The next item of business is a debate on motion 9379, in the name of Liam McArthur, on finance. May I ask those who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons. I call on Liam McArthur to speak to you and move the motion for up to seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Over time, most Governments are eventually overwhelmed by the way that they are. Mr McArthur, could you move your microphone nearer to you? Thank you, that's better. Over time, most Governments are eventually overwhelmed by the weight of the promises they make. Initially, faced with public anger on any issue, Ministers will happily blame the previous Administration before going on to faithfully promise that everything will be different from now on. Of course, this SMP Government has raised the bar on blaming others so that there's just don't get much slope here, but it has also racked up its fair share of promises too over the past decade in trying at times to be all things through all people in pursuit of independence. From day one, SMP Ministers have carpeted the country in love bombing. The length and breadth of Scotland has popped up here, there and everywhere, offering assurances that they will sort things out. To be clear, politicians getting out and about is a good thing, particularly so for Ministers at most at risk of ivory tower syndrome. Over time, the promises, the nods and winks offered to find favour for political ends, start to mount up. Individually, they may be deliverable, collectively they are not. The more that carries on, the more it speaks to a cynicism at the heart of Government, playing one interest off against the other, kicking the can down the road, redefining each commitment as the reckoning approaches. This is not acceptable. It is treating people and communities with contempt and it is where Parliament has a responsibility to stand firm. I appreciate that most colleagues do not live and breathe lifeline ferry services like myself in Tavish Scott. Likewise, I recognise that future funding of internal ferry services in Orkney and Shetland is less of an immediate concern to those representing communities facing their own pressures and challenges. However, I believe that the issue that we are debating today does speak to a wider interest that we all share. I need to shine a light on the promises made by Ministers to communities across Scotland and for this Parliament to hold them accountable. Kate Forbes. As an MSP who also represents lifeline services, can I just ask the member who is delivering cheaper fares for ferry routes to Orkney and Shetland next year and who has delivered it for the Western Isles? Liam McArthur. Absolutely. After 10 years of making the case where those fares were introduced on the west coast to the competitive disadvantage and with no good reason not in the Northern Isles. However, I believe that the issue that we are debating today does speak to a wider interest. On that basis, I hope that Parliament will support the motion today and reject Humza Yousaf's request in his amendment to be allowed to keep kicking the can down the road for years to come. The attitude by this Government is entirely cynical. It is holding communities to ransom over lifeline links, as Jamie Halcro Johnston's amendment rightly suggests. In truth, some of our most fragile communities rely utterly on the connections provided by Orkney ferries. For around 15 per cent of Orkney's population, including the island of Sandy, where I had the privilege of growing up, those ferries are the primary means of transporting people and freight while enabling access to essential services including health and education. It is no exaggeration to say that without those services or in the event of them having to be scaled back, some communities in my constituency simply could not survive. Of course, the finance secretary knows this. As a former transport minister, he is well aware of how crucial those specific ferries services are. He also knows that the current model of provision is unsustainable. He and Mr Yousaf have heard it time and again from myself and Tavish Scott. They have heard it directly, repeatedly and in detail from the local councils in Orkney and Shetland over the years. Not so long ago, the message appeared to be getting through. Faced with a backlash in the islands against centralisation and demands from Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles for more decision-making powers, the Scottish Government was forced to act. It was in June 2014 that the former First Minister swept into Orkney with all due pomp and ceremony to declare his Government, quote, "...understands the significant financial challenges that can fall on individual local authorities and is committed to the principle of fair funding in the provision of ferries and ferry infrastructure." It was as if there was a referendum pending in islanders to placate. In hindsight, we should have had Mr Salmond carve it into one of our standing stones, yet, even after the referendum was lost, the promise held. On 26 November 2014, in the chamber, the then transport minister, Derek Mackay, assured me, that the provision of transport services should not place a disproportionate financial burden on any council, particularly with reference to revenue support for ferry services and ferry replacement costs for internal ferry services. Are those services placing a disproportionate financial burden on Orkney and Shetland Island councils? Emphatically, yes, Deputy Presiding Officer. Running the internal ferry service in Orkney accounts for 14 per cent of the council's total annual budget. Unlike similar services elsewhere in Scotland, however, the Government only funds 40 per cent of those costs. This leaves Orkney in debt to the tune of £5.5 million a year. For Scotland's smallest council, already facing having to deal with £12 million of budget shortfall over the next four years, the consequences are potentially horrendous—deep cuts to health, care, education and other core services, including lifeline ferries. Some argue that Orkney OIC should simply dip deeper into its reserves, yet the same ask is not made of others whose lifeline ferry services are funded by Government. Moreover, imagine the reaction, for example, if Highlands Council were invited to raid their common good fund to run the rail services north of Inverness. Those are not Rolls-Royce ferry services in Orkney far from it. The Government's own ferries plan from 2012 showed that, on cost, frequency and capacity, the island communities in Orkney are being shortchanged. That is not a criticism of Orkney ferries. With ministers signing off further pay increases for CalMac employees, the current disparity with counterparts in Orkney ferries is set to grow bigger. As a consequence, industrial action on Orkney's internal ferry network is now a distinct possibility, threatening the island communities who depend on the services and underscoring the urgency of getting that sorted. That is why the Government must now honour the commitment that Derek Mackay made in 2014, repeated by Humza Yousaf in March last year, to deliver a fair ferry funding for the Northern Isles. There is an opportunity in the budget next week to do just that. Through direct funding— Members, please, last minute. It is an opportunity that Derek Mackay must take if he is to have any credibility. If he does not, if he continues to hold people in Orkney and Shetland to ransom, any trust in him, the transport minister or this Government will have been lost. Ministers must be held accountable for the promises that they make and Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that this happens. I move and urge Parliament to support the motion in my name. I call Humza Yousaf to speak to and move amendment 9379.2 up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do welcome this debate, Presiding Officer. It's a good chance to put on record all of the good things and great things that we're doing for our Scottish islands, including, of course, Orkney and Shetland. Liam McArthur started what I thought was a generally ungracious and unfair contribution to this Parliament, which is unlike him talking about promises. I find it difficult to take a lecture on keeping promises from the Lib Dems, but nonetheless I will soldier on. The Government's current priority and its manifesto commitment, its promise, was to reduce ferry fares and services between the Scottish mainland to Orkney and Shetland, in line with, as I say, our 2016 manifesto commitment. On 22 August this year, I announced that ferry fares to Orkney and Shetland will be significantly reduced in the first half of 2018. I know that that is something that Liam McArthur and his colleagues will welcome. Reductions will be delivered on ferry services between the mainland and northern isles in the first half of 2018 through the roll-out of road equivalent tariff and an RET variant, which will see for the record foot passenger fares cut by an average of more than 40 per cent, while car fares will be reduced by an average of more than 30 per cent in the Peltland Firth routes and on the routes from Aberdeen to Kirkwall and Lerwick. In addition, we are also taking forward real, tangible, practical measures in our islands bill, committed to improving outcomes for everyone who lives and works on our islands. Evidence of that can be found in the suite of commitments contained within that bill. Turning to the issue at hand, the Scottish Government has treated local government very fairly despite the cuts to the Scottish budget from the UK Government. Taking this year's local government finance settlement, not just now, I will make some progress. Taking this year's local government finance settlement plus the additional £160 million announced on 2 February and other sources of support available through the potential increase in council tax income and the support through health and social care integration, the overall increase in spending power to support local authority services amounts to more than £400 million or £3.9 in cash terms. I will make some progress on that. The member is absolutely right that there are specific and special needs for those who live on islands. When it comes to islands and funding, there is a special islands need allowance. The Auckland Islands Council receives £5.8 million, and the Shetland Islands Council receives £5.7 million. I give way to Graham Simpson. I couldn't have a laughing when you said... Excuse me, Mr Simpson, your microphone is not on.  Oh, you've done. You're fine. I couldn't help laughing when the minister said that local government had been treated fairly, but the revenue budget for local government has gone down year on year. There have been 30,000 job cuts across local government since this government has been in power, and COSLA says they need £540 million just to stand still. How is that being treated fairly? He shouldn't be laughing because it's his party colleagues down in Westminster that are reducing the resource budget over the next two years by £500 million, so he shouldn't be laughing. Let's stick to the issue at hand, if I can. Let me stress that Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council are, of course, currently responsible for their internal ferry services. We have never pledged to automatically assume the responsibility for those services. Of course, only as of last week, Orkney Islands Council has changed their position. Instead of asking for an additional top-up, it is now, in my understanding, requesting a transfer of responsibility, a decision that Tavish Scott seems to have described as puzzling. However, the discussions that we have had with Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council have been extremely constructive. They are not my words, but in the meeting that Derek Mackay and I chaired along with the leaders of Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council, the leader of Shetland Islands Council, Cecil Smith, says that they were the most positive meetings that he has been in—an extremely constructive. James Dawkins, the leader of Orkney Islands Council, also described those meetings as extremely positive. In terms of the Scottish Government's responsibility, he talks about the ferry's plan, and he is incorrect in mischaracterising the commitments that the Government has made. The Government has promised to engage constructively on the transfer of responsibilities, and I will quote the exact paragraphs from the ferry's plan. On page 12, paragraph 27, it says that agreement would also have to be reached about the levels of capital fund that would form part of any transfer of infrastructure, taking account of its current condition and future investment requirement. On page 52, it says that, ultimately, however, it may not always be agreed that a transfer of responsibility goes ahead. In addition, the Scottish Government cannot guarantee to be in a position to provide any additional funding. The commitment is absolutely there to engage in meaningful dialogue and meaningful conversation. In my last few seconds, let me just say that there is a window of opportunity for the Liberal Democrat MSPs to either engage positively in the budget, to have a discussion on this very important issue, to side with their constituents or play party politics. I will be looking forward to listening to what they have to say in the next eight days. In the meantime, the Government will continue to move forward with our ambitious plans for the islands, not just for the ferry services that, of course, will be fun, but for the range of other initiatives that we are taking forward for the wellbeing of our island communities. I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue here in the chamber today. From my home on the mainland of Orkney, I can watch the hoi head, the ferry that serves the islands of Hoi and Flotter, travel across the waters as a scap of flow, carrying people to and from the islands every day and in all weathers. For those of us who live on one of Scotland's islands communities, ferries are our lifeline, and that is why, to many of us in Orkney and Shetland, the discussion around ferry funding strikes at the heart of fairness. It was the Scottish Government themselves who, in their own words, made a commitment to fair ferry funding. This commitment by implication suggests that the Scottish Government recognised that the existing situation is unfair. Members from several of the opposition parties have challenged the Scottish Government on numerous occasions to outline their plans, but no responses have been forthcoming. We come to the chamber today looking for clarity on a pledge made by the Scottish Government themselves. Liam McArthur's motion and his comments today encapsulate that well, pointing to just some of the occasions where commitments to fair ferry funding have been made and repeated, and those pledges are long-standing. Above all in this debate—no, I'm afraid I won't—there's been ample opportunity for you to make the position known. Above all in this debate is the councils and the people of Orkney and Shetland who deserve clarity on this issue. That is what I've been seeking from ministers throughout this process. We know action on the commitment has, if moving at all, been moving at a snail's pace. More than that, we barely know what the commitment means or how the Scottish Government intends to deliver it. To give some impression of the Scottish Government's approach in recent months, when I raised it with Cabinet Secretary Fergus Ewing in the chamber on 2 November, he instead chose to answer a question about the ferries that run between the mainland of Scotland and the northern isles. Today's Scottish Government amendment seeks to do the same—to distract attention away from the issue at hand, the need for clarity on fair ferry funding of the isles of the internal ferries by trying to focus on, again, the same ferries that run between the mainland of Scotland and the northern isles. I then sought clarity from the transport minister himself, writing to Home to Youth on 6 November. I received an acknowledgement on 16 November. Today, on 6 December, I'm still waiting a substantive reply. Those who live on the islands that make up the northern isles deserve reliable and sustainable ferry services in the future. They are vital lifeline connections, serving communities where often transport alternatives are not available or where they are, they're prohibitively expensive. The economic and social benefits that the internal ferries bring to the islands cannot be overstated. The farmer or crofter who uses the ferry to take his projects to the mart, the company that relies on the ferry to export their products and services to their customers, the GP who uses ferries to reach patients or connected practices, the elderly person who is frequently crossing to access medical services or whose care is travelled to provide services to those who look after on the islands, children and young people who travel daily to access secondary education, their college or apprenticeships. That is not simply about transport. It's about ensuring that our islands have vibrant and diverse communities, communities with a long-term future. Over the years, we have heard much from the Scottish Government about the sustainability of rural... I'm just in my last bit. Over the years, we have heard much from the Scottish Government about the sustainability of rural and remote communities. Yet here, where we can put action behind their rhetoric, we get only delay and distraction. Orkney and Shetland are a long way from Edinburgh, and their interests are often seen drowned out against the cacophony of larger and louder and closer mainland local authorities. But all of the island authorities have done the right thing. They have worked together. They have worked with the opposition parties and those of us who represent them. They have lobbied government. They have made their case. Excuse me, Mr Halcro Johnston, could we have less of the double acts on the front bench, please? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. They have made their case and they have brought it to the attention of this Parliament and to this Government, aided by those of us from the islands who recognise only too well the importance of their case. They deserve to be heard and they and the people of Orkney and Shetland, they represent, deserve to be told what the Scottish Government's plans are on the issue that is of vital importance to their island's future. Now is the opportunity for the Scottish Government to provide clarity on how it intends to meet its own commitments to fair ferry funding, to recognise the potentially devastating impact of their obtruscation on this issue and to accept the vital lifeline nature of Orkney and Shetland's internal ferries. Deputy Presiding Officer, I move the amendment in my name. I call Neil Bibby up to five minutes, please, Mr Bibby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scottish Labour welcomed this debate from the Liberal Democrats. I also declare that I am a member of the United Trade Union and a member of the RMT parliamentary group. This debate today is about two important and related issues, the way in which the Scottish Government funds local government and the way in which inter-island ferry services in Orkney and Shetland are funded and provided. I can just say in relation to local government finance. I used to have said that local government had been fairly funded and he commented that people had laughed, but I think that that was a laughable statement because since 2011 1.5 billion pounds has been stripped out of council budgets and right now councils across Scotland are preparing for another round of cuts still to come. 1.4 billion pounds of efficiency savings have already had to be found by local authorities since 2012, resulting in the loss of 15,000 full-time equivalent staff across Scotland. If Mr Mason wants to tell us that council is being fairly funded on, you go, Mr Mason. John Mason. If you think that local councils should have 1.5 billion pounds more, should that come off the health service? I don't know if Mr Mason has been paying attention over the past couple of years. The Scottish Labour has been making the argument for using the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue to invest in local services. He should really keep up with what COSLA has said, because COSLA has said that it has already been mentioned that it needs 545 million pounds just to stand still. That should come as no surprise to John Mason and to the Scottish Government, because they have been warned time and time again that their cuts to councils cannot be sustained. For Orkney and Shetland, there are substantial additional costs and liabilities associated with providing inter-Island ferry services. I think that the Scottish Government does not believe that Orkney and Shetland should put a disadvantage. That is part of the Liberal Democrat motion today, because cuts to local councils are cuts to local communities. I will take an intervention from that. Is Neil Bibby aware that the negotiations on local government finance are taking in partnership with local government? Whatever you think about the quantum, distribution is a matter of joint agreement between the Scottish Government and COSLA. The distribution methodology is only changed if I have an approach from COSLA. Is Neil Bibby suggesting that I make a unilateral decision rather than a traditional manner of engaging with local government and distribution? Neil Bibby is saying that councils should be properly funded and fairly funded. I am saying that Orkney and Shetland should be fairly funded for the lifeline ferry services that they have. We have warned and you have to take cognisance of that, cabinet secretary, because Orkney and Shetland island councils are warning us that, unless they receive additional funds, lifeline ferry services could be cut and affected by the cuts. Orkney ferries carries 320,000 passengers on 20,000 sailings alone last year. That is more than Serco, Northlink and Trentlin ferries combined. Orkney and Shetland councils are, of course, in a unique position. There are ferries all across Scotland, publicly owned through Transport Scotland services, which attract significantly more funding. We know from Orkney and Shetland that, in 2016-17, there was a shortfall of £2.8 million, £380,000 over their ferry service budget. On top of that, nine vessels in Orkney ferries fleet have a combined age of 258 years, an average age of nearly 29 years. An ageing fleet that will require repairs and replacement is extremely difficult to see how that will be done without an impact on services. There are also issues regarding pay. A pay dispute between Orkney ferries and the recognised trade unions is RMT Nautilus Unite, after members rejected the latest employer's pay offer. A dispute that should be resolved but is looking unlikely to be resolved while working on the current budget. The transport minister is well aware of all those issues. He has made much of the announcement on road equivalent tariff, but he is yet to address the huge capital cost for new vessels and repairs, which are currently leaving Orkney and Shetland island councils in Limbo. The SNP amendment today provides no clarity other than to keep on talking. Providing the additional funding that is estimated to be £11.2 million per year needed to run an appropriate ferry service may of course only be a short-term solution to this issue. As the RMT trade union point out, serious consideration must be given to the inclusion of interrail ferry services and a redrawn contract for Northern Isles ferry services from October 2019, and that option should be assessed as part of the Scottish Government's on-going ferry law review. The question remains for the Scottish Government when will they come good on the promises that they have made? We do not seem to have a firm commitment or answer from Humza Yousaf and we do not seem to have one from Derek Mackay either. Today we have no decision from the Government on funding of a major lifeline for the people of Orkney and Shetland. The people of Orkney and Shetland need and deserve certainty about the future financing of these ferry services promises have been made. It is time to deliver, and that is why Scottish Labour will support the motion in the name of Liam McArthur. We now move to the open debate. The four-minute speeches were really tight for time, so I am going to be particularly in our case this afternoon. I call Mike Rumbles to be followed by Kate Forbes. The motion that we are debating today is a very straightforward one, one that I would hope every MSP in this chamber should be able to support at decision time this afternoon. Why should I be suggesting that every MSP should be supporting it? Because all it's doing is asking the Scottish Government and the finance minister, Derek Mackay in particular, to honour the commitments already made to Orkney and Shetland Islanders. I'm glad to see Derek Mackay in the chamber. It's good to see him here. He knows that when he was transport minister he answered a parliamentary question from my colleague Liam McArthur on 26 November when he said that provision of transport services should not place a disproportionate financial burden on any council, particularly with reference to revenue support for ferry services. However, as I understand it, and there is an opportunity now to correct me if I'm wrong, Mr Mackay has appeared to abandon that commitment as he does not intend including the funding in next week's budget. I recently visited Orkney with the other members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. We were there as part of the process of taking stage 1 evidence on the Scottish Government's islands bill. There is much to be said for the islands bill, but there is a real concern among islanders that the bill, if it becomes an active Parliament, may not lead to any real change. It may just be warm words. However, the Scottish Government could have signalled right now that it does intend to promote real change for island life by supporting this motion this afternoon. Only if you're going to say you're going to be supporting the motion and giving them the money. Is that going to be the case? If I'm happy to do that, but obviously if it's not going to you can sit down. However, judging by the Scottish Government's amendment, it would seem that they want to wriggle out of their commitments, but this wriggle room will not work. Their amendment deserves to be defeated. It should be seen for what it is. A poor attempt to pull the wool. The Government hasn't even got the courage to attempt to change the Liberal Democrat motion. They know that if they were in the right, I said before, I'm more than happy to take an intervention if the Government will give Orkney and Shetland the money it has promised them. They would have tried, as I said, Deputy Presiding Officer. They obviously don't want to give Orkney and Shetland the money. They don't want to honour the commitments they've made. They've got the opportunity now and I've invited them several times to do so and they won't do it. They know that if they were in the right, they would have tried to change our motion this afternoon. They're simply trying to dodge the issue yet again and we've seen it on the front bench by trying to swamp the motion with other issues.  It's quite plain that there's no intervention being taken. Minister, there is no wriggle room here. If the Scottish Parliament does support the motion this afternoon, then the obvious next step for the Government would be to include a financial provision in next week's budget to honour the pledges it has already made. Words must be followed by action. If the Scottish Government continues to talk the talk but not walk the walk, then it isn't just the people of the Orkney and Shetland islands that will notice. Deputy Presiding Officer, that will have repercussions throughout Scotland. I call Kate Forbes, followed by Tom Mason. As this was headlined a finance debate for good measure, I remind the chamber that I'm the PLO to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance who I see is in the chamber. It's clearly a debate of significant interest to him if anybody would just let him intervene. As an MSP for island communities, I share much of the sentiment of Liam McArthur's motion and I agree with the points he made about our constituents' dependence on lifeline routes and the representative of islands too. I firmly believe that rural residents should have access to equitably priced products and services. That's why I'm speaking in this debate and I'll happily thank anybody who brings forward debates on matters of importance to the people of the islands and islands. Those principles of equity and fair funding are especially acute when it comes to transport, as a ferry fare is the extra cost that's always tacked on to the holiday, the education trip, the hospital visit, the shopping trip or spending time with family and friends. Evidently, the Scottish Government gets that too, as the minister is honouring the promise in our manifesto in 2016 to reduce ferry fares on services to Orkney and Shetland, as it has already done for my west coast constituents. In advance of the roll-out of road equivalent tariff in early 2018, which is really not far away at all, and an RET variant, I can say unequivocally that RET has made a tremendous difference to my island-based constituents as ferry fares have plummeted. It will no doubt make just as much of a difference to Mr MacArthur and Mr Scott's constituents. That is good news. It was the SNP who delivered RET on the west coast routes and it will be the SNP who slashes fares on the northern islands routes. That, as a promise, delivered. Incidentally—and with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance here—incidentally, it is budget time again, which isn't just my favourite time of the year but also an opportunity for every party in this chamber. Clearly and understandably, internal ferry fares continue to be of concern to the people of Orkney and Shetland. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance is in the house and he is listening. With the obvious caveat that internal ferries is a matter for the council, there is no better time than the week before the Scottish Government publishes its budget to talk about spending priorities. The more support for the Highlands and Islands, the better. I agree with Liam MacArthur, but I have a question for him. If the money for internal ferry fares was in the budget, would he vote for it? Or will he vote against it like he and his colleagues voted against extra funding for education in last year's budget and funding for broadband and for house building and for further empowerment of island communities? Every party in this chamber has the opportunity to deliver actual, real, tangible change by working with the Cabinet Secretary on the budget. Ultimately, the question is this for the Liberal Democrats and for every other party in this chamber that has spoken on this motion. When it comes to internal ferry fares in the budget, will it be party or constituency? Tom Mason, followed by Rhoda Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. For many thousands of people living in our islands and coastal communities, ferry transportation represents a vitally important resource that is necessary for day-to-day living. From going to work or school to improving economic activity through the movement of goods and services and all the way to delivering public services such as policing and healthcare, ferries are the utmost relevance when discussing improvement to the lives of those in island and rural communities. This is not to mention the massive boost that many thousands of tourists provide each year to local economies, so the benefit of these services is therefore clear to see. I was pleased to read in the Audit Scotland's report this October that of the ferry services that they considered after accounting for adverse weather, some 99.7 per cent of scheduled sailings last year took place and that 99.6 per cent of those sailings were on time. Better than ScotRail. I would like to pay tribute to all those who would work tirelessly to maintain these high-performance standards throughout the year. The finance secretary is committed to what he describes as fair funding. Whilst this is admiral, I am not alone in today recognising the question to be asked in relation to the implementation of that commitment. Indeed, the joint statement from the leaders of Orkney and Shetland Islands Council has explained that without an appropriate resolution there is almost certainly that the ferry services will have to be reduced. It cannot be overstated how great the consequences of this would be for our island communities. We need much more in the way of clarity from the Scottish Government as to how it would indeed intend to address this issue, to prevent a situation where the sustainability service provision is called into question. I also note the disparity in funding mechanism between the ferry transport provided in Western Isles and that provided by North Scotland. Our services in Orkney and Shetland are designated as non-subsidised ferry services, but there are equivalents in the west that are subsidised by Transport Scotland without any need for local authority. We cannot say that the situation is close to fair. The finance secretary needs to clearly set out his approach to this as it is a fundamental issue when determining if the funding settlement is truly fair. The Scottish Government has been very grateful to all those who rely on the services across Scotland. Unfortunately, until now, the silence when the Scottish Government has been deafening its communities and their lifelines have served better. The delaying tactics have been seen all too often by ministers. No. They deserve their fair access to the opportunities that our economy can provide, and the working with our island councillors to address those sustainability issues would be a good first step. In closing, the commitment that is made by the Scottish Government for the funding of the ferry transportations is welcome, however, I am concerned that delivery has certainly not matched rhetoric. I hope that the finance secretary will take on board the legitimate issues that both Parliament and stakeholders have identified, and in turn, with a solution that properly satisfies all stakeholders. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for bringing forward the issue in their debating time. It is not a new issue that I have written to the Scottish Government on many occasions over the years about this looming problem, and it is getting more and more serious as time passes. It is therefore incredibly cynical that the Scottish Government now responds by telling MSPs to back the Government's budget, and they will see what they will do thereafter. If that is not plain party politics, I really do not know what is. There is nothing I have heard to date that leads me to believe that the Scottish budget will be anything other than catastrophic for these islands and indeed for the rest of Scotland. So much for the pledge that the provision of transport services should not place a disproportionate financial burden on any council, particularly with reference to revenue support for ferry services. It is the same Government that is taking an islands bill through the Parliament to ensure that they are not disadvantaged, but on the other hand refused to treat them equally. The Scottish Government-owned ferry company provides inter-island services for most other council areas. It provides them between the Ergyll Islands and the mainland, and it also provides inter-island services in the western isles. A very, very quick intervention. Hamza Yousaf. Will she acknowledge that a Gylem Bute fund isla to Dura, Sale, Isdale and Lismore services, Highland Council fund several internal ferries, including the Corrin ferry and the SPT fund the good at Kilcregins? Ocney and Shetland Islands are not the only councils to fund internal ferry services. Will she acknowledge that? Rhoda Grant. If he had been listening to me, I said most, not all. It is quite clear that an awful lot of inter-island ferry services are funded by the Government. The ferries in service in Orkney and Shetland are old and long-time past replacement. Frankly, they are not fit for purpose. Some of them do not even have adequate disability access, yet the Scottish Government refused to help. Had they intervened earlier, we would now not have such an urgent problem. Surely it makes sense that, if SEMA provides ferries to others, they could provide ferries to Orkney and Shetland Islands Council. At the very least, it would provide economies of scale and the ability to share ferries when there was a problem. In other areas, CalMac also run ferry services. Again, that is something that could be replicated through all our islands. The wages paid to staff in these inter-island ferry services are also out of line with those paid for similar jobs elsewhere. They are significantly less than those paid by CalMac to their staff for providing a similar service. I understand that there is real concern that ferry workers will take industrial action because of that. No one disputes that they are underpaid compared with others doing a similar job. However, the councils tell us that they do not have the resources to pay them fairly. The Scottish Government and their amendment talk about the services between Orkney, Shetland and the mainland, but there are also concerns with them regarding freight costs and the capacity for freight from the northern isles to the mainland. While passenger fares have been reduced, other costs are rising, including freight and access to berths on those ferries. In reality, that is a tax on every islander and goods coming from the islands as well. If this Government is committed to supporting island communities, it must take the lead and provide them with a level playing field and redress the disadvantage that living on an island creates. Cuts and local government funding from the Scottish Government is making the situation worse. Therefore, rather than posturing it, it would be much more fitting for the Scottish Government to honour their previous promises and find a way of providing high quality inter-island ferry services for those people living on those islands. Failure to do so would show that this Government has no interest in island proofing or supporting our islands other than warm words and little action. The Scottish Government now needs to honour its commitment to the northern isles. I declare an interest as a member of the R&T parliamentary group, and I thank Lib Dem colleagues for bringing this motion forward today. I thank various people for briefings, not least my hard-working green councillor and colleague, Councillor Steve Sankey. We do not live in an equal world to treat people equally and fairly. It does not mean that we treat them the same, but in this particular issue we neither have equality or similarity. The Scottish Game Party will be supporting this motion at decision time tonight. I do not know what the maritime equivalent of the long grass is, minister, but that is how the Scottish Government motion appears to us. There are a number of ferry issues as a representative of the Highlands and Islands. There is the issue of Cormferry, which has been alluded to. There is the issue of the Cocregan ferry, which has been alluded to. There is the aspirations of people in Dunoon regard in the ferry. Of course, the big difference in each of those is that none of those routes are lifeline routes. Similarly, we will be supporting the Conservative amendment that talks about the recognition that those routes are vital lifeline lengths, which preside considerable social and economic benefits to the communities that they serve. I think that that cannot be lost. Both islands councils want what is best, and I have met the conveners and leaders. I know that there is consideration of the transfer to Transport Scotland. That is not a position that the Scottish Green Party would like to see, if that is what ultimately turns out and is adequately funded. We want to see local operation of those ferries by the local authorities. That is the appropriate way forward. For not the first time, I am going to talk about £6 billion expenditure in two roads, £3 quarters of a billion expenditure in relation to the M8. Government is about decisions, about choices and politics about choices. I have to say that in relation to the dualling of the A9 and the A96, you enjoy the support of all the other parties in the Parliament. You do not enjoy my support, as you know, minister. I want to compare and contrast those options there, because if you take the situation of travel between our capital city and our largest city, the number of rail options that there are there, if you consider that the bus service enjoys subsidy as well, and we have to start thinking in terms of the subsidy that is on the road yet, if you are on Hoi or Halsy trying to go to the mainland of your islands, it is your local authority that is paying for that. I know that someone suggested that Highland Council utilised the common good fund for road building. I am taking it that was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion. There is not parity, there is not equality. Of course it would be childish not to acknowledge what has been said in relation to the northern isles to the mainland ferries. That is acknowledged, but it is about choices. I think that there are factors that are important as well here, and my colleague Rhoda Grant alluded to one of them. That is the suitability of the fleet. I have to say that I find it distinctly embarrassing that something that would not be considered DDA compliant is being operated in the public sector in Scotland. On the basis of understanding that those are the responsibilities of Orkney Island Council, does it not find it strange to attack the Scottish Government for the fact that Orkney Island Council has not built a new ferry since 1996? John Finnie? There is a lot of talk about the building of military vessels here. There are lots of options for the construction of ferries. The Rassie ferry is an option that I thought might be, which is plugged in and uses renewable energy at night. I am told that that is unsuitable for the waters between the islands there, and I better get the terminology right. Hydro hybrids and hydrogen for the Orkney ones from the turbines in Westry, Rousey and Shappansea. Now, what better than that? There are decisions to be made, and I hope that decisions will meet the entire interests and reasonable aspirations of the residents of the Northern Isles. The last of the open debate contributions is John Mason. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I would like to state clearly how important I consider islands to be to Scotland. I am a mainland MSP, in fact I am a city MSP, but I do love the islands. I think that we as a country, and that includes the central belt of Scotland, have a responsibility for ensuring that our islands and other remote areas are in a healthy state. I believe that this is not just a duty or responsibility, but we all benefit from having so many islands, they are a key part of our heritage as a country and they are part of what defines us as a nation. I think that it is a little bit sneaky of the Lib Dems calling this a finance debate and then focusing on internal island ferry services. We should maybe just then call every debate a finance debate on the grounds that there will always be a financial angle to anything and everything that we discuss in here. However, I personally am certainly happy to take part in this debate, firstly because I have a personal interest in islands and I think that I have used the internal island ferries if memory serves me correctly. Secondly, as Mike Rumbles suggested, because the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, of which I am also a member, has been visiting islands in recent months and has in fact visited Orkney as well. To touch on the islands bill, I think that we have to be clear that the legislation does not promise new funding for islands in the bill, but perhaps its main aim is to make us all think more about islands and take them into consideration whatever subject we are considering, be that education, sport, transport or whatever. From that point of view, I think that today's debate fits in well with the bill. The formal wording of raising the islands profile is called an island impact assessment, although that is somewhat loosely called island proofing. I feel that the term island proofing is not a good description, firstly because it might suggest that somehow it is bad to be in an island and you have got to be protected from something and it in many ways ignores the benefits of island life, which islands have been clear to tell us about. Secondly, because I am afraid that the extra costs and the remoteness from some services are never going to be fully removed or proofed against. The bill is fairly high level but on the islands that we have visited I think that on every occasion transport was the main topic that was raised with us by local folk and in Orkney that certainly included the inter-island services. Clearly it is more expensive to live in islands when travel to the mainland is taken into account and that extra cost increases again for those living in an island other than the mainland. One example for us was a youngster from Rousey who wanted to play rugby in Kirkwall but had to stay there overnight on bed and breakfast because the ferries did not run late enough. I have to say that when I was in Shetland I found the ferry fares pretty inexpensive and in fact I was amazed at how little it cost me to get a boat to Fair Isle. However I do accept that the ferry will only be part of the journey and if you need to other transport as well the costs start to mount up. I can thank Orkney Islands Council specifically for their briefing and I think that we all do accept that there are financial challenges facing the islands on ferries. The suggestion that the Scottish Government could take over all ferry services in return for a reduced grant to the island councils I think should be considered as it certainly does sound attractive on the surface. However the downside might be a loss of local control and for example we heard in Mull the dissatisfaction that there was no direct ferry from Mull to Coll and Tyree despite their close proximity so that lack of local control would need to be considered. I also think that it is important that when we are thinking about other ferries in Scotland other than CalMac and Northlink that we do remember other council and independently run ferries, some of which I would suggest our lifeline, because if money is going to be found for Orkney and Shetland I think it has to be found for some of these other services as well. Finally if finance, island authorities do get more per head than mainland authorities do and that is rightly so. If there is to be extra money found for island ferries it has to come from somewhere and we have not had a lot of money. We now move to the closing speeches and I call James Kelly. No more than four minutes please. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer and I welcome the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's Lib Dem debate and indeed speak in support of the Lib Dem motion. I think that this is quite a straightforward debate in many ways. The Lib Dems have brought forward a demand essentially that the Government honour previously made commitments about fair funding of ferry services to Orkney and Shetland and the parliamentary debate should be about does Parliament accept that demand or not. It is a reasonable demand. The reason that has been brought forward is that as many of the speakers across all sides have acknowledged ferries play an important part in the country, not only in terms of links between mainland and islands and between islands but also supporting local people and supporting local economies. As Neil Bibby pointed out in terms of Orkney there are 20,000 sailings per year carrying 320,000 passengers so that shows you the scale of the operation in Orkney alone. In terms of the Government's response, as Rhoda Grant noted, it has been particularly disappointing. What we have had in terms of the amendment is a wonder round a whole lot of other issues. It is as if Humza Yousaf, the minister, is additioning for a role at the Scottish storytelling centre as he tells a number of stories rather than dealing with the actual issue that the Lib Dems have brought to the chamber. There is an element of disappointment in that. It also shows in the sense of how the Government goes about doing business. As Liam McArthur said, this goes back to June 2014 when the former First Minister visited the islands and made this promise. Derek Mackay I appreciate James Kelly taking the intervention. Who does James Kelly think is better positioned to say what was the content of those meetings? The politicians trying to score cheap political points are the member of the Government who is in the room every step of the way in negotiating the position with the council leaders who are very satisfied with the progress that they are making. The question that they have is why are their constituency members letting them down? James Kelly The facts of the matter are that, Mr Mackay, as Liam McArthur outlined, on two occasions, first of all by Alex Salmond in June 2014 and then followed up later in the year by himself, he committed to a fair funding settlement. If he is challenging that, go on your feet and tell us that he did not commit to a fair funding settlement. Derek Mackay What was committed to in the island's prospectus and then subsequent manifestos on which this Government was elected, specifically on inter-island ferries, that we would engage in meaningful negotiations with the councils, which is exactly what we have done? The question that they are asking is why are their constituency members not supporting such an insertion in the budget that they would support if that was put in the budget? James Kelly There is only one thing to say, Deputy Presiding Officer. There you have it, another SNP U-turn. In summing up, Deputy Presiding Officer, as I said at the start, the Lib Dem MSPs have brought forward a simple demand to this chamber. The SNP has simply tried to talk it out. Parliament and the people of the islands deserve better than that. They deserve respect and they deserve a fair funding settlement. Jamie Greene No more than four minutes please. Jamie Greene Deputy Presiding Officer, if you want to be really well known, go and live in the most solitary place on earth, on an island where there are no secrets. I am paraphrasing the words of the famous travel writer Henry Morton. Scotland is a unique part of the UK in that we host the majority of our island communities, communities that contribute to our economy, heritage and culture. Orkin and Shetland Islands are unique in the Scottish landscape too. Secrets there may not be, but there is always one thing that local people will want to talk about and that is ferries. Whilst we celebrate the unique contribution that those communities make to life in Scotland, let's not forget the unique challenges that they face too. The issue of transportation to and from the mainland as well as inter-island travel is about much more than a blether over a bitter in the Bothy. The debate today has illustrated quite well the social and economic importance of island connectivity getting from A2B affects tourism and inward migration, repopulation, access to economic markets. Access to education, health and social care. How we approach ferry infrastructure and funding is arguably the most striking part of how we look after our islands. The motion today is an important one because it asks the Scottish Government for greater transparency on its plans for, in its own words, fair funding. The Scottish Government committed to the principle of fair funding, however very little detail has been given since this position was outlined in their Empowering Scotland's island communities document three years ago. My colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston said that this is not simply about transport either. This is about preservation and indeed the cultivation of these diverse communities on our islands. We don't often talk about the importance of inter-island trading but we know that if it's hampered and if you don't have a way to transport goods and people from one to another, Tom Mason illustrated this well when he talked about the potential impact of reducing inter-island services. In sum, I would like to include constructive contributions from across the chamber in these debates. I reserved a page in my speech for constructive SNP contributions. Members will see that it speaks for itself today. Nothing but excuse after excuse after excuse. I know that, as a member for the west of Scotland region, I know the enormous difficulties that island residents face when services are disrupted, which is why we have added a specific wording to this motion around the fact that these ferry services are lifeline links. It seems like an obvious statement to make, but alongside aviation ferries remain the vital connector. Despite being paramount to the future of our island communities, Scotland ferries are suffering from a severe lack of direction. That was noted by Audit Scotland, who recently said that, to date, there is no Scotland-wide ferries strategy. Transparency is critical here, which is the basis of the Lib Dem motion. The Scottish Government should lay out its proposals both for the future structuring of Scottish ferry routes but also its funding. In 2016, Transport Scotland denounced a stag-style report into internal ferries. To my knowledge, no conclusions have been publicly released. Perhaps the minister can explain why. Island residents, ferry operators, cells and businesses deserve to have clarity over their future so that they can plan ahead. Local authorities, already challenged by budgets, also require certainty. We share OIC and SIC's concerns. The Scottish Government has made public commitments over ferry funding. The Lib Dem motion asked them to set out how it intends to honour those commitments. We support that motion. We await the Government's response with bated breath. I call Hamza Yousaf. No more than five minutes, please, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would stress once again that this Government's priority and promise was, of course, to reduce ferry fares and services between the Scottish mainland to Orkney and Shetland in line with our 2016 manifesto commitment. I know that this might be a novel to a number of parties, including Lib Dems, but we intend to honour our commitments and promises in our manifesto. The fact is exactly what we have done. I will address the central point on the central issue. Time is short. Mike Rumbles said that he can fix this next week. Lib Dem constituency members at Orkney and Shetland said that it is all about finance. Let's make it very clear right now. Can they intervene and tell me that, if money for internal ferries for Orkney and Shetland is in the budget at eight days time, will they support it? Will they support it? They can intervene. Complete and utter silence from the Liberal Democrats who will put their party position ahead of their own constituencies. How interesting is that? Can we stop this right now, Mr Yousaf? If there is to be an intervention, please stand up and offer to make an intervention. Please do not shout from a said entry position. That is telling, Presiding Officer, that they are not standing to intervene. I would give them the chance to put their constituency interests ahead of their own. I am intensely grateful to the minister for giving way. Will he put it in a budget next week? Yes or no? That is not an answer to the question of would he vote for it if it was in the budget? That tells you everything and that will not play down well. I have to say an Orkney hour in Shetland. Let's also talk about some of the other issues that were mentioned. It was somehow suggested that Orkney and Shetland are treated uniquely or unfairly in that sense, not similar to other local authorities. Can I put again on the record once again that it is not only Orkney and Shetland that funds internal ferry services? A Gaelin Bute fund a number of internal ferry services. Highlands and Islands Council also do so. SPT, as we have already heard in the chamber before, is a fund that will fund Gwric and Col Craigham. Let me also address some of the central point here about what was promised and what was committed to. We have a trio of transport ministers in the front bench here. At least a couple of us were involved and have been involved in these discussions as recently of course as just a couple of weeks ago. As we sat in that conversation with the leaders of Orkney, with the leaders of Shetland Island Council, myself and Derek Mackay promised to continue dialogue constructively. The answer back, the response from the leader of Shetland Island Council, as reported in the Shetland news online, any of you can check this, says by Cecil Smith, that I am more optimistic than I have ever been before. He says of Derek Mackay that he took on board and I think that the meeting has been more positive than I could have thought. Therefore, the dialogue is continuing in a constructive manner.  Jamie Greene. I thank the minister for taking an intervention. The minister talks about constructive dialogue. The promise was made in 2014. There were further updates in 2015, 2016 and we are now at the end of 2016, 2017. How long is he going to take this constructive dialogue that he talks about? Hamza Yousaf. Of course, we say very clearly in the Ferries plan that I have quoted to him page 12, page 52, if he wants. Paragraph 4, of course, we are promising constructive dialogue, but ultimately the responsibility for fair funding lies with Orkney or Shetland Council. I don't understand if Jamie Greene can't have a tad bit of shame for standing there and demanding that we spend more while we cut taxes and while he cuts the Scottish Government's budget by £500 million over the next year. We are going to continue with the great initiatives that we are taking forward for island communities, rather than fulfilling our manifesto commitment of reducing ferry fares from the mainland to Orkney and Shetland. Whether it is the islands housing fund that is helping to tackle that issue of depopulation across the islands, whether it is taking forward an historic islands bill, which some members have been rather negative about, which I am surprised about, because it is viewed very positively on the islands where I have travelled. We will continue that constructive dialogue with the leaders of Orkney and Shetland Council. On my final remarks, let me just say to Liam and Tavish once again that they can side with their constituencies and engage positively as the leaders of Orkney and Shetland island council have, or they can choose to play party politics, and I sincerely hope that they choose to engage positively. Our collective ambition in this chamber, no doubt, is to see our islands communities thrive. We will continue to move forward with that ambition. I hope that other political parties will join us in doing so. I call on Tavish Scott to conclude this debate. We take us up to decision time. I couldn't be anything as good at playing party politics as Derek Mackay and Humza Yousaf after that performance. Michael Anderson's guardian angel will land boxes of whitefish at Cullivow in Yale this week. The catch is truck to Lerwick and finishes in French and Spanish markets. Haddock and Cod part of Shetland's annual £300 million of seafood exports is exported because of the entire island ferries. Those ferries carry people, freight and fish to the Shetland mainland, only then can they be ferried to Aberdeen and beyond. To those who ask why is Parliament debating local ferries this afternoon, that is the answer. Government cannot talk about a food and drink strategy unless the products that make up such a strategy, fish, salmon and mussels, can get to the market. That happens because of inter-island ferries. As Liam McArthur has explained, as our motion explains, nationalist ministers have accepted their financial responsibility. What they have not done is pay. Ferries have become part of the usual nationalist game. Who can they find to take the blame? Messrs Mackay and Yousaf have spent the past four years telling island councillors that all will be well. They have layered on the charm and the double speak. We have heard lots this afternoon about never-ending discussions with the island's council, so here is the reality and not the spin that we have had from the front bench. In addition to Liam McArthur's point about the salmon visit in 2014, we then had the November 2014 joint statement agreed by the Minister of Transport, which set a target to have fair funding position resolved by mid 2015. The crux one is this. On 10 March 2016, the leaders of the councils received a letter from the Minister of Transport confirming the understanding of that financial ask, acknowledging the urgency of it and committing to reaching a fair funding position within five to six months of March 2016. What bit of that have they not answered? What bit of that have they misled the leaders of our councils about? Finally, the councils advise me that the information on that financial ask has been presented to Transport Scotland to ministers as part of the Transport Scotland budget proposal for 2017-18. I do not think that there could be much clearer than that. The discussions are over. There are no discussions still to have. The Government knows exactly what they need to do. If Derek Mackay is going to tell me that he is going to put it in a budget, of course I will give way. Derek Mackay, I thank Tavish Scott for taking the intervention. Of course there is a window of opportunity between now and the publication of the budget on 14 December to respond directly to Tavish Scott. If I put it in the budget, would you vote for it? As the leader of the walking islands council said in November, this Government needs to honour its commitment to the Northern Isles fair funding rather than playing politics with the issue, which is exactly what Derek Mackay is doing. I agree with the leader of the walking islands council and ask Parliament to do the same today. Next Thursday is another acid test of another nationalist policy, island proofing. That means that the Government is ensuring what it takes the island's needs into account. That is a sensible approach. I agree with that, but Mr Mackay cannot love the principle and then sell out on the practice, and that is what he is going to do next week. This Government funds many other local ferries across Scotland, and many other members have raised that point today. They are right, but our argument is that much of the case that we have made today does equally apply to other areas as well, and it is right for those members to make that case and to continue to do with it. All of that investment, Presiding Officer, is absolutely fine if we had a level C, a calm, evidence-based approach to ferries policy, but as always, the SNP played politics with people's livelihoods. The fishermen, fish farmers and other businesses in the outer islands of Orkney and Shetland deserve the same support, not to be discriminated against, but instead to be recognised for their commitment to the wider Scottish economy. I ask Parliament today to vote for the motion in Liam McArthur's name, not to kick the issue into the deepest part of the North Sea, which is what the Government amendment would do if it was voted for today. If Liam McArthur's motion wins today, Derek Mackay should accept the will of Parliament and do what he has promised and did in 2016 and make that payment to those councils for that purpose. There is only one final point to make in this debate, Presiding Officer, and that is this—a point that people feel incredibly strongly about in the islands. I say this to Mr Yusif, to Mr Mackay and indeed to every minister. When a part of Scotland does not vote for the SNP, rejects independence, that is not a reason for political, economic or financial discrimination. Read the ministerial code, read the ministerial code. You are there to deliver for all of Scotland. Do not make cynical political calculations on who to support based on their likely voting intentions. Back Liam McArthur's motion and reject this Government amendment. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on finance. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 9402, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to say so now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 9402. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 9402 be approved. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of four parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Bureau to move motions 9279, 9280, 9403 and 9404 on approval of SSIs. Thank you very much. There are a number of questions at decision time. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Michael Matheson is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Clare Baker and John Finnie would fall. The first question is that amendment 9378.4, in the name of Michael Matheson, which seeks to amend motion 9378 in the name of Liam McArthur on justice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9378.4, in the name of Michael Matheson, is yes, 59, no, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 9378.1, in the name of Liam Kerr, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Liam McArthur, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote on members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9378.1, in the name of Liam Kerr, is yes, 55, no, 65. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Clare Baker is agreed, then the amendment in the name of John Finnie would fall. The next question is that amendment 9378.3, in the name of Clare Baker, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Liam McArthur, on justice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9378.3, in the name of Clare Baker, is yes, 20, no, 100. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 9378.2, in the name of John Finnie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Liam McArthur, on justice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9378.2, in the name of John Finnie, is yes, 6, no, 114. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 9378, in the name of Liam McArthur, on justice, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9378, in the name of Liam McArthur, is yes, 35, no, 85. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 9379.2, in the name of Humza Yousaf, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Liam McArthur, on finance, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9379.2, in the name of Humza Yousaf is yes, 60, no, 60. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore tied. As Parliament has been unable to reach a view on the amendment, I will use my casting vote, and in line with previous examples, I will vote against the amendment. The next question is that amendment 9379.1, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Liam McArthur, on finance, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 9379, in the name of Liam McArthur, as amended, on finance, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Finally, I propose to ask a single question on four parliamentary bureau motions. If anyone objects, please say so now. No members objected. The question is that motions 9279, 9280, 9403 and 9404, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move on to members' business. I will just ask members to leave quietly. Members' business will be in the name of Richard Lochhead. We will take a few moments for members to change seats.


A very good day to you, it's an honor to be invited to this conference on open education resources. I am very grateful to the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and other organizers of this conference for giving me this opportunity to bring you some perspectives on how open education resources or OER can transform education by increasing access, improving quality and cutting the costs of education, particularly in the developing world. My topic today is can OER transform education, a developing world perspective, but first let me set the context by telling you the story of a visit to a small West African country. Colleagues from the Ministry of Education announced that they had improved the quality of education in the country. When I asked what was the evidence, they were very clear. Until two years ago they could provide only one textbook for six students. Now they were able to give one textbook for each student. This example helps illustrate the dire needs of many developing countries. Now OER could provide a solution, but OER penetration in the developing world has been slower than in the industrialized countries. But there are emergent examples which give an indication of how OER are being used in low resource contexts. First let's take the issue of availability. The students of Banda College of Agriculture in Malawi had no textbook on communication skills and were entirely dependent on lecturers. Now they have a textbook, 75% of which is based on OER harvested from the web and supplemented with locally relevant activities, examples and assignments. Now a lecturer at the University of Jaws, Nigeria discovered this textbook and needing one has adopted it a very nice instant of South-South collaboration. Second, the question of quality. Many of you may have heard of the Indian Institutes of Technology or the IITs. These premier institutes in partnership with the government have made their engineering and technology courses available as OER. Now these are being used in over 500 institutions, most of them in remote locations with very limited resources. Both teachers and students are using the free IIT resources to improve the quality of the teaching and learning. Third, the issue of costs. Can OER help us reduce costs? The teacher education in Sub-Saharan Africa which is a partnership between the Open University UK and 18 universities in 12 African countries has developed OER for teacher training in four languages English, Kiswahili, Arabic and French. These were used by 320,000 teachers last year alone and the free materials as well as the sheer numbers of users can radically reduce the costs of providing quality teacher training. My own organization, the Commonwealth of Learning has initiated a six-country partnership to develop 20 sets of course materials in print and online formats based on the secondary curricula of Botswana, Lisuto, Nibibia, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago and Zambia. This has not only established communities of practice but has helped teachers and institutions save time and money by collaborating on the content development. Another initiative taken by my own organization is the Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth which is a consortium of 32 small states and small states you know are countries with a population of less than 1.5 million. Now these small states have come together to develop capacity in online course development. Several need-based courses on disaster management, tourism, entrepreneurship, fisheries, etc. have been completed and are available on Kohl's website as OER. Teachers who have never developed online courses are now training other colleagues. Then there is a question of access which can be opened up to newer constituencies through translations because as you know language is a major barrier. The China Open Resources for Education or CORE has translated the Massachusetts Institute of Technology open course wear materials into Chinese. Kohl's instructional design template has been translated and adapted by the Open University of China. Materials from Kohl's website have been translated into Ukrainian. So far we have usually seen a one-way flow of knowledge from the developed to the developing world. OER can provide for a global exchange of knowledge. For instance, a lecturer at the University of Ghana Medical College developed a simple procedure for a caesarean section and videotaped it. It is now being used in the Netherlands. Similarly, a lecturer at the Kwame Nakruma University of Science and Technology who also happens to be a world authority on the Baruli Alsa has developed an OER module which is being used by the World Health Organization and the University of Michigan. While we can see several benefits emerge, there are many challenges that need to be overcome. Now this slide gives you an indication of the digital divide across the world. While in North America there are over 80 computer and internet users per 100 persons, in Africa the number of computer and internet users is less than 10 per 100 persons. So if we look at OER as technology, we certainly start with a very major disadvantage. Can we shift the discussion to the social domain? The present debates in OER are too focused on technology and there is rarely any discussion on issues such as stakeholder engagement and the politics of power. As Manuel Castells put it, there is a fundamental form of exercising power that is common to all networks, exclusion from the network. However, because the key strategic networks are global, there is one form of exclusion thus of power that is pervasive to include everything valuable in the global while excluding the devalued local. Castells explains that the network making power operates on the basis of two mechanisms. One, the ability to constitute program and reprogram networks and two, the ability to connect and ensure cooperation. These important stakeholders of education in Africa, South Asia and Latin America may be far beyond this network making power due to regional, gender, class and ethnic factors. They are therefore excluded from these networks. Is it perhaps because of these inequalities that institutions and individuals from the resource poor communities have had a limited role in the OER movement? Now what's the situation at the institutional level? Many educational institutions have traditional governance structures and teacher-centered pedagogic models. The OER initiative requires a learner-centered and decentralized approach. There is then a basic contradiction between the centralized institutional and decentralized OER approaches. Will OER thrive in closed educational settings? What would institutions need to do to benefit from this emergent phenomenon? A recent survey of how OER are being used in 13 Asian countries sum up the key challenges that different constituencies face. Teachers felt they did not have either the time or the capacity to locate, adapt and repurpose OER material relevant to their work. Learners felt that OER should be fully open, half open didn't help and materials should be accessible on alternative technologies such as mobile devices. Technical support personnel said there were no standard practices in the packaging and reuse of OER. Development was concerned about the challenges relating to intellectual property and copyright issues. Concerns regarding competition and revenues were also raised. So how can we address these challenges? One major barrier is awareness. If you ask teachers in remote schools in India if they've heard of OER the answer is no. How can we reach them in far-flung and marginalized communities? It is these communities that need most help to improve the quality of education. How can we make them partners in this movement? In order to raise awareness the Commonwealth of Learning or CALL has developed a basic guide to OER developed jointly with UNESCO. This month UNESCO and CALL also launched the international guidelines for the use of OER. These are meant for five constituencies, governments, institutions, teachers, students and quality assurance bodies. These two documents are available as OER at our respective websites. Another strategy for addressing the challenge of using OER is localization which is at the heart of the OER process. A PhD thesis submitted this year examines how OER are being used in 12 community technology centers in remote regions in Nepal for providing non-formal education. The study concludes that the successful adoption of OER depends on effective localization and proposes four principles. First, it is important to involve the locals and cast the OER into the language of the select constituency. For example, a housewife speaks differently from a shopkeeper. Second, a community of practice is essential as it bolsters localization. The community interacts through group conversations or through social media and learn from each other. Third, the localization must be done in appropriate formats which could be audio, text, video, wall newspaper, etc. The fourth principle is that effective localization is proportional to the understanding of local contexts. While these principles have emerged from a non-formal educational project, how can we adapt them to the formal education sector to address the issue of effective use? Policy makers are concerned about the financial viability of using OER. Let me highlight three different models currently in use. The TESA model, which is the teacher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. This was initially funded by donors, but by involving the local institutions at every stage of the process, these partners have now taken on the responsibility of committing their own financial resources to develop, duplicate and distribute the resources to their staff and students. Connections of Rice University. Funded by donors initially, it's now a consortium of 20 for-profit and non-profit entities. For example, the for-profit COOP shares revenues from books printed using connections materials. The third example is the NPTEL from India, which is a state-funded initiative and is sustainable for precisely that reason. The general trend in the developing world is to use OER to address certain core needs. They are not looking at OER for lifelong learning, but for qualifications. There is a tremendous demand for qualifications at all levels, secondary as well as post-secondary. OER are not simply seen as a value add to existing educational provision, but also as a route to earning credentials. The only way to reach the unreached constituencies in remote and distant locations is through the use of appropriate technologies rather than computers alone. So there's need for a lot of additional content that could be used through mobiles. In many developing countries such as India, China, Vietnam, it is primarily the state rather than philanthropic organizations which has come forward to support OER initiatives. Keeping these developments in mind, my colleagues Dr. Bala, Dr. Abdur Rahman and I attempted to redefine OER in a paper published in the American Journal of Distance Education last year. We placed the emphasis on the stakeholder rather than on technology and on process rather than product. And let me share this definition with you. The phenomenon of OER is an empowerment process facilitated by technology in which various types of stakeholders are able to interact, collaborate, create and use materials and processes that are freely available for enhancing access, reducing costs and improving the quality of education at all levels. The emphasis is on empowerment. The OER movement can help transform education by, one, involving all kinds of stakeholders to participate, collaborate, create and share, two, encouraging consumers to become the producers of knowledge, and three, enabling us to harness the wealth of tacit knowledge across the globe to address the great development challenges of our time. And on that note, let me thank you for your kind attention.


I'm Marian Lunds from the Museum's Film Department. I am very proud that you are all here for the opening program in the 15th season of our Movies Houstonians Love series. It is a true privilege to invite notables from throughout our greater community to share their love of movies, to choose a favorite movie, and present it, and then enjoy the unparalleled experience of watching it with an audience on the big screen here, as we are about to do with Dr. Bed Frazier's movie Threshold. Dr. Frazier, in just a moment, will say a few words about how this was the only movie he wanted to show when we invited him to do Movies Houstonians Love. But I want to tell you about a very special aspect of tonight's screening. After the movie, please stay. We will have a conversation on stage with not just Dr. Bed Frazier, but his compatriot, Dr. Billy Cohn, and also the film's director, Richard Pierce, and the film's producer, Michael Burns. Richard and Michael have come to town, and they will tell you and share their excitement in the fact that Threshold has been rediscovered by Dr. Frazier, by us, and for all of you. Now for you to please welcome Dr. Bed Frazier, who is going to speak a bit about his movie choice, Threshold. Please welcome the legendary Dr. Bed Frazier. Thank you very much. Well, it's a great pleasure to be here. This is a movie that was, it was a Canadian movie, and it was very well received up there. But I don't even know if it was ever shown in the movies here. The director says it was, but I never saw it. Because Donald Sutherland, I remember him coming down in the late 70s, early 80s, and he looked like Dr. Cooley. He was about the same height, and he hung around. Very nice, very pleasant. He did a commendable job, and he won sort of acting award in Canada for this movie. When I started to bailer in 1963, I was a history English major, and I'd just, I'd read a lot of Kafka and Chekhov particularly, and I decided I'd go to medical school. I had no particular interest in science. But so I was fortunate enough to be accepted in Houston to bailer, and the only reason I wanted to go there because my girlfriend and current wife was from Houston. That was my criteria. And we had to do a research paper every year at bailer. It was one of the best things that Dr. DeBakey had instilled in. But we started in September, so we had to have an answer of what we were going to do by the 1st of November. And I remember standing by the elevators in the Jewish research building. And a friend of mine, a fraternity brother, came up. It was October the 30th. We had to have our Thailand by November the 1st. And he was a fraternity brother of mine. He was a real gunner. He was always the head of the curve. And he knew me. And I was famous for studying at the last minute. But he came up, and he said, but what's your research problem? And I said, you know, I hadn't thought about it. I've got another day. And he said, I knew you wouldn't have done anything. I've already signed you up. We're going to do this research in surgery. And I can't do it all. I've got to have someone to help me. So that's how I got into surgery.  And I started working with Domingo, Leota, and Dr. DeBakey, who were working on the first artificial heart. And Dr. DeBakey, I remember him saying clearly that by 1980, there'd be 100,000 Americans with artificial hearts. It seemed so simple. It's just a pump. But it turned out like a lot of things in life, a little tougher than we thought. And I worked on the postal pumps as my research effort all through my training years. And after that, when I went with Dr. Cooley in his lab and the first pulsatile pump to be approved by the FDA was the one that I developed. But by the early 80s, it became obvious to me, your heart beats 100,000 times over 24 hours if you do nothing. So we had to have a membrane that would flex that many times. And the membranes usually wore out after 18 months to 24 months. So I started working on continuous flow pumps. And now they're the only pumps made for a left ventricular assist devices. There have been over 60,000 of them implanted. I was in Kazakhstan not long ago. And there was a young girl there that they had done. Of course, she didn't know who I was from Adam. But it saved her life. And it was sort of gratifying to see people. There were over 500 hospitals putting in this pump. But there's no total heart. We don't have a total heart replacement. And Billy Cohn came in 2005 to work with me. And he said, you know, I've seen something like this. I said, what are you talking about? He said, yeah, I saw it on TV one time. It's a movie about a continuous flow of total artificial heart, which is what we were working on. And this was 2005. I said, ah, I don't believe it. And I knew nothing about it. I'd never seen it. And so Billy found it. And we saw it. And it's a very engaging movie. And I hope you'll enjoy it tonight.


Hey guys it's Julia and welcome back to my channel and for today's video I'm going to be talking about talking about, that's how I always start my videos, I'm going to be having a discussion video and today I wanted to talk about book buying, book buying, bands, how many books you own, your TBR pile, all that sort of stuff so let's jump right into it. Before we get right into this video I just wanted to say that I'm hoping to do a Q&A in the near future so if you have any questions for me please leave them in the comment section down below or tweet them to me maybe I'll put a hashtag on the screen who knows I don't know but yeah I thought it'd be fun there's a lot of new people here and I'm slowly getting up to 9k so I might be there by the time this goes up I don't know but thank you guys so much for that of course and yes so I wanted to do a Q&A so I'm just letting you guys know about that and you can leave me comments down below if you have any questions for me. Quickly getting into this discussion I decided to talk about book buying bands and I tweeted about this before but you don't if you don't follow me on Twitter links down below but I've talked about this before how book buying bands are just so unrealistic to me I can't do them like when I go I've done this before actually when I've gone like a month without buying books soon as it's over I'll buy like 20 so what was the point of that band someone explain and like you have to ask yourself what is the point of your band like is it to decrease your TBR pile is it to save money is it for both is it because you don't have enough space like it could be any of those um but you should know like why you want to go on a band. Suddenly I kind of stop making book hauls just for the reason that I get a lot of books like I don't I buy a lot of books like this is where I spend my money this is what I do when I'm stressed I either read or I buy books which is not a good habit is to go buy books every time I'm upset because that's like all the time I have to remember is that I'm out of space and if you guys don't know I had another shelf here I tweeted about it I just realized that you guys don't follow me on Twitter probably like what are you talking about new shelf but yeah I got another one of these over here and it's awful like all of these shelves are fully packed so when I get new books I have to like squeeze them in but it it is a problem and there's some people who have just as many books as I do and I kind of had a crisis last because I realized I owned about a thousand books like roughly a thousand like in my room it doesn't look like that much but like one of those bottom shelves alone has like 65 so it's not that surprising that I have that many and then the manga they're like just 13 like just stacked like this like um so correct like I have a lot of books so it's like actually why don't you go on a band or why have you been buying so many books that you haven't been doing book hauls and that you've been just throwing in them in your vlogs and sometimes I don't even show them in my vlogs because I am embarrassed but um and I feel bad suddenly we've had Christmas we've had black Friday we've had boxing day here in Canada so there's been a ton of deals and when there's deals I get emails so I go oh it's on sale I'll probably buy it anyways and I don't want to buy at full price so I'll buy it now and then the book the book pile just keeps coming and it was only until last night that I realized how many books I owned how many books I haven't read yet which I've read over half so like I'm proud um but there's still like around 300 books out of the thousand that are unread on my shelves I need to get on that you know but um what I'm making this video to kind of talk about is book buying bands I think they're unrealistic if you can go on a band and not buy anything for five months I'm so proud of you good for you I wish but this is like what I do when I'm upset and stress buying is not fun for the space for myself because then I feel bad later and for my wallet I kind of come up with a system here and I know it's gonna be unrealistic for me to say you're not buying any books the rest of the year Julia that ain't gonna happen honey like but I kind of came up with some guidelines for myself and I thought I'd share them with you guys so that if this is for people who buy like 10 books a month at least so if you buy like a few a month you're fine leave this video like three questions to like ask myself when I am buying books so first is can I get it somewhere cheaper for the money aspect of things like I'll read in the next six months I had this tip here that says add a to buy shelf on Goodreads oh yes so my I'm Goodreads I have a to purchase shelf so then when I do um I'll talk about like when I'm allowing myself to buy books but when I am able to buy books instead of being all spontaneous which is fun sometimes but I'm having this to buy shelf on my Goodreads so that I know what books are on my wish list that I want to get and then especially if like anyone wants to get you a gift you can just send them the link but anyways so my goal is to read five books buy one obviously sometimes I might skip this like I might read five and then not buy anything but like that's going to be a goal and I think that's a good boundary for people who read about 20-15 books a month as you you can buy like three um and then I also have two new releases a month so that is doable for me I'm hoping to just buy two new releases because there's so many new releases and like I'll go crazy with new releases because I'm like I need them all and then they just sit there but I'm like dying to read them all so I don't get it and then for sales which this is just special occasions this is not all the time so chill for like thrift stores boxing days special holidays or like when you go to a thrift store when books are on sale or when you're shopping on book outlet lend yourself to three to five books when they're that cheap just try because I know how tempting it is to go into like a thrift store see a bunch of books and buy 20 and leave very easy to do go through this you can make your rule stricter you can set more things or maybe you'll just stop buying books because you don't feel like it or you'll be like uh so yeah and then I also have a few things so delete your bookstore apps which I know those get you like I have my indigo chapters app on my phone and when I have nothing to do I'm just on it scrolling looking at the deals of the week no get off indigo chapter site I don't know if there's a Barnes and Noble app or other bookstores that have apps but if they do delete them for now please this is optional but maybe you want to unsubscribe to those mailing lists from bookstores so then every time there's a new sale or like every time there's a new book out you don't get an email and you're like I need it there's some like restrictions that I'm kind of wanting to set for myself along those lines basically I'm just sharing with you guys so like if you guys want to follow along or you want to try some of these things out yourself feel free to let me know down below and I'm mostly doing this because I realize how many books um I buy a month which is ridiculous like I will buy 20 books uh no I'll buy 10 books from book outlet and then I'll go to indigo and I'll buy another 10 books because they're on sale and then if I pop in another store I'll leave with another five and then before you know what I'm leaving I end the month that's like 30 books which I'm not the only one who does that so don't kill me but yes so I'm doing this mostly for I'm going on this kind of ban for space is one two money um three is um my tbr books which I don't usually care but when you have so many books you haven't read yet you kind of are like like I kind of am like I want to read all of these so bad but like I don't know which one to read next so then I just buy new books and I read those and it's like what am I doing there's so many exciting books here like scar tissue side effects may vary like I'm out of sort of screed I haven't read like there's just so many good books on my shelf and I'm hoping to do a video showing you guys all my tbr books if you guys want it but yes that is my video for today and by the way if you are seeing this loser thing it says the losers club it's from it okay um I got this hot topic before everyone asks me in the comments um thank you guys so so much for watching let me know your thoughts down below obviously I'm going to be pretty like I'm going to sometimes I'm going to be strict with myself and that's sometimes I'm going to be like Julia chill um but I think one count your tbr books and count how many books you own and kind of go from there or if money's a concern for you etc like I talked about it all it's fine okay I'll see you guys super soon with a new video thank you guys so much for watching bye oh that was a new one