Ardrossan Harbour
To ask the Scottish Government when it expects to conclude negotiations with Peel Ports regarding the purchase of Ardrossan harbour. (S6T-02475)
As I confirmed last week on Arran to the Ardrossan harbour task force, Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd is leading on commercial discussions with Peel Ports Group, and those discussions are currently on-going. Those are confidential commercial discussions and I cannot comment on the detail at this point. There is a requirement to agree heads of terms between Peel Ports Group and CMAL before any change of ownership can be confirmed. Following a fair and negotiated settlement and due diligence undertaken by CMAL on behalf of Scottish ministers, the potential transaction could be finalised by summer 2025, depending on the progress in those discussions.
It has now been almost 10 years since the redevelopment of Ardrossan harbour was proposed, with no discernible progress since then. Eventually, the cabinet secretary announced nine weeks ago that the Scottish Government would explore options to buy the harbour from the private owner, Peel Ports. Since then, much to the frustration of my constituents, there has been little word from Scottish ministers on when such discussions will conclude. Again, we have heard no firm date, nor have we even heard who is undertaking the discussions on the Government’s behalf. In the interests of transparency, can the cabinet secretary say who is leading negotiations for the Scottish Government and how often it has met Peel Ports since 18 February?
As I indicated in my original answer, CMAL is leading on commercial discussions with Peel Ports Group. I had the opportunity to talk to the Isle of Arran ferry committee last week and gave it that update. I was also in Ardrossan, where I met campaigners who have been heavily involved in the issue, and part of my discussions with them was relaying the importance of securing the purchase. Upon the purchase of the harbour, we can provide the investments and, importantly, control the level of investment, which I am sure the member understands.
I was also able to reiterate to both groups that the Scottish Government is committed to Ardrossan harbour. In our interim support for the harbour, I have also made it clear, following representations from Kenny Gibson, the constituency MP and the Isle of Arran ferry committee, that the return of the MV Caledonian Isles will see it operating out of Ardrossan. There will be a two-port solution to make sure that the Ardrossan harbour is used for as long as possible.
Many Arran and Ardrossan constituents are understandably upset and angry at the Scottish Government’s apparent lack of urgency in concluding the discussions with regard to the harbour’s redevelopment and taking it forward. Central Ardrossan is one of Scotland’s five poorest communities, where 44 per cent of households survive on benefits. Some 165 jobs directly depend on the harbour, and they are in limbo. Meanwhile, vulnerable, elderly Arran residents have been transferred to the mainland as care workers struggle to travel to and from Ardrossan.
The outline business plans for harbour redevelopment have been imminent, it seems, for years. When will they finally and definitively be published? When does the cabinet secretary envisage that a contract for the redevelopment of Ardrossan harbour will go out to tender?
A tender would clearly be far preferable should the harbour come under the ownership of the Scottish Government. The works that CMAL is preparing, both in the short, medium and long term, can then be developed and published. I recognise the desire from the local community to understand when works on Ardrossan harbour will begin, what those works will be and how they will be scheduled, but such a timeline can be reasonably established and published only on the actual purchase and transfer of control of the port.
I do not want to take part in anything that would compromise our commercial and confidential negotiations. It is important that the Scottish Government and the funders from our taxpayer base understand that we should get the best value from that. There is a risk that making the commitments that, quite understandably, Kenny Gibson wants me to make in the here and now to speed up things would compromise negotiations and compromise best value for the public purse.
He makes a key point about the regeneration that will be required around Ardrossan, regardless of what happens with the harbour and when. The harbour is central to that—I understand that. However, part of my discussions with the save Ardrossan harbour campaign, the Isle of Arran ferry committee and the task force was about the importance—once we have set out the short, medium and long-term plans for the harbour—of the regeneration of that vitally important area, which I know that Kenny Gibson is passionate about.
Time is of the essence. Residents of Ardrossan have been messed about by the Scottish National Party ever since the ferry fiasco started, a decade ago, with one resident saying:
“Why anybody would commission a ferry which doesn’t fit the harbour for the route it is meant for is crazy.”
Given the limitations that were outlined in the cabinet secretary’s answers, can she guarantee that the negotiations will deliver for the residents of Arran and Ardrossan? How much money has she allocated to upgrade Ardrossan harbour in the event of a successful purchase?
I point out that the Conservatives refused to support the budget, which contains funding for Ardrossan harbour. [Interruption.]
Thank you, members.
I also point out that, if the member does not understand what has happened at the harbour, perhaps she might want to look into its history—regrettably, it is a long history. The harbour is owned by a private company. [Interruption.] The original plans for it were to be developed by the private company Peel Ports and North Ayrshire Council.
What do I see as the best option? The best option is to get the level of investment that I think is required. I am sure that the member also understands the United Kingdom subsidy control measures that were brought in by the then Conservative UK Government. If she understands that and the basis of business commercial negotiations, she will understand that there must be space and time for successful negotiations to take place. Her line of questioning does not help with that.
I met campaigners from Ardrossan in my office in Largs just before the recess. They made it clear that, although any move to end the impasse over Ardrossan harbour is welcome, businesses on Ardrossan high street are going bust now. They are losing footfall, traffic and money.
Will the cabinet secretary speak with Cabinet colleagues and establish a small business fund that would help those small local businesses in Ardrossan, to tide them over in the meantime? They simply cannot wait for footfall to return while the port is redeveloped.
I understand the member’s request. It can and should be considered at the appropriate time. He might have heard me say that I was committed, because of the intervention by Kenny Gibson and by the Isle of Arran ferry committee, to ensuring that Ardrossan harbour operates as long as possible. Obviously, the MV Caledonian Isles, when it returns to sailing from Ardrossan, will help in the short term.
I will make an important point about regeneration. The member is aware that the works that will be required at Ardrossan harbour will cause disruption. He is quite right to identify that that will need active and on-going discussion with local businesses as to what happens in that period.
Sex Offenders (Name Changes)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that 506 sex offenders in Scotland have changed their name in the past two years. (S6T-02471)
There are not 506 individuals who have changed their name; there are 506 instances in which any form of registered name was changed or updated.
When a name is changed, that change is made across multiple records, so such a change would involve a change to, for example, registered email address, registered gym membership card et cetera. Therefore, multiple instances of a reported change could be attributed to a smaller number of individuals who might have changed some detail of their name.
Sex offender notification requirements apply to the individual irrespective of the name that they use, and, when a registered sex offender changes their name, they must let the police know within three days or they will breach their notification requirements.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but I am not sure that querying the figures in a freedom of information response will reassure the public.
Disappointingly, what I did not hear in that response was a commitment to legislate to ensure that the system is absolutely watertight. The cabinet secretary must surely see that it is open to abuse. For years, the Scottish Conservatives have been calling on the Government to implement changes with regard to sex offenders changing their name that are similar to the changes that are now proposed in the United Kingdom Crime and Policing Bill. Will the cabinet secretary commit to bringing similar legislation to Scotland before the next election?
I assure Mr Kerr that my officials are in regular contact with Police Scotland and officials across the UK in relation to all matters around public protection. The UK Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently before the UK Parliament, includes proposals around sex offender name changes, and I assure Parliament that the Scottish ministers are actively considering extending those measures to Scotland.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that assurance, but people will also be worried about whether, in addition to the up to 506 sex offenders who we know have changed their name, there are others who have done so but have failed to report or register that change. What steps has the cabinet secretary taken since the Scottish Conservatives revealed the scale of the problem to find out who those people are and to ensure that those who have changed their name in the past two years are being monitored properly?
There are very strict requirements for registered sex offenders. I am sure that all members will appreciate and accept that Police Scotland takes its obligations in that regard very seriously.
There is an important matter to consider here, particularly with regard to the Crime and Policing Bill. I am very mindful of the need, at times, for consistency across these small isles and across borders, particularly on sensitive matters of policing. I reassure the member and Parliament that I have written to the UK Government and that I am following an internal process within the Scottish Government on this very important matter. As soon as I am able to, I will inform Parliament of our next steps on it.
Perhaps the cabinet secretary can clarify something. Liam Kerr was quite explicit in his question that the FOI information that he received said that 506 sex offenders had changed their names. The cabinet secretary seemed to suggest that something else is the case, so I ask for clarity on the veracity of the information that Liam Kerr received.
I also ask the cabinet secretary how many of the 506 name changes were followed by breaches of licence conditions, reoffending or disappearance from police data.
I have answered a similar question to that in the chamber before; if my memory serves me correctly, it might have been a question from Murdo Fraser.
I repeat that, when a name is changed, that change is made across multiple records. As I said earlier, that would involve a change being made to gym membership, registered email addresses and so on. One name change can be made on multiple records, so the number of changes will be attributed to a smaller number of individuals.
The information that Mr Liam Kerr and Mr Stephen Kerr refer to relates, I believe, to a freedom of information response from Police Scotland. We can try to clarify that information further, and I would be happy to write to both Mr Kerrs further on the matter.
I am sorry, but I do not think that the cabinet secretary should be offering to write to members. She has come to the chamber today to respond to a lodged question that she knows is about 506 sex offenders changing their names. If she can confidently stand up and say that that number does not reflect 506 individuals but is the number of changes that have been made, can she tell us how many sex offenders have changed their names? That is a simple question that she must be able to answer, given what she has previously said.
It is of deep regret to me that members seem incapable of listening. I repeat once again that, on the information that is at my disposal from Police Scotland, there are not 506 individuals—
So how many are there?
Presiding Officer, I am not putting up with this.
This is just appalling.
I am not putting up with this.
Mr Ross, when you have put a question, please be courteous and listen to the response quietly. [Interruption.]
Ach, John—that was the First Minister, Presiding Officer.
I am sorry—I did not hear what was going on there, but I ask members to behave in accordance with our standing orders.
Mr Kerr asked a reasonable question, but it is of deep regret to me that members in this Parliament behave like children when we are discussing the most serious matters of public protection and the risks that are presented to members of our community as a result of sex offending.
I have gone to lengths that are right and proper in my engagement with the past and current UK Governments in and around how we can co-operate on these matters in a pragmatic way, bearing in mind that we all share an island, irrespective of our different legal systems. Let me repeat, for accuracy’s sake, that there are not 506 individuals who have changed their names.
How many are there?
Mr Ross, I will not ask again that you refrain from shouting from your seat when you have not been called to speak. That is the last time that I will ask you.
Perhaps it would be better if I just referred the member to the earlier three answers that I have already given on this matter. I repeat my commitment to both Mr Kerrs to write to them further.
That concludes topical questions.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You have been very critical of those of us who have spoken from a sedentary position, and I accept that. However, can you confirm from the chair that, despite being asked on three occasions, the cabinet secretary has not been able to inform the Parliament of how many sex offenders have changed their name? It is a basic question that we are not getting an answer to.
That is not a point of order. [Interruption.] Mr Ross, that is not a point of order.
It is not an answer, either.
Mr Ross, would you like to leave the chamber? If you wish to remain here, you must adhere to our standing orders.
That concludes topical questions.
Previous
Motion of Condolence