Seòmar agus comataidhean

Given the woefully inadequate spring statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the face of a fierce cost of living hike, does the First Minister agree that for people on fixed incomes such as pensioners, many of whom became housebound in these Covid years, heating costs will be devastating, with the United Kingdom state pension being the worst in Europe? Does she also agree that Anas Sarwar, for example, must wake up to the position that, without power over pensions and other benefits, mitigation has its limitations?

I want to make my points.

During that debate, politicians from all sides of the house appeared to agree that fire and rehire tactics are morally wrong, but Conservative MPs pushed back against the need for legislation, saying that updated Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service guidance to businesses should be enough to tackle the problem. Well, it is not.

The UK Government then voted down a closure motion, which would have allowed the house to vote for or against the bill, and proceeded to filibuster until it ran out of time. Finally, Conservative MP Peter Bone said:

“It seems to me that this is about something for next year. There are 17 Bills to be debated today. Why was it urgent to have this statement in private Members’ time rather than Government time?”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 22 October 2021; Vol 701, c 1065.]

I hope that he lives to rue those words.

I will conclude by reminding Tory members of the ferry contract for ferries that were not or could not be delivered. Let us not forget the actions of the gormless Grayling, previous UK transport minister, who cancelled the ferry contracts that were signed to ensure that critical imports could reach the UK in the event of a no-deal Brexit, costing taxpayers a further £50 million. Contracts worth £89 million with Brittany Ferries and DFDS to secure ferry space for vital goods across the channel were cancelled. According to National Audit Office estimates in February, the cost of compensation to ferry operators for termination would be up to £56 million. As the grand finale, Chris Grayling paid £1 million to consultants for a £14 million contract with Seaborne Freight, but the contract was scrapped after it emerged that Seaborne Freight did not build ferries, ships or boats.

My final comment about Grayling is that, in 2018, he amended UK legislation so that the secretary of state did not have to be notified of mass redundancies on ships that are registered overseas. I wonder why. It could be that, thanks to Grayling, P&O is off the legal hook. With that kind of track record, he will soon be knighted and in the House of Lords, where all the failed ministers go.

This late in the debate, I will focus on the actions of P&O and fire-and-rehire practices, which are referenced in the SNP amendment and have been referenced by some Labour contributors.

I first pay tribute to my colleague Emma Harper, who would have been taking part in the debate, but her energies are used elsewhere as she stands shoulder to shoulder with sacked workers at Cairnryan. She has rightly said that P&O services are essential for the local economy and are critical for many businesses in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. The services support jobs not only in the port but in local businesses that support the ferry routes.

Incidentally, the local member of Parliament, Alister Jack—reputedly Scotland’s man in the Cabinet—has not had much of an impact on the subject. He does not have much of an impact, generally speaking.

Before the recent events, how many of us knew that DP World, a logistics company based in Dubai, owns P&O? The company sacked 800 workers online and frogmarched them off vessels to be replaced by cut-price agency workers, ruthlessly casting aside the workers who tried to keep the company afloat during the pandemic.

The thing is that P&O insists that it did not break the law when it fired those workers without notice or consultation. Rightly, in Scotland and at UK level, politicians have challenged the company’s claim that laws were not broken with that shock sacking. If it turns out that the company has not broken the law, that raises questions about UK employment law.

The defence may be that all vessels that were involved were registered outside the UK and that the relevant authorities in each case had been notified. However, under UK employment law, workers’ rights are based on the jurisdiction from which they work—in other words, because they work in the UK, they are covered by UK law. On that basis, as there was no consultation, the law may have been broken. However, at the end of the day, even if that is the case, that would be a pyrrhic victory for employees, as the legal dispute would be drawn out while they remain jobless yet with on-going financial commitments such as mortgages and overdrafts, and with the possibility of legal costs.

There has already been a response from CEO Peter Hebblethwaite to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Kwasi Kwarteng, dated 22 March saying that the

“very clear statutory obligation in the particular circumstances that applied was for each company to notify the competent authority of the state where the vessel is registered.”

He wrote that notification had been made to the relevant authorities on 17 March, and that no offence had been committed regarding notification to the secretary of state. I will come on to why that is relevant later.

There has been a lot of hand wringing by Grant Shapps and others, but they are in the very Tory Government that, just last year, blocked an attempt to pass a law that would deter employers from using fire-and-rehire tactics to bully workers into lower-paid jobs. I support Labour colleagues on that matter.

On introducing the Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill to its second reading in the House of Commons, Labour’s Barry Gardiner said that his bill

“would require businesses to meaningfully consult with their workers and worker representatives when such restructuring is required”.

In shorthand, that would mean no fire-and-rehire tactics.

It goes without saying—although I will say it—that businesses that depend directly on tourists, or indirectly, as suppliers or through tourist footfall, have had a tough time over the past two years. Thank goodness for Government support here and through the UK furlough scheme, which let at least some of those businesses keep ticking.

Covid also had an upside, as folk travelled close to home rather than take flight—literally. Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale boast much to attract, from the National Mining Museum in Newtongrange to the small independent museum in Melrose, the Trimontium, which narrates the story of the nearby Roman settlement and the spread of the Romans across Scotland—they even reached the Isle of Skye; I do not know whether they reached Orkney, but I will check that out for you, Presiding Officer.

Then there is Abbotsford, the eclectic home of Sir Walter Scott, also near Melrose. Incidentally, in the armoury there, the shield for the Scott family is on the wall right next to the family shield for the Grahame family—and that is Grahame with an E; members can read into that what they like.

Galashiels is now the location of the great tapestry of Scotland and—something that I like a bit better—a wonderful statue of the charismatic Robert Coltart, who devised Coulter’s candy and the famous jingle,

“Ally bally, ally bally bee”,

which I think was the first advertising jingle ever to be developed. I think that that is more interesting.

Most of those attractions can be reached by travelling along the Borders railway. This is where I repeat my call for integrated ticketing for train journeys and bus day tickets, with discounted entry to tourist attractions.

For someone of an energetic frame of mind, there is ample scope to cycle many of the dedicated routes or to have a go at mountain biking on the trails at Innerleithen and Glentress, which have been mentioned—although they are only partially open just now, due to storm damage. Borders Buses lets people know—literally, as it says on the buses, “The bus you can take your bike on”—that they can take their bikes when they travel.

For the hyperactive, the Pentland hills are there for the taking, although—mind—people should treat them thar hills and the livestock with respect.

For someone who likes people gazing, taking a seat outside a local pub or hotel on Peebles High Street or Penicuik precinct and taking their time over a glass of wine or coffee—or perhaps both—will get them going.

At this time of year, someone who wants to admire rhododendrons and azaleas—that is my gig—should take a ramble through Dawyck or Kailzie gardens. After that, they could pamper themselves and deal with their aches and pains at nearby, award-winning Stobo castle.

That was my little tour of the tourist attractions in the Borders. My constituency is a hidden gem, a stone’s throw—or a short bus or train journey—from here, our capital city. I invite all members to visit some of the attractions that I mentioned, to see for themselves. I especially invite the minister, because I want to educate him about the benefits of the Borders and Midlothian.

My hope is that the staycations of recent months become a habit. Whether we are talking about a day out or a weekend away, all the wee local shops, businesses, hotels, pubs and B and Bs benefit. With this week’s weather, what more could we ask? Sunburn is not good for our skin, we will not lose our luggage and we will be doing our bit for the local economy.

I, too, refer to the report, which says:

“The framework is also designed to ensure that the needs of people with learning disabilities and their families drive the local commissioning strategy”.

That is quite official language. For all the families who are on the front line, what—in plain speak—does that mean and how will it be achieved?

It is fatal to turn around and look at me, because I will intervene.

I invite the minister to liaise with the Minister for Transport to pursue integrated ticketing for trains, buses and local attractions. I am going to bang on about that until something happens. While he and his Cabinet colleagues are at it, I invite them to trial that across the Borders to see how good it is.

The First Minister will be aware of the serious adverse events review and subsequent NHS Lothian action plan that was published recently following the death of my constituent Amanda Cox on 10 December 2018 shortly after the birth of her son, Murray, when she became disorientated but it took seven hours to find her in a stairwell, dying from a brain haemorrhage.

Does the First Minister agree that, although the recommendations in the action plan for better hospital closed-circuit television, better signage and the observation of headaches in pregnant women—it is disgraceful that such recommendations need to be made—came more than three years too late for my constituents, every national health service board in Scotland should not only be aware of them but act on them so that nothing similar happens again? That would give the family some very slight comfort after that dreadful tragedy.

Accused, but not guilty I plead.

To ask the Scottish Government what representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government regarding reducing VAT on fuel to help mitigate increases in the cost of living for households in Scotland. (S6O-00873)

I have a suggestion for the cabinet secretary to take to that meeting. Without disclosing my workings—I will not give members the headache that I gave myself—I have calculated that if we take fuel costs at £1.63 per litre at the pump, a 50-litre tank costs nearly £82. Of that, nearly £29 is fuel duty, with a further £13 or so in VAT, which is levied on the raw cost plus the fuel duty, doubling the pump price. That is £42 in tax that goes straight to the Treasury.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the elephant in the room is fuel duty and that, in these extreme times, it would not be a bad idea for the Treasury to waive fuel duty for a period? That would save our public services—the national health service, the police and so on—from inflationary fuel costs, it would reduce transport costs, which are inflating fuel prices, and it would reduce our increasing energy bills, both commercial and domestic.

I note the proposal for welcome hubs and, if necessary, temporary accommodation. I suggest that the Scottish Government could start by using premises that are in its ownership for welcome hubs and accommodation. For example, in Edinburgh, we have Holyrood palace a stone’s throw from the Parliament. It is, I understand, owned by the Scottish Government, has lots of space—more than 200 rooms—and is largely underoccupied.