Official Report 960KB pdf
Harland & Wolff (Methil and Arnish Yards)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what discussions it has had with Harland & Wolff regarding the future of its construction yards at Methil and Arnish. (S6T-02099)
On 2 September, I met Russell Downs, the interim executive chairman, alongside the local management of both yards. We discussed the on-going refinancing of the business, the options for a sale and the business’s engagement with the workforce. My officials and the enterprise agencies remain in regular contact with the business and with unions. All our collective effort is focused on achieving the best outcome for the business and its workforce. The Scottish sites continue to operate, as was communicated by the business yesterday.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that update. I urge her to continue the talks, particularly with the trade unions, because this is not the first time that those who are employed at the Methil yard have faced this level of uncertainty. The yards have a skilled and dedicated workforce, including a number of apprentices, and the hope and the aim is that they will continue working under new ownership. What reassurances can the cabinet secretary offer to the workers? What is the Government doing to ensure that such opportunities continue to exist in the longer term?
The member is absolutely right to praise the workforce and those workers’ skills. I will continue to engage with the trade unions, as she recommends. We are also engaging with the United Kingdom Government—I have had a number of conversations with various secretaries of state about Harland & Wolff—and, as I said, I have also had conversations with the business.
The member will know that, ultimately, it is up to the management team and investors in the business to work through the commercial options in order to provide a sustainable future for the organisation and the workforce. The business is fully aware of the interests and scrutiny of both Governments, and the management team is working closely with us and the UK Government.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments about working with the UK Government. If the yards are to have a future, it is important that the Governments continue to work together.
The Methil yard has huge potential and is of strategic importance to Scotland delivering on its net zero ambitions, but it faces limitations in relation to infrastructure investment. The yard is owned by Scottish Enterprise. Has the Government carried out an evaluation of the yard and of what could be done to help it to be more viable and compete on an international basis?
The member is right that the sites are owned by the enterprise agencies, which have been working closely with the business and with Rothschild & Co, the financial advisers, to analyse the most sustainable opportunities for the business. The enterprise agencies are looking at how they can support the ambition and communicate it effectively to potential new parties.
I reassure the member that we see our industrial assets as creating significant opportunities across Scotland. Some decisions need to be made on a commercial basis first, but there is no lack of engagement, interest and willingness in ensuring that there is a sustainable future for both sites in Scotland.
I take heed of the cabinet secretary’s comments. As has been said, Scottish Enterprise owns the Methil yard and its facilities. In my dealings with the site’s management and with the unions, they have emphasised that the yard and its facilities are key to any future investment. What could we do to attract future buyers and investment in the site?
David Torrance has set out a number of important issues. The business must take a number of commercial decisions, none of which will be taken lightly. The board has reprioritised activities to protect the business’s core operations, which include the Arnish yard and the Methil yard, which is in David Torrance’s constituency. As I outlined, we are in regular contact with trade unions on the issues concerning the business, and we are keen to understand where we can add value and how we can support the business.
The Deputy First Minister might be aware that—similar to the situation with Harland & Wolff—Bakkafrost announced last week that it was making 74 staff redundant at its processing facilities in Marybank and Arnish, near Stornoway. What action, if any, is the Scottish Government taking to support affected staff? Has it had any engagement with Bakkafrost on this sad development?
I ask the Deputy First Minister to respond to the points that are relevant to the substantive question.
I am not sure that that question is relevant to Harland & Wolff, but we are engaging extensively with the company. In particular, Mairi Gougeon has engaged with it, including in the Faroe Islands. We want to ensure that the facilities have a long-term future.
Where the question does relate to Harland & Wolff is that we all want the depopulation in our islands to be reversed, which will happen through well-paid secure jobs being provided. The member mentioned one such employer, and Harland & Wolff is another.
This is the second time in three years that workers at the Methil yard have faced a very uncertain future. The yard at Methil was previously on a long list for a portion of the £500 million investment in Scotland’s offshore wind supply chain. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the Government has explored all options to lock Methil yard into that supply chain for the future? Can she also give a commitment that any investments that come through the green freeport will not undermine the case for investment at Methil but will work alongside it to strengthen the supply chain that we need to grow in the east of Scotland?
On the site at Methil, the business is continuing to seek commercial options. There have been no specific formal requests from the business to Government at this point, but we will continue that dialogue. There are opportunities for a number of sites in Scotland. The member referenced the strategic investment of up to £500 million to anchor the offshore wind supply chain in Scotland. I certainly see no risk from the green freeport to Methil—I see only that it will increase the commercial opportunities that might be available to support the site.
From Grangemouth to Alexander Dennis to Harland & Wolff, the past week has demonstrated in brutal terms that the energy transition will not necessarily be smooth. In particular, on Harland & Wolff, it seems that the demand that we know will be there is not there yet. What is the Scottish Government considering in terms of smoothing order books so that we can build the capacity that we know that we will need in fabrication and engineering to build the infrastructure that is required for renewable energy sources?
That is certainly on-going. The member is right that the whole point of the transition is that things are done sequentially to support the workforce as far as possible and to create new opportunities. That is the approach that we are taking to all the sites that the member referenced.
On Harland & Wolff, we are conscious that there are economic opportunities out there, and we are keen to support the yard in securing those commercial opportunities. Scottish Government support is available through the enterprise agencies and the £500 million for developing the supply chain. There is also the Scottish offshore wind energy council’s strategic investment model. There are schemes out there. The point that the business has made to the UK Government and to us is that the request must come from the business, based on what works for it. We will continue to engage with trade unions to make sure that we are fully sighted on what would support the workforce.
Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent independent inquiry, carried out by Vicky Ling, into the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and the subsequent resignation of its chief executive, Mridul Wadhwa. (S6T-02095)
The needs and safety of survivors of rape and sexual assault must be the utmost priority of support services. As the report makes clear, it is totally unacceptable that survivors were let down by a core failure of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre to deliver services to national service standards. The report highlights important areas where action is needed to ensure that survivors can confidently continue to access support from Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. I welcome the intention of the centre’s board to implement all the recommendations.
The employment decisions of ERCC are a matter for its board, and I cannot comment on individual cases. I hope that the board and the interim chief executive who is now in place can be given the space to continue to rebuild the service and confidence in it.
I thank the minister for that response, but the truth is that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and Rape Crisis Scotland have been reliant on Scottish Government funding in recent years. The Scottish Government dismissed those with gender critical beliefs, and that attitude has filtered down to organisations that depend on its funding. That has led to the extraordinary situation in which Rape Crisis Scotland and others came out in support of the Scottish National Party’s gender self-identification bill and condemned critics for spreading apparent misinformation.
If Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and Rape Crisis Scotland are to change their culture, so, too, must the Scottish Government. Will the minister commit to a complete reset of the Government’s priorities, so that women’s safety, rather than gender ideology, takes precedence when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls?
Women’s safety is paramount for the Scottish Government, and we continue to fund Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre to support survivors of rape and sexual assault, as we do rape crisis centres across the country, because such funding is needed for the vital work to support survivors. The Scottish Government can discontinue funding if those funds are not used in line with the conditions of the grant being met.
Vicky Ling’s report highlights the positive impact of the services that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre provides to a significant number of survivors who have used the services. Our fund manager, Inspiring Scotland, will continue to work with ERCC’s board as it implements the necessary changes that are recommended by Vicky Ling’s report.
The independent report was scathing. It stated that ERCC
“did not put survivors first”.
That shocking revelation forced the chief executive officer to resign over the weekend, but she had previously said that survivors should be challenged on their prejudices. ERCC’s culture of ostracising those with gender critical beliefs was enabled by Nicola Sturgeon, who described concerns about gender self-identification as “not valid”. Does the minister agree that it is time for the leadership of ERCC to step down and, indeed, to allow for an entire change of culture, so should the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, who championed the very policies that have been at the centre of this entire caustic situation?
It is not for us, as the Scottish Government, to comment on individual organisations’ employment and retention processes. The board of Rape Crisis Scotland is responsible for decisions about the employment of its staff.
The Government cannot continue to distance itself from the fact that it is pushing a certain type of ideology and from the circumstances that have arisen from that. The Government must provide some leadership. I would like to know what action it will take immediately to investigate why oversight by Rape Crisis Scotland did not prevent a male from being employed across various roles that have single-sex exemptions. That led to egregious erosions of safeguarding—it allowed a now-convicted sex offender to self-identify for his access to rape trauma services and led to the service’s failure to support vulnerable women. The Government must show some leadership on the issue.
The Scottish Government strongly supports the separate and single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act 2010, which allow trans people to be excluded when that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It is service providers’ responsibility to interpret and comply with the 2010 act.
We would expect the wishes of survivors about the sex of their support worker to be followed. I am pleased that the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre board has publicly stated that single-sex provision has been reintroduced at the centre.
In response to the ERCC report, Rape Crisis Scotland stated that it had been concerned for 16 months that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre
“did not provide dedicated women only spaces, as required by the National Service Standards, while declaring to RCS that they were adhering to the standards.”
What can the minister do to improve adherence to and enforceability of those standards? Will she confirm that all the other 16 member rape crisis centres are currently providing dedicated women-only spaces?
The report highlighted the fact that many service users received an excellent service, although some were significantly let down by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.
I have lost track of the question, I am afraid. [Interruption.]
As I stated in my previous answers, the Government’s role was in funding. Through that legitimate route, we will continue to work with Inspiring Scotland to make sure that all the conditions are met.
We recognise that this is a damning report on an organisation that should be providing a vital service to women during an incredibly difficult time. Female survivors should be treated with respect and should be able to choose what is best for them. All referrals to the service have now been stopped, which leaves survivors with no help. Where will those women be directed to now? What action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that women and girls in Edinburgh and Lothian can access this vital service?
Rape Crisis Scotland continues to provide a service. Mr Choudhury is correct in saying that no external referrals are being taken, but women can self-refer.
I reiterate that violence against women is a fundamental violation of human rights and is totally unacceptable. We must root that out and tackle the toxic masculinity and gender inequality that lead to violent harassment, misogyny and abuse against women. We should stand against it and call it out when we see it.
During consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, I lodged amendments to ensure that those who were seeking healthcare such as cervical smears could request to be treated by biologically female staff. Unfortunately, the Scottish National Party Government rejected the amendments.
I have spoken to many survivors of male violence, many of whom have expressed the importance of there being female counsellors and staff at rape crisis centres. Does the minister not believe that female victims of rape and sexual assault ought to know the biological sex of those who are offering them support?
I am very sympathetic to the needs of survivors, and I believe that they should have their needs put before anything else. I think that I have stated that quite clearly.
I remind the Parliament that the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was not, in fact, enacted.
That concludes topical question time. I will allow a moment or two for front benchers to organise themselves.
Previous
Business Motion