 The next item of business is a debate on motion 145 to own the name of Jamie Greene on concern over the state of Scotland's ferry service. Can I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now? I call on Jamie Greene to speak to move the motion. Mr Greene, eight minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start by the outset of this debate by thanking those on the ground who care so passionately about delivering Scotland's ferry services. Those working on board our vessels, in our ports and harbours and those welding the sheets of our future fleet. I do so in the knowledge that they are working in a difficult climate, under contracts largely outside of their control, on vessels they often did not choose or design, and in a climate where their repeated calls for adequate investment is going unnoticed and ignored. Our criticisms today will reflect the strength of feeling on this matter right across Scotland. Our criticism is focused squarely at the door of the Government, which after a decade in office has yet to deliver a sustainable, fit-for-purpose fleet and network of ferries in Scotland. A Government that is presiding over an ageing fleet of vessels with no real standardisation between vessel and port, with little to no resilience within that fleet, and which is dogmatic in its pursuit of directly awarding contracts, and which has, if it is very brief, got a lot to get through. If the member is making his assertions about the role of the Scottish Government, will he not recognise that, over the last decade now, we have faced increasing austerity, certainly since 2010? The member might ignore this, but there has been £1.9 billion real terms cut in the Scottish Government's budget in 2019-20 as a result of your Government. Mr Greene, do not fret. I will give you your time back, but you must not get up and stand while another member is speaking. Anxious though you are, Mr Greene. The minister has an absolute cheek to stand up and tell this chamber that it is somebody else's fault that the ferry services in Scotland are not up to scratch. It is always somebody else's fault, minister, but I would advise you to listen to not just what we have to say, but members right across the chamber from every part of Scotland. Listen to us and listen to the people out there who have to rely on those services. We brought forward this debate because of those voices. Those voices right across Scotland, not experts in the marine industry, but the people to whom the ferry services matter the most, like the farmer who contacted me from Arran, who cannot get his livestock to the market on the mainland. Why? Because of the lack of commercial space on the vessel. Like the tourists I met, sitting in a queue outside my office in Largs, I come down from Glasgow for the day to take his family to Millport for day trip, but I spent three hours queuing to get a seat on a vessel that takes eight minutes to cross to Cumbria. Or even worse, like Monty Philips, a carer who was forced to sleep in a grit bin overnight because the last ferry to Danone was cancelled and the terminal staff would not even let her sleep in the waiting room. Outrages, shocking stories of people being let down. The fact is that, since the SNP came to power, there have been over 70,000 ferry delays or cancellations across Scotland. That is 177 sailings a week in Scotland being disrupted. It is quite timely that today's debate comes as the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee released a letter to the transport secretary, who I notice is absent from today's debate, summarising its findings on ferry funding as part of budget scrutiny. This report, minister, makes for some very difficult reading. I advise you to read it very, very carefully. Perhaps if you had read it, you may have submitted a more realistic and self-aware amendment to the one that you submitted today. The REC Committee was told that ferry services and its infrastructure have suffered from a lengthy period of under-investment. In its evidence to the committee, CalMac's managing director described the 2018 summer disruption as the worst in eight years. He told the committee that, in terms of back-up vessels, CalMac has no spare assets, no spare fleet and its staff are working at their absolute capacity just to maintain the status quo. If a single vessel is out of service, it disrupts the entire network for weeks at a time, as was the case when the NV Clansman was out of service. To be fair to Mr Drummond, it is not CalMac's fault. It is working with the contracts and the fleet that they have available to them. The committee took a number of evidence sessions from a wide range of stakeholders, and those are the concerns that they raised. The lack of vessel capacity for vehicles, investment not matching increased growth from tourism, insufficient integration with mainland transport, a focus on procuring larger, more expensive vessels which limits their ability to move vessels between one port and another, or between one service and another. I know that there are a wide range of views in this Parliament on who should or shouldn't operate our ferries, but when the Government did run a tender for ships, the process was complex, flexible, expensive and discouraged innovative bids. The committee noted that investment in port infrastructure and vessels quite simply is not meeting demand. Seamall's chief executive told the direct committee that the annual investment that he thought needed was £30 million per year on vessels and £20 million per year on harbours. It has been receiving just half of that. It is no huge surprise to anyone that there is so much disruption on our fleets. There is a wider problem here. Last year's report on ferries by Audit Scotland warned that the long-term lack of investment and vision, along with skyrocketing subsidies and limited finances, could be detrimental to the long-term viability of Scotland's ferries. In its words, it said that there is no Scotland-wide long-term strategy. Transport Scotland will find it challenging to continue to provide ferries services that meets the needs of users within its allocated budget. However, that is not the future. I would argue that that is already the case. In that context, I am pleased to agree with Labour's amendment today. On those benches, we share their aspiration for a Government that produces a 30-year plan for both shipbuilding and fare replacement. It is a sensible addition to the debate, and I would ask other members to support it as well. The industry has been saying this for years. Even as far back as 2011 the Scottish Government acknowledged itself, it said that we are faced with significant and growing increases in both resource and capital costs to maintain existing ferry services. It is clear that we are not able to deliver all of our improvements to ferry services. Since the introduction of RET, the reality is that demand has simply outstripped supply. Who is suffering the most in all of this? It is our island communities. The Government's amendment today simply does one thing. It deletes my motion. It says, and it notes that people are concerned, and they are frustrated. Sorry, officer. Today's award for the biggest understatement goes to Paul Wheelhouse. We call for this debate today because enough simply is enough. For too long, the Scottish Government has ignored repeated warnings from the industry. The public are sick and tired of the disruption, of the delays and of the cancellations. They were promised new vessels. They haven't arrived. They asked for one type of vessel and they were delivered another. They were promised that their needs would be put first, and instead they are queuing for hours on end to get a ferry home. I would urge all members in the chamber today to listen to the many stories and anecdotes that you will hear from the length and breadth of Scotland, and rather than pretend that the status quo is acceptable as the Government wants you to do. Stand up and stick up through island communities, because that is what we will do. I move the motion in my name. Paul Wheelhouse, to speak and move amendment 14520.4. Minister, six minutes please. The Scottish Government recognises that our ferry services must strive to match the aspirations of the communities that they serve, providing lifeline services and opportunities for economic growth. Indeed, our amendment makes reference to lifeline services something missing from Mr Greene's motion. In the round, our ferry services perform well. To date, the Scottish Government has invested more than £1.4 billion in ferry services across Scotland, and performance for the year to date under our three public sector contracts sits above 95 per cent. However, I also want to take this opportunity to commend the work of ferry operators crew and staff in maintaining high levels of performance, often in quite challenging circumstances. We all recognise that, and we should not lose sight of that success, but we cannot be complacent. I recognise that Mr Greene has also welcomed the contribution of CalMac staff, but that did not feature in his motion. The Government amendment makes that point clear. Members who are considering whether to vote for the Government's amendment can register their support for the staff of CalMac who are providing a key lifeline service. Given the financial pressures that we continue to face, it is important that we have an honest conversation about how we prioritise investment in our ferry services to target resources as effectively as possible. Those pressures persist. In light of this week's UK Government budget, which sees a real-terms cut of £1.9 billion—just to repeat that point—against the 2010-11 budget, the Conservative members may shake their heads, but it is a fact. I will give way on that point to Mr Fraser. I know that he is interested in these matters. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. He has just said twice to the chamber something that is manifestly untrue. He has stated twice that the Scottish Government's budget has been reduced by £1.9 million since 2010. I suggest that he reads the Fraser Valander Institute analysis that shows that the Scottish Government's total budget, resource-dell, capital, financial transactions and AME is in total higher than it was in real terms than 2010. Will he now accept that he has misled the chamber? Minister, that was a long intervention. I will give you your time back. I absolutely do not agree with Mr Fraser's assessment. With respect to Mr Fraser, I am referring to financial transactions funding. If those funds can be deployed to support resource budgets for ferry services, it is misleading this chamber. Mr Fraser ought to consider his own remarks. The resource budget has been reduced by £1.9 billion relative to the 2010-11 budget. Let us not also forget—this is a point that Mr Fraser will also dispute—that Mr Greene's own party's tax proposals for the current year would have reduced Scotland's resource budget by a further £500 million relative to our own tax proposals. Mr Greene has accused me of cheek. Can I, in return, while being diplomatic and being polite about it, accuse Mr Greene of extensive brass neck in his approach to the resourcing of our ferry services? I am committed to engaging with all our stakeholders. I have been since assuming responsibility for ferry's brief this summer to ensure that our views are understood and we have those discussions. Indeed, it would be of interest—maybe Mr Greene can respond later—to let me know at how many occasions the Conservative Party has asked for additional funding and budget rounds from the Scottish Government since our taking office in 2007. I would like to briefly reflect on our activity to date. We published our ferry's plan in 2012. That was an ambitious long-term strategy for investment in ferries. Despite the Tories' age of austerity, we have invested more than £1.4 billion in supporting lifeline ferry services. I am short of time, Mr Scott, but I will try to come in if I can later across the network. That support has delivered the introduction of new routes, service enhancements and strength in timetables and additional sailings provided in response to increasing demand. We are delivering, but it will take time to deliver in full. Eight new ferries have been added to the CalMac fleet since 2007. A further two new vessels have been commissioned. That represents a total investment of £215 million in new vessels. We have also recently committed to providing a further vessel to serve the Eilea route. Not insignificant, five of the last six orders for those new vessels have been awarded to Scottish Yards. We see the contribution that ferries make to our supply chain and to securing growth in our maritime economy. All five of those Scottish-built vessels deploy hybrid and dual fuel technologies to reduce the damaging effect of greenhouse gas emissions. We recognise the important contribution that ferries can make to our overarching strategy to reduce emissions. A programme of harbour investment includes £62 million in the Clyde and Hebrides network over the past five years. That ensures that ports remain safe and are fit for purpose. When funding allows, we invest in enhancements that enable a wider range of vessels to access the harbour, adding resilience and flexibility and providing modern and accessible facilities for passengers. More recently, in response to the impact of disruption to customers that we recognise, we have introduced a £3.5 million resilience fund to support CalMac and its obligation to maintain vessels on the Clyde and Hebrides network. We have achieved much, but we must continue to look forward and to build on our investment to date. Transport Scotland is revisiting the ferries plan as part of the strategic transport projects review. We will also revisit the vessel replacement and deployment plan to ensure that it continues to reflect current circumstances and demands and that it anticipates future demands. In particular, that will have to reflect the huge success of RET and the impact and passenger demand on some routes. We will work in close consultation with key business partners and community stakeholders. In terms of the work ahead, we will engage with the trade unions to reflect the operational impact of any proposals on staff and crew. Those are quite properly long-term measures given the scale of investment. If I may, Presiding Officer, bring in Mr Scott as I— I know that you are really closing, so if you do your— I thought that I had additional time, Presiding Officer. You have, but you will need six minutes as you are getting just slightly over that. Okay. I apologise to Mr Scott. Those are quite properly long-term issues. Given the scale of investment, it is important that we take an informed, strategic and balanced approach. I have been listening carefully to island communities, Presiding Officer, since assuming responsibility for ferry services. I want to put on record that I understand the very real challenges that are faced as a consequence of service disruption, particularly at the level of experience this summer. Determining me must get this right. In addition to closely monitoring operational performance, we are developing an action plan with our ferry operators, which will ensure that appropriate measures are in place to improve the customer experience when things go wrong. We will continue to challenge operators to communicate proactively with customers when there are delays, and they must, with our support, ensure that appropriate measures are in place to ensure that lifeline services are not compromised. I look for support from across the chamber to developing the action plan, and in supporting my amendment, the chamber can ensure that this commitment is recorded and I will be held to account for any delays in its implementation. Please conclude. I move your amendment, minister. Presiding Officer, I thank you for your performance. I will move the amendment in my name and ask members to support it. Thank you. I now call Colin Smyth to speak to move amendment 14520.35 minutes, Mr Smyth. It is no exaggeration to say that Scotland's ferry network provides a lifeline for communities. In evidence to the rural economy committee, Western Isles Council described them as central to the sustainability and wellbeing of the island communities. Argyll and Bute said that they were the very means to survive and prosper. The summer of discontent that we have seen on Scotland's ferries caused by a lack of capacity and resilience have wreaked havoc for our island communities. Poor planning and investment by the Scottish Government that is not meeting grown demand means that our ferry network is not fit for purpose, despite at times the quite heroic efforts of staff to keep those ferries going. More than half of Seamills fleet is over 20 years old, and over a quarter is more than 30 years old. That ageing fleet has meant more breakdowns and higher maintenance costs. In CalMac's submission to the Rural Economy and Welfare Committee, it stated that on the Clyde and Hebrides route between 2012 and 2017, the number of cars carried has grown by 37 per cent to 1.4 million per year, and passenger numbers have risen by 17 per cent to 5.2 million per year. The introduction of road equivalent tariff fares on some routes has resulted in those drastic increases in usage and created serious capacity issues, most notably on the Stornoway to Ullipoll route, where local residents in Lewis and Harris have often simply been unable to boot ferries to the mainland. We all welcome the introduction of RET fares, and I hope that the Scottish Government will make good on their overdue pledge to introduce them on the Northern Isles routes, but it must be accompanied by the necessary investment and capacity to meet that growing demand. Transport Scotland may have calculated and funded the cost of lost ticket revenue costs by RET, but it has not properly assessed the impact of increased usage on capacity, and the current ferries flan falls short as a result. When that plan is revisited, it needs to have a commitment in the forthcoming budget to increase capacity to meet growing demand. I thank the member for giving way. Does he think that there is scope for varying ferries so that perhaps there could be a slightly higher fare at peak times to try and even out the demand? I do not think that that would go on particularly well for those people who are looking at the prospect of higher fares, but the issue is that RET, which is welcome, has increased demand, and we need to increase capacity to meet that demand to follow that policy through. Beyond revisiting the ferries plan, there are shortcomings in how the Government also procures investment in ferries services. The poor track record is clear in the decision to replace the MV Isle of Lewis with one lard ship rather than two Ropax vessels, as recommended by the stag assessment and supported by the local community. That not only requires significant adjustments to the ports, but also weakens resilience on the route by relying on a single ship. The approach to ferry services has to be better thought through and needs greater forward planning. As the motion notes, Audit Scotland recently highlighted the need for a new long-term strategy for ferries to take into account the many proposed developments to services and assets. In fact, a decade ago, the Transport and Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee called on the Scottish Government to produce a national ferry strategy detailing long-term plans for routes, ferry replacement, refurbishment and port infrastructure, accompanied by an implementation and delivery plan with a clear programme of funding. Ten years later, the Government has not delivered this, causing uncertainty for those providing services and the communities that they rely on. We need this long-term ferry strategy more than ever, but it also has to be accompanied by a national shipbuilding strategy. Shipbuilding and the jobs that deliver remain important to the Scottish economy. A national shipbuilding strategy setting out a 30-year programme of work would help to create jobs, develop and retain skills and expertise in Scotland's shipyards, encourage investment and improve the efficiency with which yards can produce ferries, creating that steady drumbeat of consistent work yards need. We also need to look again at the tendering process for shipbuilding contracts with failings that are exposed by the current delays in the delivery of the two new hybrid ferries. The flawed procurement process resulted in the design that seems to ensure that we are simply unwilling to underwrite, resulting in significant changes to that design. Despite that and the impact those delays have had on communities, there has been a slowness of Government to intervene to bring all sides together to find a way forward, if I have time. The Government does not seem overall to recognise that ferry services, like all public transport, are a vital public service. That is summed up by the ambivalence towards public ownership through the failure to take the Northern Ireland contract in-house on a permanent basis. To add insult to injury, the Government's decision to charter MVRO from sea truck to meet growing freight demand in the route means that staff are being paid less than the national minimum wage. That needs to be tackled in future contracts. That means setting out unequivocal requirements for the paying conditions of all staff and ideally tending for more than two-chatter freight vessels to avoid the situation that arises in the first instance. That would also facilitate capacity increases and seasonal changes in demand. The contract must also include a clawback provision to ensure that surplus profits are returned to the public purse and protect the jobs and conditions of all existing staff. In conclusion, it is clear that across our ferry network we are seeing problems that could have been avoided with better planning and more strategic investment. The Scottish Government must take action to improve not only how ferries are run by bringing lifeline services into public hands but how investment projects are planned, procured and managed by creating a long-term strategy for ferries and a national shipbuilding plan to support it. I therefore move the amendment in my name. The Scottish Green Party will be supporting the Conservative motion tonight. It is very difficult to take issue with it. I always try to take issue with everything that the Conservative Party says, but the number of facts is significant in delays, disruptions, cancellations and no resilience in the network. The lack of additional vessels. I call for a long-term ferry strategy. That said, there is also a lack of self-awareness, certainly if there is denial about the impact that the settlement has. I am not sure whether at various points I have hear complaints about RAT, which is a success and has to be addressed some of the aspects. However, I think that we have heard what the Conservatives really come from when they stepped into the area. Excuse me, Mr Finlay, could you pull your microphone over the torch? Where the Conservatives really come from, we have heard references to tendering. I certainly would align myself with the comments of Colin Smyth there and the lost opportunity for the Scottish Government regarding the Northern Isles route. I think that he sent a very clear direction of travel and philosophy when you get opportunities like that, and I have to say that that is a missed opportunity. We will be supporting the Scottish Labour Party amendment tonight. Again, it narrates things that are very important about an implementation in delivery plan and a 30-year programme of work. That is important when seen in the context of the lifeline of the duration that a ferry can survive. I also want to thank the staff for their hard work, because there is no doubt that the drip feed of negative comment that comes out has an impact. We need to understand that increased funding is important. Indeed, the amendment that was not called selected talks about increased funding being essential. I am very happy to explain where we would provide some of that funding from. We would not be spending £6 billion in two roads, we would not have spent £2 billion for the M8 or the Aberdeen West peripheral route. It is important that people understand where the funding comes from. In relation to that, clearly, as regards the replacement vessel in the Allapol Lewis route, it certainly does not serve Lewis or Lewis, because it certainly serves Lloyds, the bank that has benefited very well indeed from it. Indeed, the deal is going to cost taxpayer £67 million by 2022, at which point the bankers will still own the vessel. There will be a requirement to negotiate a new lease. Elsewhere, when we read about looking at funding models, that is certainly not a model that we would want to see replicated. Lest anyone—I think that the present Government has a number of questions to answer regarding where they are—but Jamie Greene alluded to the report from the Rural Economy, the Committee of the Law this morning. It is significant to note that the Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership noted that no new major vessels entered the service between 2001 and 2011. That has a significant impact when you are looking at the lifespan of vessels. It is a collective responsibility to try to resolve the situation. If some of the difficulties that have occurred with our road network that have occurred on our ferry network would be having a lot higher profile given to it. I welcome the fact that we are debating this issue, but I do not welcome the fact that I read about CML describing things as commercial and confidence and terms like that. That is public money. I want to see a ferry service—I hope that Conservative benches keep nodding when I say—a ferry service run exclusively in the public interests, not for profit, as we would see elsewhere. The reality is that we need to make sure that we have a coherent plan and coherent funding method. Mike Rumbles, no more than four minutes, please. Deputy Presiding Officer, first of all, I want to thank Jamie Greene for using this limited opposition time to debate this very important issue. It is a very current issue in that the Rural Economy and Welfare Committee has written to the transport secretary just two hours ago as part of our pre-budget scrutiny. As a fellow member of the Rural Economy and Welfare Committee, Jamie Greene will be aware of the troubling evidence presented to members by operators and island communities highlighting potential long-term problems for our ferry services just over the horizon. I want to refer—it is on the website of the committee so members can see it for themselves—the first bullet point and the first recommendation that it was delivered to the transport secretary just two hours ago. The committee called—and the minister may not have seen it, so you have. The first bullet point calls on the Scottish Government to respond to criticisms of the lack of resilience in the fleet and the evidence that Calamall has received less than half the amount of funding required over the past 10 years. That is the result of the committee's investigation. The effects of transport delays can be damaging for local economies and alarming for travellers. Significant delays to lifeline ferry services can severely impact upon island communities, and the damaging effects of delays are often multiplied as repairs take place over weeks and months. In the worst cases, livestock and fresh produce are turned away at ferry terminals, essential supplies and service vehicles are held up, and vital income from tourism is lost. Of course, delays are far less likely to be a problem if ferry operators have the resilience, have the flexibility and have the capacity to move passengers on to other available services and vessels. This year, the Scottish Government welcomed the principles of fair funding for local ferry services for the Northern Isles in Orkney and Shetland, which is set out by my Scottish Liberal Democrat colleagues from Orkney and Shetland. By definition, the Scottish Government has accepted the responsibility to support vital ferry links for our island communities and help operators to fund the snow-born cost of planned and unplanned maintenance. Deputy Presiding Officer, repairs at sea can only get us so far, and there is certainly no quick fix for our ageing ferry fleet. This summer, CalMac reported that the risk of breakdown is now significant for many of their vessels. I quote, with nearly half of ferries already beyond their 25-year life expectancy and having been used intensively during those years of service, the risk of mechanical failures and breakdown is significant. It also takes longer to get older boats back into service when things do go wrong. Deputy Presiding Officer, I strongly agree with a motion and with Colin Smyth's amendment. In fact, I believe that they do not go far enough. We urgently need a long-term plan for our ferry services in Scotland, a programme of investment that will provide transport security for island communities for decades to come. The Scottish Government must set out clear targets for improvement, and most importantly, work towards those targets must begin immediately. The Northern Isles lifeline ferry services are in a tendering process now, for example. The Government must ensure that the future freight export needs of the islands are built into that contract specification. Industry has given the information that it needs, and the minister needs to do it. Will the minister summing up and ensure that that happens? The current level of Government engagement past and present in our lifeline ferry services has not been good enough and we are in danger of letting a bad situation get worse. We will be voting in favour of the Conservative motion and the Labour amendment, but what we cannot accept, though, is in the words of the amendment of the Government, which seems to us to be somewhat complacent. We now move to the open debate, very tight for time, so absolutely no more than four minutes for open speeches. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important subject today. Around Scotland, we are seeing a range of problems facing those who rely on our ferry services. Those ferry routes are often an essential link to our island communities, where there are a few, if any, alternatives for travel or for freight. For those seeking access to public services to operate their businesses or simply to travel for work or leisure, they are a lifeline. It is unfortunate that there is such strong evidence of a lack of strategic direction in the Scottish Government's provision of support to ferries across the country. Since Audit Scotland drew attention to this issue in 2017, there has been little in the way of change. What we are left with is a disjointed and fundamentally unfair patchwork of provision, funding and investment, where island communities each receive very different levels of service. My own experiences are obviously with the Northern Isles, which are currently operated by Serco Northlink. It is welcome that the Scottish Government is proceeding with the re-tendering of the Northern Isles ferry contract following the announcement that the contract notice has been published at the end of September. The contract will run for a period of eight years, setting the shape of the future service in the Northern Isles into the late 2020s. It is only right that the Scottish Government is ambitious about the future of this service. I know that colleagues in the Labour and the Green Benches will disagree. I only hope that the tendering process will also bring an end to the SNP's preoccupation with the public sector operator for the Northern Isles routes. The Islands Act was intended to support a new approach to Scotland's island communities, recognising local needs and local opinion, yet it is striking to me that the Scottish Government did not recognise earlier that there is no ground spot of support in the Northern Isles for getting rid of tendering. We should see the new tendering process as an opportunity, an opportunity to set in motion the changes that are vital to keep the service operating successfully. That includes taking a view on the long-standing complaints about accommodation and facilities available for passengers on the service. It means recognising the needs of business in moving freight, and it means ensuring that the service is able to adapt to the changing needs of islands in years to come. It must also ensure that, when our ferries are in for refitting, their replacements meet the needs of local people and local businesses. That has not been the case recently, where the stand-in for the MV Amnavo was a freight boat with limited passenger facilities and which was entirely unsuitable for disabled passengers. John Mason may be suggesting that ferries could go up at peak times, if for some of the routes across Scotland. I think that one of the issues that looms over those discussions is that the SNP's manifesto commitment to introduce lower fares for the Northern Isles. That was fought for by island representatives, and it was promised by the SNP at election after election. But this summer, the Scottish Government's own deadline came and went. In Shetland, the promise has been only part delivered. In Orkney, fair reductions have been kicked into the long grass. I am not going to have time to, minister, I am afraid. The Scottish Government has tried to shift the blame on to private operators, but the need for those discussions was well known in advance. The Government has had ample time to discuss proposals with all stakeholders, and yet a mess was left behind when they were only commenced at a late stage in this process. We must remember that those commitments were not simply a gift from ministers. They were the result of lengthy campaigning for a level of equality with a support offered to other islands, and they reflect the needs created by islands geography. Unfortunately, that followed the ugly stromash around fair funding for the internal ferries, when ministers could not bring themselves in this chamber to repeat their own party pledges. It was only after the voices from community, from the islands and councillors, and from MSPs across the parties could no longer be ignored that a one-year deal was worked out. However, the islands have still no certainty over the future funding for their internal ferries. What they need from the Scottish Government is to meet their own commitments to provide a settlement with a clear indication that it will be a regular, rather than simply a one-off win with a fight every new year. Presiding Officer, in Orkney and Shetland, the security of our ferry services has been hard-won by local communities, from what often appears an indifferent Scottish Government in Edinburgh. Are island communities, like so many others, dependent on ferry services, deserve better? There is no question that disruption and delays for local communities is causing frustration, especially when those services are lifeline services. I am sure that Kenneth Gibson and Alasdair Allan, who will speak for their communities, will highlight those facts as well. There is also no question that vessel procurement is a long-standing and continuing issue in relation to vessel procurement for the Scottish Government. I would urge the Scottish Government to cast its net wide and to think as imaginatively as possible in order to help CalMac to procure the additional vessels that are required, not least for the resilience that has been mentioned. It is an extremely difficult market, as anybody who has been involved in it will know, but that means that we have to redouble our efforts in order to secure that additional capacity. However, there is nothing in the Conservative motion that helps that. There is nothing about investment. There is no figures. There is no commitment to anything at all—pretty much standard fare for the Conservative Party. There is a complete lack of self-awareness as well. What surprises me somewhat is that the Labour Party and the Green Party are willing to ally themselves when they explicitly acknowledged that the real agenda of the Conservative Party is to further privatise the ferry network. Better Together, of course, told us that we are going to have a huge national shipbuilding boon when they won the referendum back in 2014, and what has happened to that. There is also no suggestion in the Tory motion about where they would find the money for that. We can only assume that we would rather spend money on tax cuts rather than providing direct services for our ferries and their communities up and down the country. However, the simple fact is that it was not acknowledged by the Conservative Party is that the Scottish Government has a very proud record of supporting the communities that are dependent on ferries. We have heard that that includes the building of new ferries. There is a loft seaforth, which has been mentioned, if in Lagan, other vessels—eight vessels mentioned by the minister. At many areas of Scotland have also benefited from investment in our harbours and ports. There seems no awareness amongst the Conservatives that many of the ports are not on by CalMac or the Scottish Government. Investment for that requires to come from the local authorities and other organisations. We should also be extremely proud of the huge investment by the Government and the ferries themselves. No doubt that the record of investment and support that is shown by the Government is something that the Tories object to. They like to see it cut back, they like to see it privatised, they do not like the idea of a direct award, they would want to see where they can make savings from the ferry network rather than provide new investment. I recognise, of course, that the on-going commitment to the lifeline ferry services has been reflected in the £1.2 billion invested by the Scottish Government. I cannot recollect a single budget amendment proposed by the Conservatives during the last 10 years in terms of ferries, not one to say that they wanted more investment. I cannot even recollect them raising the issue on a regular basis. I would say that the Liberal Democrats have, perhaps not Mike Russell, the wannabe member for Tory Central, but, certainly, Tavish Scott and Liam McArthur have been regular proponents for the ferry services in their areas. That is fair enough, because their communities are reliant on those services, is not it? That is fair enough. As was mentioned at the budget last year, it was a proposal or work done by those two members that helped to get a further advance for people in the Northern Isles. The investment that has also been made has been in terms of road equivalent tariff to all ferry routes in the Clyde and Hebrides network. The investment in the new vessels is £41.8 million for Deluxe Seaforth, two new £100 million dual fuel vessels at a cost of £106 million, and the MV Katrina at £12.3 million. There has also been substantial investment in harbour infrastructure in Ullipools, Stormleyway, Brodick and Kerr, but none of that is mentioned by the Conservatives when they had the chance to raise that just now. It is fairly clear to me that the Conservative party, of course, has questioned this. They forget that one of its transport ministers, Patrick McLaughlin, came to Scotland a few years back and said that there probably is transport infrastructure in Scotland and that there has not been investment for decades, forgetting that he himself was a transport minister in 1989. That is what this Government has had to do is to pick up the mantle for the transport infrastructure, whether it is in terms of roads, whether it is in terms of ferries or whether it is in terms of ferry infrastructure, that previous Governments have failed to do. The Government has done a good job. There is no question that there is more to do because we all want to see improved services. I will support the motion in Paul Wheelhouse's name. Jackie Baillie, followed by Alasdair Allan. Presiding Officer, I welcome the opportunity to debate our ferry services, but, in four short minutes, you will forgive me if I simply cut to the chase. There is a need for a Scotland-wide long-term ferry strategy covering all routes, not just the Clyde and Hebrides network, covering investment in harbours, investment in new ferries and how we get the best from the money that we spend. That was all identified by Audit Scotland in 2017, and the Scottish Government has yet to act on all of the recommendations. At a time of public funding constraints, spending on ferries has grown by 115 per cent in real terms, but that has not been in infrastructure. That is a huge amount of money, but passenger numbers are only growing by 0.3 per cent, so that probably makes it the most subsidised form of public transport. The Scottish Government needs to demonstrate value for money, but I absolutely accept that ferry services are essential for our island communities. Procurement of new ferries and the maintenance of existing ones is also an issue for attention, and I am disappointed that repairs and maintenance of our existing ferry fleet is carried out in Liverpool and not at the former Camillead Yard at Inch Green. The Scottish Government should aim to return maintenance and repair of the fleet to benefit local employment and our local economies. Let me turn to the two ferries that are being built at Ferguson's. Of course, it is disappointing that there are delays, but I am clear that the design that was set out by CMAL was deficient in the first place. I have no problem with the Scottish Government providing Ferguson's with loans. I have no problem with support for shipbuilding. I think that that is what we should be doing, but what frustrates me is that the Scottish Government recognises that CMAL is the problem, but, instead of fixing it, it gives Ferguson's loans. Unless they sort the problem out at source, the money will prove to be mere sticking plaster, and we will be back here yet again. The Scottish Government needs to sit down with CMAL and Ferguson's and get it sorted out. Then, of course, there is the Kilcregan ferry, the only ferry run by Strathclyde partnership for transport. Clydelink provided the service between Kilcregan and Gourac until May this year. It is fair to say that they made para handy look good, and, for periods of time, the ferry was off more than it was on. Whilst Clydemarine has subsequently taken it over, and the improvement in the ferry service is immense, it is still the community's aspiration that the service should be run by the Scottish Government. I am pleased that Paul Wheelhouse has affirmed the Government's commitment to doing exactly that. Finally, I cannot talk about poor service with one aspect of public transport, ferries, without mentioning travel by rail as well. It is fair to say that, in my area, rail travel is shockingly bad. It also affects commuters and East Kilbride, so I know that it is of interest to the Presiding Officer. The problem has been evident for weeks, but for the last nine consecutive days, my constituents have endured cancelled and delayed trains. People have been late for work so many times. They are now in trouble with their employers, students at university and colleges have missed lectures, patients have missed hospital appointments, and children have been left stranded in childcare facilities because their parents cannot get back to collect them. That applies to delayed ferries, too. All that is at a time when prices have gone up. I used to complain about skip-stopping. The new normal for trains in my area is to skip every stop by being cancelled. At a time when we needed it, we needed the Scottish Government to stand up for commuters and hold ScotRail to account, weaken the targets and let them off the hook. The Government must take urgent action to force ScotRail to improve its service. Whether it is ferries or trains, the Scottish Government needs to provide a better service and better value for money. We talk about the forced industrial revolution— You must close these, Miss Bailey. We talk about lunar tourism indeed, but, for goodness sake, the train to Dumbarton is still nowhere to be seen. Alasdair Allan, forward by Edward Mountain. Living on an island, as in my case I do, I know what ferries mean to every aspect of any island's life and economy. Recognising that fact, too, the Scottish Government has more than doubled what it spends annually on ferry services over the last decade. Let me put to one side just for a moment any doubts that I may have about the Tories' motives today. As a party, they have seemed enthusiastic about privatising ferry services and suggested that the recent tender for ferry services was unfairly favouring the public sector, a sentiment that I have to say that we heard echoes again of today. Now or recently, they even seem to have been almost opposing the Scottish Government's intervening to save the Scottish shipyards that are building new vessels. However, let me instead of doing any of that make some points today just briefly about some of the things about ferry services that have caused very genuine concern to my constituents in the course of 2018. I hope that the minister might be able to reflect on a few of them in his summing up. First was the situation this Easter where, for several days, North Eust and Harris went without anything like a recognisable ferry service. That had real human and economic costs. I understand that there may have been people who did not get to funerals. There were cancellations in local hotels. Shops were beginning to struggle to get many supplies in. I think that CalMac recognised that that was not their finest hour. The episode certainly proved what happens if one or certainly if has happened then two larger vessels are out of action at a busy time. The problem is partly borne out of a big success story. In 2007, the SNP Government began rolling out RET fares, making travel dramatically more affordable for islanders and tourists alike. That has been a huge benefit to our economy and certainly to the community in which I live, with 10 per cent of hebridean jobs now thought to depend directly on tourism. Ferries in the Western Isles alone have now had to cope with an astonishing 184,000 additional passengers every year compared to a decade ago. Most routes now operate at capacity for six months of the year. I would be doing a disservice if I did not record what many of my constituents feel about that. I can only ask members to imagine how the good people of Paisley or Motherwell might react if they were told that they regularly had to make arrangements three weeks in advance whenever they wished to drive into Glasgow. There is no doubt that, in summer, a second vessel is now needed on the Stornoway to Alapwll route and an extra sailing a day over the sound of Harris to give but two examples. Crews do their utmost and, as I have mentioned, the funding is certainly there. However, I cannot say with any certainty that, without improvements of this kind, that those and other routes will be able to cope next summer. I know that the Government is giving thought to those difficult questions. Thinking ahead in the longer term, there may, in time, be an argument for some of Calmax's shorter routes to be replaced by tunnels. That is an argument for another day, and it is certainly not a cheap option. However, I wish to say that no option is cheap when looked at over the long term. The Government has shown, as I say, its commitment in funding ferry services far beyond anything that has been funded by previous Governments. I should certainly say that far beyond anything, far beyond any named sum committed to by the Conservative Party today, there are problems with services. That is very obvious to all of us. It is now time for all agencies to work together to reassure island communities about what shape the most vital of services will take in the future. We do not have forever to answer that question. Edward Mountain, followed by Kenneth Gibson. Before I start talking directly about ferries, I want to remind the Government about the expectations that have been created by the island's bill that has been supported by this Parliament. It should be especially concerned, especially as the Government has committed itself to island-proofing all its decisions. However, in my mind, the Government is failing short of those expectations by providing over a ferry network on the west of Scotland, which is responsible, as we have heard, for long construction delays to flagship ferries, 10 years of under-investment, no spare vessels in the fleet to cope with breakbands, and, frankly, a ferries plan that I believe is gathering dust on a shelf when no one has looked at. This Government, in my mind, is disempowering island communities who they sought to support just months ago with the island bills, and we are possibly seeing the worst of all outcomes, as Mr Greene has made clear, where islanders are unable to travel on and off islands when they need to. There are people who have contacted me who are unable to travel either because they are disabled and the ferry is unsuitable or they cannot get to it, or indeed the problem is relating to overcrowding and they have not been able to get to the funerals. Let me be clear, this Government has seen over 70,000, that's 70,000, cancelled or delayed sailings since 2007, and we've now reached, as we've heard, the point where the managing director of CalMac has called the widespread disruptions last April as the worst in eight years. That to me is a pretty damning indictment and just shows to me how far our ferry service has declined under this Government who've been in power for over 11 years. This is clear to me that the Government must think through its ferry plans again to remedy the 10 years of mistakes that's already been made. Firstly, in my mind, and let me give you some help if I may on this, the SNP Government must learn that bigger ships don't always lead to better services. Sometimes having smaller vessels that are built to serve multiple routes will build much-needed resilience into the ferry network. I would take an intervention. Paul Wheelhouse. I'm grateful to the convener of the committee for taking an intervention. I want to make the point that I think that he would recognise him in his own evidence session. The point was made by Seymal regarding the design of larger vessels that are much more fuel efficient. I take on board the point that he makes about the flexibility of smaller vessels, but would he recognise that there are positive arguments for larger vessels in terms of resilience in bad weather and fuel efficiency? I think that I'd like to see those figures. I think that that was evidence that we heard. Well, sorry, I gave you the chance to answer. You must let me have the chance to answer you back. We must see that those vessels work and just by saying on paper that they're better doesn't mean that we're there on the ground better. Volkswagen may give you some clues to that. Secondly, there needs to be a move towards standardisation and we need to have more standardised ferries, more standardised docking stations, standardised training to allow crews and boats to serve the multiple routes. This will create the much-needed flexibilities of ferry networks. I'm sorry, I've taken one and I am pushed for time. I like to take one, but I can't do more. I believe that it's time to learn the lessons of the past. The island-class ferries, which served routes to Rasse, Mull and Arran, for example, were very versatile, readily interchangeable and could provide extra runs for commercial purposes. Those are the design principles that the future CalMac fleet desperately needs. Thirdly, the SNP Government must support different models of operating ferries. Now, I'm mindful of the time, Presiding Officer, and so I would say that, finally, I believe that the Scottish Government should also consider moving freight on the busiest route outside the hours of regular travel for islanders and island visitors. Six years ago, Presiding Officer, the Government promised, in its ferry plan, to review its approach to ferry services and to continue to reassess the needs of our island community. I believe, having heard the evidence that we have, that that plan has sat on the shelf, gathered dust and nothing has happened to it. It needs to be dusted off and it needs to be looked at, especially because the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services are up for renewal in six years. Now is the time to take some action. The last of the open debate contributions is from Kenneth Gibson. I represent Arnon Cymru, and when ferry services like people down it is right that we heed their concerns and push for realistic solutions. Since 2007, this Government has dramatically increased investment in port infrastructure vessels and services from 97.3 million in 2007-08 to 240.5 million this year, a 150 per cent increase. A remarkable achievement after the neglector fleet suffered under Labour, and a 27.5 per cent cut in capital available to the Scottish Government in the first year of the Tory-Lib Dem UK coalition. Scottish Government investment was absolutely essential and its impact enormously positive. For example, passengers now enjoy more summer sailings following the extension of the two vessel service to Brodic from seven weeks each summer to nearly seven months. Dramatically increasing capacity, visitor numbers and boosting Arn's economy by 10 per cent in the year before last alone. Cymru 40 sailings a day in each direction in the summer, 20 in the winter. Last April, the new 31.2 million pound Brodic ferry terminal opened, completely transforming the harbour and providing 21st century facilities that will boost the island's economy. It is a new 110-metre two-beef pier designed to accommodate the new dual-fuelled vessel MV Glensanax with a dedicated berth to serve other vessels, including cruise ships. A huge benefit for ferry users was the introduction of road equivalent tariff for passengers, cars and coaches. Its roll-out to Arn's services in 2014, after I pressed the Clyde islands to be included in the SNP's 2011 holiday manifesto, saw fares drop 46 per cent for passengers travelling from Addros in to Brodic and 64 per cent for cars. RET has a greater impact on Arn than any other island. Transport Scotland found that 11 per cent of visitors questioned on the Addros in to Brodic route and 17 per cent on cloning to Lachranza, said that its journey had been wholly prompted by RET. Arn businesses are very positive about the impact, citing increases in both footfall and turnover. The boom has increased demand and I was therefore delighted to welcome the MV Katrina to Arn in 2016, having lobbied for the deployment of this £12.6 million hybrid vessel on the cloning to Lachranza sailing. MV Katrina is almost twice the size of a locked target that it has replaced. It is also cleaner, more fuel efficient and more comfortable for passengers. We will also benefit from the 48.5 million pound new vessel MV Glen Sannocks, due to enter service this past summer. It says that a camel is a host designed by a committee, and so it seems with the Glen Sannocks. Despite the fact that it was agreed that it would plier busiest ferry route Ardross in to Brodic, it was apparently designed to fit all harbours except, shockingly, Ardross in. As yet no one has been held accountable for this lamentable decision. With the Glen Sannocks now expected to arrive a year behind schedule, islanders are understandably frustrated by this delay. The delivery of this vessel is essential to meet ever-growing demand. I am delighted that Ardross in Harbour will shockingly be upgraded to become a quality destination that supports growth through stronger links to Ardross in town centre. However, the question of the Arn ferry service, potentially relocating to Trun, while those upgrades are carried out, which CalMac is arguing for behind the scenes, undermines the hard fought Save Our Ferry campaign to retain Ardross in as Arn's principal mainland air support. I trust that the minister will confirm today that Ardross in will continue to save the Ardross in crossing during the refurbishment of Ardross in harbour to alleviate those concerns. Investment improvement means little if our ferry fleet is not resilient, and islanders cannot rely on ferries to get them where they need to be. Together with Mike Russell MSP and representatives of Arn and Isle community councils, I met the minister on 27 September to discuss this summer's network service disruption. The Scottish Government must take ownership in relation to restoring reliability. If the ferry fleet is not maintained to an adequate standard and unable to find parts for repair maintenance in a reasonable timeframe, a more effective response must be delivered for our island communities. I am pleased that the Government launched a £3.5 million ferry resilience fund on a visit to Arn on 27 August. That should help to eliminate future disruption, but we can and must do more for our island communities. I am delighted that the minister has confirmed his participation in the next isle of Arn ferry committee on 12 November. I look forward to welcoming him with a view to agreeing a plan of action to restore reliability in the short term, as well as guaranteeing a much more resilient ferry fleet in the near future. We move to the closing speeches. Rhoda Grant, four minutes, please. Can I also pay tribute to the staff who provide lifeline ferry services, both those who work onshore and at sea? Those onshore often take the brunt of the Scottish Government's failures when ferries are delayed and cancelled, so they need our special thanks for dealing with that and helping customers that are not getting to sail. Our ferries are not an end in themselves, their purpose is to provide lifeline services. Our island communities and some of our peninsulas are totally dependent on ferry services. Without them, people could no longer live on those islands. We do not have to go back very far in time to look at St Kilda where people were evacuated from their homes in their community because they could not access lifeline services. That is not something that is desirable. It is essential that the Scottish Government act to make sure that other communities do not face the same situation, and that other communities do not face the chaos that the islands did this summer. To highlight those issues, we would need a much longer debate, but if I could just emphasise one or two. First, can I turn to transparency? There needs to be a much more transparent approach to financing ferries. We have seen the controversy around the funding of the Loch Seaforth and its ownership after the seven-year lease ends. What is the cost of the vessel? Surely it would have been much more cost effective to have gone with the community's view and had a two-ship solution. That was highlighted by Colin Smyth. Jackie Baillie talked about the dispute with Ferguson's over the Glen Sannocks and the unnamed hull 802 that will serve the triangle. What is the dispute? Is it really a deficient design and, if so, who is responsible for it? The money that was put aside for those two ships was £97 million and Ferguson's are now telling us that it could well be double that. We need new ships to deal with demand. Demand has increased hugely. Jamie Greene talked about that in his opening speech due to tourism. That is very much welcome, but we need the capacity to deal with it, because locals themselves cannot access ferries, they cannot get to hospital, as Edward Mountain said, they are not able to see their families. I have suggested before that some ferry places be reserved at peak times for locals and then be released closer to the sailing time to deal with those local emergencies. I have also heard of stories where people have tried to book on a ferry that is full only to discover from friends who sailed on that sailing that there was space on that boat. While locals go on to stand by, many of them cannot take that risk in emergency situations and choose to fly at a greater cost instead, so we need to look at how we manage ferry bookings as well. Reliability has come up again and again in the debate. This summer started with the issues with the clansmen, which put disruption on many of the routes for many months before the summer even had fully kicked in. We have had 2,326 cancellations in the beginning of the year from January to July. That is far too many. I think that it was Jamie Greene who said 70,000 cancellations since the SNP took office. That is really not good enough for our island communities. That goes on into the autumn. Alistair Allan talked about the issues with USD and Harris more recently. There is no capacity in the fleet to deal with those issues. There is no additional ferry that can be brought in. We asked the Scottish Government and have been asking them for a number of years to look at an additional vessel, especially for the Allopole Lewis route over the summer. We told us that they could not find one. My office googled and found one within five minutes, but the Scottish Government could not negotiate the terms of the lease. Presiding Officer, I just need to emphasise that our islands deserve better. Those are lifeline routes, and people depend on them for their way of life. Presiding Officer, I will try to respond as much as I can to the points that have been raised. First of all, I do not want to spend too much time responding to Jamie Greene, because I have made my points clear about the nature of his speech and the attack on the Government. I echo the points that were made by John Finnie and others that a bit of self-awareness in terms of the age of austerity that we are currently living through, which has been directed, whether he likes it or not, by the UK Government. I stand by the point that we believe there are real terms cuts to the Scottish Government budget, which has an implication for resources. Notwithstanding that, as Kenny Gibson has ably pointed out, we have increased spending on ferries in the face of that austerity, so a thing about its self-awareness in the part that the Tories would be welcome. In terms of Colin Smith's response, I did want to intervene to try and be constructive, and there is a lot in what Colin Smith and Jackie Baillie and Rhoda Grant are saying in the debate that I can agree with. We do have some issues around a 30-year industrial strategy, a shipbuilding strategy. It is an idea of sympathy with it, but in the context of year-to-year budgets, it is having to be realistic about how we can plan for that. However, looking at demand, looking at a longer term, we absolutely have sympathy with those points, and so hopefully we can find some common ground on those issues in the future. I would say that, to Mr Smith, although there was much that I agreed with, perhaps I could have done more to recognise the positive impact of the Government's investment in RET rather than being entirely negative, but there is perhaps room for agreement with Labour in some aspects of what it is proposing. In terms of the Green Party, I am disappointed that Mr Finnie and his colleagues look likely not to support our amendment today, principally because there are specific references in our amendment to working with the trade unions in terms of the vessel replacement programme and also working with communities in those respects. By approving our amendment today, Parliament would commit us to an action plan, but I clearly will want to take forward an action plan that I should give credit to Mr Russell and Mr Gibson. If I briefly finish his point, Mr Russell and Mr Gibson, who Mr Gibson and I met recently with representatives of Islay and Arran communities and, indeed, out of that meeting and previous discussions, we have agreed to take forward an action plan. Mr Gibson takes some credit for those immediate actions, but Mr Finnie wants to do it. John Finnie. Thank you. I am grateful for the minister for taking that intervention. Would the minister acknowledge that I raised this issue some months ago with Mr Yousif? This is the first reference back to me that appears in paper form today. I welcome the involvement of the trade unions in procurement, but that is the first mention back. It is very welcome. Paul Healhouse. I thank Mr Finnie for his support in that respect. I recognise his long-standing interest in ferries issues, so I do not mean to diminish that in any way that it should perform, and I am keen to work with Mr Finnie and other colleagues across the chamber as we try to address the concerns about ferry service, both in Clyde and Hebrides, and if issues arise in the northern services as well. Mr Finnie was correct also to identify and write to do so that there had been a period—I think that it was Ronald Robertson of high transit referenced the point—that there had been no major vessels commission or entering service between 2001 and 2011 in his evidence to committee. Of course, there were some minor vessels that were commissioned to that period, but major vessels are obviously very significant to resilience in the network. I do suspect that the Green Party and the Conservative Party do not agree on the overall strategy for ferries going forward. I hope that Mr Finnie, if he does not support us today, can find in his heart to support us as we go forward. However, in terms of Mike Rumble's points on ferry services and the northern aisle services, I apologise that I did not get the chance to take an intervention from Mr Scott, but I am happy to engage with Mr Scott hereafter. In response to Mr Rumble's, we have recently started procurement of the northern aisle ferry service contracts. As part of that, Transport Scotland officials are actively engaging with local stakeholders, including the trade unions and local community representatives, on future service specification. That will look to try to build in sufficient flexibility to vary the contract in response to current and future demand. I hope that that offers some hope to Mr Rumble's that we are heading in the right direction there. Jamie Halcro Johnston started well. I agreed with much of what he said in the first part of his speech. I am afraid that he lost me about halfway through when he started to change tack. We are, just to make the point that I have tried to intervene about, road equivalent tariff. We are prevented at this moment of time implementing road equivalent tariff in the northern aisles because there has been a challenge to the European Commission to get on a state-aid case by a private operator on the penalty services. We are unable to implement that. He probably knows that. Perhaps it is unfair of him to accuse us of withholding RET from the northern aisles, because he knows that we cannot do that while there is a state-aid complaint being made by another operator. We have to respect that process and wait the outcome of that. I think that I am short of time, Presiding Officer, so I will end it there. I have been listening carefully to all the points that have been made by members across the debate. I maintain the point that I make in the amendment that I want to work with those across the chamber and look forward to doing so, Presiding Officer. I call Donald Cameron to close the debate for up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am belatedly on behalf of these benches, welcome Mr Wheelhouse to his role as ferries minister in his first debate on ferries. I am not sure how he is feeling about that after this debate, but while many of the problems may not have occurred on his watch, that does not, in my view, absolve his Government and his party. I welcome the opportunity to close this debate, not least because, alongside digital connectivity, which we debated yesterday, if there is one issue that exercises any MSP for the Highlands and Islands, then it is transport and ferries in particular. Since my election to this Parliament, the issue of ferry services has dominated my mailbox. It is a sorry saga of delays, cancellations and insufficient capacity of one island community, sometimes pitted against another on account of the best boats being shunted around the network. Let us pause and remind ourselves, as others have done, what that means for our constituents in their everyday lives. People are sometimes simply unable to get to work, people are unable to get to important hospital appointments, people are unable to run their businesses effectively. That is the harsh reality. Given the immense importance in connecting people from the islands to the mainland and in enabling tourism, it is axiomatic that a reliable and robust ferry network is critical in delivering economic prosperity to some of our most fragile areas. However, as we have heard today from members across the chamber, the Government's stewardship of Scotland's ferry network has been, in my view, shambolic. Jamie Greene noted that since the SNP came to power in 2007, more than 70,000 ferry services have been either cancelled or delayed. To put that in context, in the near 12 years that the SNP has been in power, that equates to more than 120 delayed or cancelled sailings a week. That is unacceptable, Presiding Officer. I know that ScotRail does not have its problems to seek, but we would not accept that kind of performance on our rail network. Of course, there are next and no alternatives when it comes to a cancelled ferry. Ministers have long been aware of those problems. Back in 2010, CalMac, in its submission to that year's ferry review, it stated to the Government that a new ferry would have to be built every year just to stand still. Audit Scotland noted it too, but for the SNP it is not considered a priority. A few months ago, I asked when the Scottish Government's own expert ferry group who was supposed to meet up to three times a year last met. The answer when it came was that it turned out that the group has not met at all since last December, almost a year ago. Nothing could typify this Government's approach to ferries. They are always a problem for another day. I will be brief. I would ask Mr Cameron to reflect the fact that, in response, we suggest that we are establishing another meeting of the ferry group, and we also have 20 other groups that we meet to discuss ferry operations. I am glad to hear it, but it still reflects that ferries, as I have said, are a problem for another day. They are not a priority. Of those 70,000 journeys that I mentioned, the vast majority have affected the Highlands and Islands. In Oben, there have been more than 10,000 cancellations or delays to the services that operate from there, from Stornoway to Ullipool, 3,400, from Rothsy to Weems Bay, more than 7,000. That last route provides a good example of how costly disruption can be. When the rest and be thankful pass was closed a few weeks ago, the only practical way that farmers on Bute could transport livestock on HGV lorries was to Weems Bay, but that terminal was closed. The solution is a diversion to Gyrwch, but Gyrwch cannot land HGV lorries. Result, Bute's farmers were prevented from transporting livestock. Or I could point to residents in Dynun who are exasperated about the future of the Dynun to Gyrwch ferry route. I know that they are having their AGM next week, and I know that the Government has been invited to attend that. I hope that it does, because it wants a fair tender process that will result in a robust and reliable ferry service on that route. I readily acknowledge that it cannot eliminate ferry cancellations and delays in its entirety. We face some of the harshest weather and, ultimately, passenger safety must come first. However, not all those delays and cancellations have been due to weather, and many could have been prevented. On numerous occasions, we have heard it across the chamber. We hear about vessels breaking down and consequent delays and cancellations following suit, for example, the recent breakdown of the MV Hebrides in September. We all know that because SACCAMAC does not have enough backup vessels to deal with breakdowns. The ageing fleet adds further problems into the mix, and, as Audit Scotland noted, vessel maintenance costs increased by 136 per cent due to a larger and increasingly older fleet. Others have spoken about the fact that there is inflexibility in our ferry fleet, where some boats cannot learn land in certain ports. Briefly, some of the other points that have been made across the chamber, Jamie Halcro Johnston referred to the Northern Isles and the issues there, and Edward Mountain and Rhoda Grant spoke about the many personal stories of individuals who have trouble with travelling on ferries. John Finnie spoke about the cost to the taxpayer of the Stonaway-Ullipaw boat. Most important, Kenny Gibson—I rarely quote Kenny Gibson with approval in the chamber—said that the Scottish Government must take ownership, while here and here, to that, yes, indeed, it must take ownership. We want to stand up for the many local communities who rely on ferry services. They are not just a mode of transport, they are a lifeline. That word has been overused, but it remains important—a lifeline. It should not be mentioned in a motion. It is a fact. They are intrinsic to the people of our islands, to their lives, to their wellbeing and to their existence. The SNP Government has presided over a decade of failure, and there was little evidence that they are willing to acknowledge that or work to improve it. If they fail to act, they will be letting down communities across the west and north of Scotland, and we will not let that stand. We will fight for those communities and we will fight for the future of our ferry network. That concludes the debate on concern over the state of Scotland's ferry services, and we will move on to the next item of business.