comes by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Many people might reasonably anticipate that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would come to the Justice Committee extolling people to adhere to the law of the land. Indeed, I asked him what sort of approach he would take of an individual or a business approach to him saying that they wished to transact business for him so long as they would grant him immunity from criminal prosecution. It is very clear that this is intended to be business as usual, but it is not the new politics that I understood this building to be wanting to follow. I would encourage everyone to vote for everyone in Scotland adhering to the law of the land and paying taxes. I thank you very much. I am sorry that you are including Mr Finlay. I call on Michael Matheson to respond. Presiding Officer, this order would confer legal immunities and privileges on or in connection with a new international organisation, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is not an ordinary bank. It is a specific kind of international organisation known as a multilateral development bank. The purpose of this organisation is to provide finance and advice to address the gap in investment and infrastructure in Asia. The UK Government has signed an international agreement that provides the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank with privileges and immunities in all states that become members. States that are members range from Iceland to Germany. Some privileges and immunities relate to reserved matters and have been conferred by the Westminster process. The equivalent Westminster order was approved by both Houses of Parliament without opposition and by the Privy Council on 11 November. As some privileges and immunities relate to devolved matters, that order would add this new body to a list of organisations with similar privileges and immunities in Scotland. That list is in the schedule of international organisations order 2009. The schedule includes bodies such as international maritime organisation and the European Police College. Privileges and immunities were also granted pre-devolution to other multilateral development banks, such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which has a similar function. Privileges and immunities are commonly granted to international organisations. Under international law, those entitled to diplomatic immunity are expected to obey the law of their host state. Let me be clear. This organisation and its officials will be expected to comply with the laws of this country. Membership of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank provides considerable opportunity for those working in the financial and professional services sector in Scotland. Those sectors employ almost 100,000 people directly and around the same number indirectly. Scottish companies already have a strong background in those fields. If Scottish businesses are to be able to take advantage of the potential work that the UK's membership of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank might generate, then that order is necessary. That order was considered by the Justice Committee, which recommended that the Parliament approve it, and I would call upon Parliament to approve it this evening. Thank you for the question. The motion will be put to decision time. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I have to ask two of its parts to move motion number 14946 on a committee remit and motion number 14947 on the designation of a lead committee. The questions on these most will be put to decision time, to which we now come. There are seven questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that in relation to debate on Keat CalMac Public, if the amendment in the name of Derek Mackay is a grade, the amendment in the name of Tavish Scott Falls? The first question is amendment number 14942.3 in the name of Derek Mackay, which seeks to amend motion number 14942 in the name of David Stewart on Keat CalMac Public, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote of amendment number 14942.3 in the name of Derek Mackay is as follows. Yes, 60, no, 41. There were 13 abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed to, and the amendment in the name of Tavish Scott Falls. The next question is amendment number 14942.1 in the name of Alex Johnson, which seeks to amend motion number 14942 in the name of David Stewart on Keat CalMac Public, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote of amendment number 14942.1 in the name of Alex Johnson is as follows. Yes, 13, no, 101. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14942 in the name of David Stewart as amended. On Keat CalMac Public, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 14942 in the name of David Stewart as amended is as follows. Yes, 65, no, 36. There were 13 abstentions, the motion as amended is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14948 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. On approval of an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 14948 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick is as follows. Yes, 109, no, 5. There were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14946 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on a committee, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14947 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on the designation of a lead committee, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.