Being Carl Swenson, the cavalcade of America sponsored by DuPont presents the story of a great American inventor and mechanic. Eli Whitney, the man of design and original radio play by Peter Lyon. There are those who, from their earliest boyhood to the day when they can move no more, work with one single-minded passion, driven by one overwhelming compulsion, ignoring hardship, their minds intent on the goal they have created for themselves, denying themselves all the amenities, companionship, pleasure, comfort, relaxation. Those single-minded men are few, what they lack in numbers they make up in intensity.  Tonight with Carl Swenson as the man of design, the cavalcade of America pays tribute to Eli Whitney, whose inventive genius created an empire, whose inventive genius defended a dream. In New Haven, in the spring of 1796, Napoleon Bonaparte was still no more than a name. The Americans were fourteen years at peace, and their minds were turned to the accomplishments of peace. Eli Whitney, as he stood being measured for a new coat and breeches in Townsend's Taylor shop, had never even heard of Bonaparte. His mind was on the cotton gin he had invented, on how the idea had been stolen from him, on how he might gain financial redress. Hold still, please, Eli. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, you expect a man to tailor a good coat when you're forever fidgeting and waving your arms about it? I was thinking of something else, Mr. Townsend, I'm sorry. Your mind's down in Georgia, I'll warrant it. Yes, sir. My thoughts would be down there, too, if I were in your boots. How do you mean? Lift your arm, please. All right. How do I mean, Eli? Ah, no, don't you go trying to fool me. I know about your cotton gin right enough. Millions, it must be making for you, millions. Mr.  You're joking, Eli. No, no, I'm not. My invention has been stolen from me by the planters, Mr. Townsend, and my only chance of getting money is in long and expensive legal proceedings. Well, then why are you here being measured for expensive clothes? Mr. Townsend, will these clothes be ready by Wednesday evening? Might be. You're in a hurry for clothes you can't pay for. Your tailoring is very important. If I'm to get my money, I must have these clothes by Wednesday. Oh. See, I go to Pierpont Edwards' house for dinner. I go to ask him for money, alone, for a capital till the court step in to protect my patents. Yeah, just slip the coat off, please. Can't go asking alone with patches on my britches, can I? Uh-huh. Then my clothes are important to your cause, are they? A man works hard with his hands and his brain, and he creates something of great value, bringing great wealth. And then he must order clothes on credit so that there'll be no patches on his britches when he petitions for a paltry loan. Never mind, Eli. I'm on your side. Your clothes will be ready on Wednesday, and don't worry about when you have to pay. And, Eli, just stop at the counter by the door on your way out and pick yourself out a handsome cravat. I'll throw that in for good measure. And, uh, don't forget, be upon Edward's daughter Henrietta's growing up a fine-looking girl. And then see Chucklehead. You're not likely to find out without opening the door. Why doesn't Cesar open the door? He's supposed to. Don't disturb Cesar now. He has more important things to attend to. He's mulling me some rum. You open the door yourself. Mr. Whitley. Good evening, Henrietta. Oh, do I deserve such a beautiful curtsy? She's been practicing nothing else ever since she heard you were coming for dinner with me. Oh, father. The incorrigible hussy at the age of 15. She's a father's daughter, I'm afraid. I count myself very fortunate that Miss Henrietta finds me worthy of her attention, Mr. Edwards. Will you take me to your shop one day, Mr. Whitley? I should like to see the machine. After your curtsy, I haven't the heart to refuse anything. You wouldn't understand the minute of it, Whitley. I advise you not to let her trespass on your good time and your good nature. I'm too occupied to have much choice, I'm afraid, sir. Are you fortunate? Come into my study, Whitley. There's just time for a little what-seizure is prepared before dinner. We can talk. Henrietta? Yes, father. See that Mr. Whitley and I are not disturbed until dinner. I'll wait till dinner for your invitation, Mr. Whitley. You shall have it, Henrietta. Well, Whitley. Here, this is Barbados rum. You should like it. Oh, no, not too generously, sir. I'm an indifferent drinker. Your health. Your, sir. I, um... I expect you to know why I accepted your invitation tonight, Mr. Edwards. I rather imagined it was to ask for money. You should wait until after I'm well fed, sir. Well, uh, tact and patience are not among my virtues. Just as well. All right, we'll consider the loan. Frankly, Whitley, I don't know. I don't know. Another rum? No, thanks. So unsettled. What do you think of this Frenchman Bonaparte? Bonaparte? I don't believe I've ever heard of him. You will, soon enough. And how does all this trouble find us? No guns, no ships, no army, no navy, nothing. We shall need a standing army and guns. Well, that all takes time. Time, yes. Tell me, isn't your cotton business a decline? No, I wouldn't say that, sir. Especially not if I get a loan to tide me over until... Until it's too late, eh? Too late for what? We need guns right now. I beg your pardon, sir. Bonaparte, Napoleon Bonaparte is showing his hand. He means to conquer the world, sir. But he's in Europe, Mr. Edwards, an ocean and more away. And on that ocean, his privateers are at work to blockade England and attack anyone who tries to run his blockade. Well, isn't the answer to mind our own business and stay at home? You ask that. You who depend on the cotton trade with England. And even if we could, with every passing month more French are landing in Louisiana. Colonists, they call themselves. Visitors, tourists. What are you? You know them land without a gun in their hand. We need to be prepared. Can you make guns in large lots? Well, that's a heavy foundry work. No, no, no. I mean shoulder arms, muskets. Oh, muskets? Well, a good musket is a pretty complex machine, Mr. Edwards. Nobody has yet learned how to make one musket exactly like another. It's not something that you can turn out in large lots. You can't make them with the interchangeable parts. You see, it's a question of whether or not they have a set geometrical pattern. Well, now, now. Maybe I could explain it better if I could draw a diagram for you. Never mind. If you want money of me, Whitney, you might think over very carefully the chances of manufacturing muskets by the thousands instead of one at that time. I'd be interested in a scheme like that. Yes. Well, I'm afraid I'm committed to my cotton gin to the present, Mr. Edwards, but frankly, I can't seem to share your anxiety over this. What's his name? Bonaparte. You hear his name often enough and soon enough so that you won't need to be reminded again. And meantime, about the loan, won't you help me? Not for any cotton scheme. No, sir. You walk me home from church, Mr. Whitney? Henrietta Edwards. Why, it would be a pleasure. I was with my father, and I saw you here alone, so I thought... I was kind of you, and I haven't invited you to see my shop yet, have I? You truly wanted to see it? Oh, yes. I hear father speak of it so often and of how clever you are at machines and of the work you might do there. The work I might do there. Everyone's the same. Anxious to divert me from my work and start me onto something new. Maybe it's simply a question of your confusing perseverance with obstinacy, Mr. Whitney. Just a moment. Your father has put you up to this, hm? Give me credit for some wisdom. What do you know of this affair? I only know that you once designed something very clever, a very good machine. And that, therefore, you should be able to design others. And that when your fortunes are lost on the first design, why... why, then, you should all the more bravely turn to designing a second. Your sight is very clear for a child, Ms. Henrietta. And you are very blind, Mr. Whitney, but I... I thank you for escorting me. I hope that when I'm invited to your shop, it will be busy with a new design, not dusty with the old. Good day, Mr. Whitney. What's this, Eli? Project for 10,000 standard arms. Because you are my friend, Senator Goodrich, and because you're permitted to come here in the evening after the workmen have gone, there's no reason for your prying into my personal papers. Eli, you're really out of temper tonight. I'm Eliza Goodrich, your friend, remember? Put that paper back. Well... Oh, I'm sorry, Eliza. Perhaps you can control myself better. It's just that at times the thievery, the law, all the lawyers and the judges expecting bribes if they're to do anything, and all the time cotton, new cotton, more slaves, millions and millions of dollars while I sweat and starve here, and Edward refusing it alone, I... Eli, you're overworked. You're too much with your problems. You should practice relaxation more. I... I had thought to ask you to take me to the tavern tonight and buy me drink after drink until I staggered home and thought no more about this whole thing for at least a few hours, but I know how false a method that is. Always worrying, always working too hard, living alone. Get married, Eli. There... there is a jest in bad taste. Oh, no, no, no. I'm serious. Serious? Yes. With what right? Under heaven with what right? Of course I should like to marry. I should like comfort and relaxation and children about me, but sometimes I feel I'd settle for three meals a day and enough pay for my workmen. Get married. Well, Eli, I'd like to come back to this paper about the 10,000 stand-up hour. Put it aside. It doesn't concern you. Am I not sent to Washington by this state? Is it not my concern? What the safety of my country is? Guns. They are what we need for our defense. If you can make 10,000 stand-up muskets, then it is decidedly my business. I am not a gunmaker. I am in the business of making cotton gins and trying to gain my rights. Washington has done precious little about that. Well, I wouldn't underestimate for those in the federal government think of you, Eli. They know how wrongly you've been done on your invention. They respect your skill. If it's money you want, they'd supply it to manufacture muskets. The federal government? Yes, men like Thomas Jefferson. Oh, no. Now, it's no good. It would mean hours and hours of thought and making over my entire plant. I could have had other work turn down contracts for sides and for plows, because as soon as I'd taken them something would have happened in Georgia. You see, that's the thought of a tremendous... Eli, please, please listen to me for a moment. For the sake of our national defense, right to Wulcott, the secretary of the treasury. Everybody talks of this defense, defense, defense, muskets. All right. All right, Goodrich. If you want me to, I'll write. You are listening to Carl Swenson as Eli Whitney in Man of Design, an original radio play on Cavalcade sponsored by Dupont. Makers of better things for better living and chemistry. As our play continues, Whitney has contracted with the government for an order of 10,000 muskets and has started to work in a new plant in Connecticut just outside New Haven. Down the street, one of his workmen is now entering the town tavern. Well, Matthew, you're in early this afternoon. What'll it be? Strong drink. Strong drink. That's what I need. Oh, here's man. What's the trouble? Hey, drinking heavy for the afternoon, man. That's what it takes. Another please, Toby. Hey, what's up, man? Why are the celebrations? Boys, I've just been overworking at the new Whitney plant. Yes, sir, and I walked out. Yes, sir, I walked out not 15 minutes ago. Too much for me. Well, here's confusion to Royal Leap. Well, hey, tell us, man. Tell us. What's the trouble? Get the sack. Oh, not me, Tom. Not me. I walked out my own legs. I know what I've had enough. I never saw a machine shop like that one in my life. I'm going out of my head. Toby? Coming up, Matthew. Worm gears, ratchets that generating cycle of the epicycloid. A mechanic's got to know geometry just to hang his head up and back of the door. Cams, poles that generating cycle of the epicycloid. Well, what's Whitney doing? Don't search me. I think he's going off his rocker. He thinks he's going to turn out muskets. I'm exactly like the other one. Word on! Mr. Whitney. Yes, yes, Roger. About our wages, sir. It's been there three months now, Mr. Whitney. Yes, I know. The shop's like no other shop in the state, I know of. Mr. Whitney, we want to help all we can, but we feel the work has gone far enough so we should get our back wages. Or else, or else we quit. Boys, I... All I can do is ask that you wait a bit longer as I'm doing. There's a man here to see you. He insists on seeing you right away. With so much to be done, why must visitors always be... Who is Eli Whitney? I'm Eli Whitney. I'm from Washington, from the ward apartment, and the government agent come to inspect your muskets. Yes, muskets, muskets. Oh, yes. Maybe I could have one of the workmen and one of the experimental models. Mr. Whitney, may I remind you that the time for your contract has expired, sir, but you have been extended thousands of dollars of the government's money and completed nothing. I should be forced to report that you've not lived up to your end of the contract. Well, you see, I... I... I must apologize. Mr. um... Gansford is my name. Mr. Gansford. My time is so filled I have so many... Have you the guns as contracted? Well, not the full ten thousand, but very soon... Mr. Whitney, I'm afraid I shall have to report that you may hold to meet your contract. But wait, Mr. Gansford. Well, that's enough for me, Mr. Whitney. I'm getting out of here. I'm with you, Roger. Let's go. It's I, Henrietta Edwards. I saw a lantern burning. Well, you should never come out like this at night alone. Do you still insist on thinking of me as a child? I... No. No, you're not a child any longer. But, uh, still... I was more eager than ever to visit your shop. And I saw the lantern and they told me you often worked late. You look tired, Eli. Tired? Well, I guess I should. My men are leaving me. I can no longer get an extension of time or money on my contract. I missed something. What? Something you had even when you had patches in your clothes. Do you mind my mentioning them? No. Then there was strength and determination in your voice, Eli. I don't hear that strength anymore. That's what I meant. First, my cotton gin. And do you know what they're saying now? They're saying that I stole it. I stole it from some planter. And now there's bad luck with a government contract. My men leaving me just when it seemed... Yes. I thought I would surely succeed. Should the government give you more time and money? Why? Well, because with ever so little more money, I'm going to have to pay for it. Well, because with ever so little more time and some more money, I could complete the contract. My machines are all built. I don't understand the mechanical problems, Eli. Well, it's very simple. See, all I'm trying to do is to design machines that make guns with parts that are interchangeable. See, nobody's ever done that before. Nobody's ever dreamed of doing it. But now I'm sure that it can be done. Then you should fight as you used to fight and not give up. You should go to Washington and show them yourself that you can work. Every year, though. I... I must talk to you. I think I know why, Eli. But this is not the time. Now you must stay at your job. You must go to Washington and fight and make them give you the time and money you need. Yes. Yes, you're quite right. Go to Washington.  You can talk later. And when you come back from Washington, Eli, I shall be waiting to listen to you. Gentlemen. The President of the United States. Good afternoon, gentlemen.  Mr. Jefferson, I didn't expect to see you this afternoon. Tracted by the same curiosity that brings you, I expect, Mr. President. Well, you mustn't expect too much. It's about Eli with me, gentlemen. He's outside now. For those of you who don't already know, he has contracted to supply 10,000 stand-up arms to the government. And the contract time, of course, has expired. How many guns has he delivered? How many was it, General North? 500. He contracted for 10,000. And yet Whitby has a gall to ask for more money and more time. But were those 500 good pieces, General? I have a special interest in asking. Yes, sir, they were, Mr. Jefferson. The mic is made by a watchmaker. I should think they might be after 18 months. Well, I'm in favor of cancer. In the contract, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest we ask Mr. Whitney to come in. I think we will all form a fairer conclusion by talking to him. Have him come in, Senator Goodridge. Certainly, sir. Mr. President, I should like to introduce my friend, Mr. Whitney. He needs little introduction. We've all been talking of no one else. I have not forgotten you, Mr. Whitney. You're from my state, Massachusetts, aren't you? Westburn, Mr. President. General North, you I know, sir. Perhaps you wouldn't mind describing very briefly how guns are made. A made by a gunsmith. Bows the barrel on a lathe, trues it by grinding a little gear, a little layer, carves the stock and fits the barrel to it. Then forges the lock plates. Very delicate, skilled work. Files the lock parts, trying them all the time until they fit. Then assembles the parts of the lock plate, screws the plate into the stock, puts the musket on the shelf and starts the next one. And the muskets, because the parts are individually fitted by hand, are each different, one from another. Of course. What are you looking for? They're bound to be different. Well, sir, here are the parts of ten of my gunnings. You understand armor as work, sir? Young man, I was fixing muskets before you were born. Would you assemble one from any of these parts, then? Would you expect me to be able to assemble a musket from the parts of these ten to assemble pieces here? Yes, sir. And you'll need no file for truing them. Ah, blasted nonsense. And never mind taking off your coat, sir. You won't need to use force. It's the next addition of magic. No, Mr. Jefferson, simple mechanics. Every part is machine-made, not handmade. And the skill is in my machines. Each gun is exactly like each of the others. Well, I've done it, but it's not possible. It's trickery, sleight of hand. Quiet, gentlemen, quiet. This meeting is not to be conducted in an orderly fashion. You may go. Proceed, Mr. Whitney. Well, there you are, gentlemen. You've seen it. And I have the machines to turn out ten thousand of these faster than guns have ever been made before. The skill is in my engines. And all I need is your cooperation, more money, and a very little more time. You shall have all three, Mr. Whitney, because my name is John Adams. Sit with me for a time before the fire, Whitney. It'll be a pleasure, Mr. Jefferson. This bonaparte, durable. It is where we have your muskets with me. In other lands, they will be made badly for a time yet. But can you think what would happen if these muskets would have fallen to the hands of a Napoleon? Well, these muskets are for the defense of something very dear to our people. They'll not be used for anything else, I thank God, when you're president, sir. Yes, there is a difference here in this country where we alone in the world have achieved at least a measure of equality. Yes. And from invention will come still greater equality. With your invention, Eli Whitney, we shall protect that equality. The future of our country depends on it. The future of our country depends on more than a musket, sir. It depends on our knowing as Americans why we're making that musket and why we're firing it. It depends on men and women with faith in the thing for which America was born. In a moment, we'll hear again from our star, Carl Swenson. But first, let us consider how much we Americans in our mighty struggle owe to the genius of Eli Whitney. For Eli Whitney, great inventor that he was, created the first assembly line. He was the father of mass production, which our hopes of victory finally rest. Americans have every reason to be proud of American manufacturing achievements and of American research, for this research has been and is on a sound and thorough basis, yielding a constant flow of new developments. Today, our developments of the past stand us in good stead in this crisis. And just as surely will new developments in this time of need serve our future. Though they serve our war needs, they cannot fail to hit the distant and perpetual target of better living. To find the reason why the mass production begun by Eli Whitney is a peculiarly American development, we must turn back to the founding of the American patent system under whose protection and guidance American invention has flourished. The first patent laws were enacted in 1790. And the first patent issued by the government for the signatures of President George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State. It was their encouragement and foresight which brought about the foundation of our patent system. In address Congress in 1790, Washington said, I cannot forbear intimating to you the expediency of giving effectual encouragement as well to the introduction of new and useful inventions from abroad as to the exertions of skill and genius in producing them at home. And today, as never before, the skill and genius of American industry is at work producing the tools needed for victory. Some bold idea hatched in the mind of an American may well write the final pages of the history of this war. No one yet has beaten the inventive American mind and no one ever will. Remember, the telegraph was invented by an American artist. The airplane was invented by a couple of American bicycle repairmen. The electric motor was invented by a blacksmith. The roll film camera was invented by a bank clerk. In the long tradition of Eli Whitney and the American patent system, we may call out a few honored American names. There was Alexander Graham Bell with his telephone. There was Thomas Alva Edison. There was Hyatt with his original plastic. Goodyear with rubber vulcanization. From the laboratories of Dupont alone, and Dupont is only one company in the American chemical industry, have come such accomplishments as nylon, neoprene, developments in refrigerants, chemical agents to improve fuels and lubricating oils, new finishes, explosives, insecticides, dyes and rubber chemicals to name a few of many. So thanks to the faith and foresight with which American industry encourages inventors and inventions, scientific minds today are helping with the war effort which will bring us into a peace well-won, to which Dupont will again, as in the past, contribute better things for better living through chemistry. And now, ladies and gentlemen, the star of tonight's program, Carl Swenson of the Cavalcade Place. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to give you a message at the request of the United States government. A message of utmost importance to young men and to our country. The United States Coast Guard, one of our armed services, needs more officers to command its expanded forces. Any United States citizen who is a college graduate between 20 and 30 years old with proper physical qualifications may apply. The place, any Coast Guard recruiting station, and if there is none where you live, right to the commandant, United States Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. Today, the Coast Guard is under the jurisdiction of our Navy at the fighting service. No other service has a wider scope for a greater need for fighting men. Thank you. Next week, ladies and gentlemen, Cavalcade will be happy to welcome to its playhouse once more the charming screen player, Madeleine Carroll, who will be heard in a new play, This Our Exile, based on the classic story of Evangeline. Don't forget next week, Madeleine Carroll stars on Cavalcade in This Our Exile, an original play inspired by the poem Evangeline. This is Clayton Collier, sending best wishes from Dupont. This program came to you from New York. This is the National Broadcasting Company.


So today I'm going to talk about Poisson regression models for count data. I will first of all give a brief review of regression analysis. I will then introduce Poisson regression and looking at a simple model without a covariate, first of all the so-called equi-probable model. I will be then assessing this particular model with the Pearson-Keyer-Square test that is a lot like your ratio test statistics. And also I will be looking at some residual analysis as well. And then I will be introducing the Poisson regression model with a covariate, so basically a Poisson time-trend model. You may have come across different types of regression models already. For example, a linear regression model for a continuous dependent variable. You may have used logistic regression models already for a binary outcome variable. There are obviously other types of regression as well that are also part of the generalized linear models. So basically, for example, the multinomial logit model for a multi-category unordered variable and also the so-called cumulative logit for multi-category ordered variables or ordinal regression. Here we are going to basically go a step further. We are going to look at the outcome variable that is a count variable using Poisson regression. And sometimes in the literature you may also find the expression of a log linear model. Data for this particular session are assumed to be, first of all, a count variable y. So for example, the number of accidents or the number of suicides in a particular geographical area or time period. Then we've got a categorical variable x for example with, let's say, capital C possible categories such as days of the week or months. So basically, y here in this particular case has capital C possible outcomes. So y1, y2 and so on until yc. Obviously, generally in Poisson regression modeling you may think of a number of categorical variables that you have or a number of even continuous variables as explanatory variables in your models. Here we're going to start with something relatively simple. Just to sort of introduce the basic principles of Poisson regression. So basically it's a form of regression analysis here to model a count data and a particular case if all the explanatory variables are categorical then we basically model a contingency table, so basically cell counts. And the model basically models expected frequencies. The model specifies also how the count variable obviously relates to any of these explanatory variables or for example of the level of the categorical variables. Poisson models is a form of generalized linear modeling. It uses the logarithm, the log as the canonical link function in this particular case. We basically assume that the outcome variable y, the dependent variable, the variable that we are particularly interested in has a Poisson distribution and the logarithm basically is its expected value that can be modeled by a linear combination of any of these unknown parameters. So basically of these unknown beta coefficients, the regression coefficients in your model. Sometimes it's referred to as a log linear model in particular when used to model contingency tables. Let's have a look at a brief example. For example the number of suicides by weekday in France. So we've got a number of weekdays in the first column and the second column just simply the frequencies, the occurrences, the events and then let's say the percentages, how it is distributed according to days of the week. So that is the type of model or type of data that we would like to model. Let's first look at a very simple case, the equiprobable model. The equiprobable model means that basically all outcomes are equally probable. So they're equally likely. That is for our particular example we assume a uniform distribution for the outcome across days of week. So y does not vary with the days of week x basically. So the equiprobable model is basically given by this formula here. So the probability of a particular event across these categories basically of the days of the week is equally distributed. So it's 1 over C, so 1 over the capital C. So we basically expect an equal distribution across days of week. And given this particular data we can test then the assumption of our interest basically the assumption of the equiprobable model, so H0 that this assumption holds. So looking at our example again, let's say suicides by weekday in France. Basically H0, the assumption that we would like to test means that each day is equally likely for the suicides to happen. That means the expected proportion of suicides is about 100 over 7, so 7 days of the week. So basically just over 14% per day. And if you're looking at the third column of the table we see the actual observed distribution. And obviously that depends a little bit on each day of the week possibly and diverges a little bit from 14% per day. But maybe the divergence is not very much and we are satisfied with actually our assumption. And to do that properly you obviously would need to do a formal test and I'll come to that in the next session and I will explain the actual formal test in further detail. Looking at another example, example two, looking at traffic accidents per weekday. Again we want to make the H0 assumption of the equiprobable model that means that each day is equally likely for an accident. That means the expected proportion is again the number of accidents is 100 over 7. So basically just over 14% per day we would expect. And there maybe in this particular example we see a greater distribution. In particular for Sundays there seems to be a greater percentage than just 14%. So we may want to continue testing if the observed distribution that we have is maybe different from the expected distribution or if it's still okay to assume that they are actually equal. Looking at hypothesis testing we may say in this particular case H0 that each day is equally likely for an accident to happen. But we can also think of other alternative null hypotheses. For example that each working day is equally likely for an accident or that maybe Saturday, Sunday the weekends are equally likely for an accident. You could also think of other extra or additional variables. For example the distance driven each day of the week and you may want to take into account those types of explanatory variables as well. Just thinking about this a bit further, basically we can now express the equiprobable model more formally as an actual Poisson regression model without a covariate and that models the expected frequencies. So basically we assume a Poisson distribution with parameter mu for a random component. That means the response variable y follows a Poisson distribution. That means basically that y follows this notation here or this formula here using the exponential function and mu the parameter of interest and also the y the outcome variable of interest where y is just simply the count variable 1, 2 and 3 and so on. So basically y is a random variable that takes on only positive integer values and also this Poisson distribution has only one single parameter mu which actually is the mean and the variance of this distribution. And we assume that our outcome follows this Poisson distribution and our distribution follows the integer count distribution. Looking at basically the simple model to start with we aim to model the expected value of y and it can be shown that this is the parameter mu hence we aim to model the parameter mu effectively in our Poisson model. So defining the equiprobable model that I had on an earlier slide as sort of the intuitive notation. Normalizing this writing it down as the expected value of y mu basically the parameter mu and that is then 1 over c because we are making the assumption of the equal probability across weekdays. Or using the link function the log of mu would then be a coefficient alpha so that is basically the coefficient that I would like to estimate as part of my model alpha is then basically the log of 1 over c in this particular case.


I ask any members of the public who are leaving the gallery to please do so quickly and quietly. The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 2902, in the name of Katie Clark, on keeping CalMac public and publicly owned ferry services. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now. I am very grateful to the members who have signed the motion to enable this debate to come to the chamber today, to the islanders, including the R&Ferry Action Group and to the R&P and TSC trade unions, who I have worked with on those issues. The contract with Public Sector Operator CalMac comes to an end in October 2024. In this Parliament needs to debate what happens at the end of that contract. Ferry services are currently in crisis. Yesterday, for example, all 10 ferry services on the address and project route were cancelled due to the withdrawal of the service of the Caledonian Isles, causing havoc to islanders and, indeed, to the economy. CalMac operates a feat of 33 vessels across a network of 49 routes. Most industry experts agree that the average life expectancy of a ferry is around 25 years, but half of the working-state-owned ferries are older than that. For example, the Caledonian Isles is now 29 years old. CML owns and procures vessels with ports owned by a mix of trusts, private companies and public bodies in a model, which is the result of an obsession with privatisation over many decades. Some will try to blame the problems in the ferry service on public ownership, but in reality it is a failure to invest in new fleet for many years, the fragmentation of the service, a series of poor appointments of key decision makers and appalling management and political failures that have caused the problem. The motion that is being debated today argues that our ferries should remain in the public sector, and polling has repeatedly shown that Scots overwhelmingly support that model of ownership. In 2017, the Scottish Government's procurement policy review—I will take an intervention. Thank you for taking an intervention. Are you saying that you do not want any change to the current failed structure? I am not saying that at all, and I think that if the member were to listen to the rest of my contribution, that would become self-evident. In 2017, the Scottish Government's procurement policy review stated that it was the Scottish Government's intention to build a case for making a direct award to an in-house operator for the Clyde and Hebrides services. Last year, I asked the previous transport minister to confirm that with still the Scottish Government's policy, and he failed to make that understaking. I hope that today the current transport secretary can confirm that she is committed to a public sector model. Despite the Scottish Government's commitment in 2017, the commission, the private accounting firm Unst and Young, to review the structure, with the Scottish Government having paid the firm over half a million pounds of tax variance money since 2015. Documents leaked to the media from the project Neptune review revealed that ministers explicitly asked Unst and Young to consider the unbundling of routes privatisation as an option. Despite journalists writing articles quoting sections of the report weeks ago, that report has still not been published. Can the cabinet secretary confirm today that it will be published? We need a long-term plan for a publicly owned ferry service, and we need to learn from the mistakes of the past with a structure that involves communities, particularly island communities and the workforce in decision making, and we need to address the problems caused by the fragmentation of the structure. For example, the vessels 801 and 802 that were debated yesterday would not have been commissioned if the Scottish Government had been required to involve the aring community in decision making and had listened to the representations that were made at that time. The more than four-year delay to the regeneration of the androssan harbour would not have taken place if the harbour had still been in public ownership rather than the ownership of peal. There is a widespread view that we need standardisation of the fleet with smaller vessels, which will cut maintenance costs and ensure ferries can operate across routes. Could the cabinet secretary confirm that that is something that the Scottish Government is actively looking at? Today's debate follows on from yesterday's debate on the procurement of vessels 801 and 802 being built at Fergusymru, which are projected to cost £240 million or £2.5 times over budget four years late and have been described as a catastrophic failure by a Scottish Parliament inquiry. Audit Scotland's report said that ministers chose not to restart that process after CML expressed concerns. It was the First Minister herself who raced to Port Glasgow to launch the 801 all the way back in 2016. The Scottish Government continues to take responsibility for a catalogue of bad decisions, poor appointments and eye-watering sums wasted on executives. No minister and definitely not the First Minister has been willing to take responsibility. We now need the Scottish Government to come forward with a plan, a ferry service that delivers for islanders and communities and supports the community. We know that the current structure is not working. We know that change is required, but we will only get the best service if we involve islanders and the workforce in a publicly owned service. I ask the cabinet secretary today to respond in details to the points that I have made that are made in this debate and look forward to the contributions and hope that this Government will commit to developing a publicly owned model with a structure that delivers for communities. I now call Stuart McMillan, who is joining us remotely, to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. Up to four minutes, please, Mr McMillan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First, I would like to commend Katie Clark for securing this member's debate. I would also like to remind the chamber that my wife works part-time for CalMac. I have always felt it important to acknowledge this anytime I take part in debates about CalMac, even though I am not obligated to do so. I certainly would have thought that Katie Clark would have considered it appropriate to do likewise bearing in mind her links to the TSA trade union, which is members who actually work with CalMac. I think that it is all well and good challenging the Tories and their transparency on lack of, but the Labour Party must also do likewise. I am sad to say that today's debate really is a non-debate setting also, but I would be the first in line challenging my Government if, I believe for Merit CalMac, was to be sold off or the network broken up. If either were to happen, there would have been a negative impact on Gwyrwch, my Greenwch and Ember Clyde constituency. Gwyrwch is the home and the HQ for CalMac, and a hugely important local employer in my constituency. I would not want to see any adverse effects in my constituency. Certainly, if the network is broken up or privatised, as has been reported by Katie Clark, that would have serious economic challenges in my constituency, challenges that we have had since the early 1980s due to failed UK Government policies. Neither are going to happen, and while it is always important for parliamentarians to raise legitimate issues, game-longering and causing alarm to the CalMac staff and the local community is nothing short of shameful. At First Minister's questions on 3 February, the First Minister stated, and I quote, I will be very clear in that commitment. We have no plans whatsoever to privatise public services ferries and contrary to concerns that have been expressed in recent press reports, we have no plans whatsoever to split up the CalMac ferries network. Those ferries services are delivered through public contracts. The First Minister went on. However, to come back to the thrust of the question, it did not seem to be allowed to privatisation, I ruled it out. I will say it again, we have no plans whatsoever for that. We will not privatise our public service ferries and equally we have no plans to split up the CalMac network. That is the Scottish Government's position and we will continue to invest in our ferries network with people on our islands at the service that they have every right to expect. I thought that the comments towards the end of Grimms Simpson MSP's contribution were enlightening. It did team suggest that the network should be opened up to allow other companies to bid for routes. On the one hand, I can see why that may appear to be beneficial. However, breaking up the network, which will lead to the H2 being either shut or reduced in scale. Either way, that would lead to jobs in my constituency being lost and futures being wrecked. If that is what the Scottish Tories are offering my constituents, then I sincerely hope that the population in my constituency get a clear message to the Tories in May. Ultimately, ferries will quite rightly be a political issue, irrespective of who is the Government of the day in Scotland. That is right. However, Labour is scape mongering about the future of the network and the Conservatives appearing to advocate dismantling the network highlights that neither Labour nor the Tory parties are fit to govern any time soon. CalMac itself does need to continue the improvement programme that it is on, and I warmly welcome that. Years of a lack of investment and a drive in the business is led to the business needing a major internal overhaul to make it fit for the present day. Ultimately, CalMac has a brand recognition that is second to none. It does need new ferries, to turn CalMac into the business that we all want it to be. Finally, I want to make everyone in the chamber aware that Seymal has invited Seymal to come in to the Parliament, and it will be coming in a few weeks' time. I invite everyone to go along, talk to them and ask them questions, because they will have questions to ask them. Seymal will always have answers that she has to provide to her colleagues from across the chamber. I appreciate the previous member, Stuart McMillan, who would not have been able to take an intervention as he was contributing virtually, but he did make a direct criticism that I had failed to declare an interest. I would like to put on record and take your guidance as to how to correct that. I do not believe that I was required to declare an interest. However, I said very clearly at the beginning of my speech that I had worked with the RMTSSA trade unions on those issues, and indeed with islanders, including groups such as the Arran ferry action group. I am not sure that that is a point of order, but I am grateful for the chamber's time. I do not believe that that is exactly a point of order for her contribution. Obviously, there are mechanisms to correct the record. The chair is not responsible for the substantive comments of members when they make their contributions, and I am sure that the member is well aware of the rules on the declaration of interest, and where those rules are engaged and where those rules are not engaged. I trust that that is helpful. I now call Jamie Halcro Johnston to be followed by Jenny Minto up to four minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I congratulate Katie Clark for bringing this debate to the chamber today. I spoke in yesterday's various debate on the number of abelafing issues, procurement, transparency and sustainability. One key ask was that the Withheld Project Neptune report is released, and it is vital to ensure that communities served by the Clyde and Hebridean routes are not left in the dark, but are partners in the deciding these services' future. There can be little doubt of the importance of our ferry connections, those lifeline routes that serve to connect often remote places across our country. They support not only travel but bringing food to shops, produce to market the delivery of essential public services and so much more. I have long called for a proper, fully considered strategy for the future sustainability of Scotland's ferry networks, and it never has the absence of one being more keenly felt than it is now. Thinking strategically, we must balance quality, sustainability, fairness of the taxpayer, working conditions and, finally and perhaps most importantly, the views of the communities themselves. Solutions should not be imposed and communities will not and should not accept a loss of local influence. On Monday night I travelled down from Orkney on a Northlink ferry. The Northern Isles contract has a quite different history from the Clyde and Hebridean network, while covering long distances it is less extensive, with inter-island transport not included. Those inter-island ferries are only one aspect of a publicly owned network that was not mentioned in today's motion. They remain the responsibility of local councils in Orkney and Shetland, and they retain a financial disadvantage being only partly funded by grants from central government. The Scottish Government has long held out the prospect of local control being exchanged for fair funding, but that would be a terrible deal for islanders, because in all of this one size certainly does not fit all. Back in 2018 the RMT was aggressively pursuing a nationalised Northlink campaign, seeking to apply the same position on CalMac to the Northern Isles service. This ran contrary to the views not only of the local councils, but of elected representatives, local stakeholders and local people. There was, and I believe still is, a wide body of support for tendering. I simply would not accept that privately operated ferry networks are a bad thing. The motion today calls to categorically rule out extending private ferry operations. Is that to mean that a private operator who wishes to expand and provide a new service should be stopped from doing so? That would be putting political ideology ahead of the needs of island communities. We can see small independent operators working well in delivering good services for communities across Scotland. Pentland ferries, for example, is a family-run business, providing a valued and unsubsidised link between Orkney and Caithness. Unlike CalMac, it has managed to procure not one, but two new ferries at reasonable costs. The Alfred, which I sailed on only a few weeks ago, was built on time and on budget, and has already won an award for its environmental standards. That is not to say, of course, that the current tendering model is the right one, either. As Audit Scotland reported at the time, the two companies tendering for the Clyde and Hebridian contracts submitted over 800 queries during the process. Significant weaknesses and confusions were identified. Arguably, short contract periods failed to give operators a chance to make significant change. All those elements are significant points for discussion. It is a discussion that needs to be beyond the politics of this chamber. It needs to respect the communities involved and treat those of us who use our ferries regularly, who rely on our ferry network as the key stakeholders that we are. It is those in our islands and remote communities who must have the greatest say, not the ministers and mandarins of the Scottish Government who have become too used to dictating from afar with increasingly disastrous consequences. I think that the member was just concluding his remarks. I now call on Jenny Minto to be followed by Richard Leonard. Up to four minutes, please, Ms Minto. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland's islands need to have lifeline ferry services. The key word here is lifeline. As well as meaning a rope thrown into the water to save someone from drowning, lifeline is also defined as something that you depend on to lead your life in a satisfactory way. That not only includes food, fuel, building materials and medical provision, but also the economic benefits of being able to travel to and from work or in search of work. It also means the wellbeing promoted by being able to easily meet friends and family, especially in times of celebration or when people come together for comfort in time of grief. For islanders, lifeline mostly means ferries. My inbox is constantly brimming over with emails about ferries. If you get any two islanders from anywhere in Scotland together, their conversation will inevitably turn to ferries. For us islanders, ferries shape our lives. I live on an island where the ferries not only connect people, but directly connect a multi-multi million pound industry to the world market. I can see that shipping whisky to the mainland might be viewed as an attractive investment for an ambitious company and its shareholders. I am sure that in their hands the isle of ferry could be very profitable, especially when you add the benefits of the islands farming, seafood and tourist industries. However, the SNP is a party for all of Scotland. As such, I do not believe that we should deprive island communities of lifeline services simply because they do not make the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Eyes light up. I thank the member for taking the intervention. Is she there for suggesting that if CalMac is at full capacity and trade cannot get on and off the islands, that vital trade that your constituents rely on, if another operator came long enough for that service, she would say no to it? I am not suggesting that. I thank the member for that intervention. No, I am not suggesting that. I am merely pointing out the importance of lifeline services to islands. I have 23 inhabited islands in my constituency and also peninsulas, which have important ferry links. Port of Addey to Tarberth, for example, is a key link for school children, businesses and tourists. I want to see people whose homes are in the remote or island areas of our island butte live their lives without being judged as a profit or loss. My constituents are people, not a balance sheet. If an island community or a peninsular community is struggling, cutting back on its unprofitable ferry services can only hasten that area's decline. Next week, I am visiting the island of Dura, an island off an island, and the service there is provided by our island butte council. Its population is growing, the school is at bursting point and new businesses are being set up, but they are worried that an unreliable transport network could impede their growth. However, in an economy driven increasingly by renewable energy and the ability to work from home, a decent and reliable ferry service may allow those areas to turn their fortunes around and to reverse decline. Communities that should be listened to when structures and ferries are being reviewed. Of course, it is not just people who live on islands or peninsulas who rely on lifeline services. The definition of a rope being thrown into the water does not exactly apply to our railways, but, as something that you depend on to lead your life in a satisfactory way, it defines Scotland's rail service for hundreds of thousands of Scots who rely on them for work, family obligations and leisure. The Scottish Government took our train services back under public control this month after years of disastrous privatisation. Let's not inflict Mrs Thatcher's train crash privatisation policy on islanders. Let's keep the island public's ferry services where they belong in public ownership. I now call Richard Leonard, to be followed by Paul MacLennan, up to four minutes please, Mr Leonard. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by reminding members of my register of interests and by thanking Katie Clark, whose distinguished record on raising these issues is second to none? We are often accused by Government ministers of applying the benefit of hindsight, but, as far back as 2010, the late Bob Crow had the foresight to warn of the CalMac fleet, and I quote him, many of these ships are 30 years old and the fleet needs renewing. There will be a lead time of around 10 years before new ships come into service. It's a pity that his warning was not heeded. He also called for, and I quote again, a unified service, which is publicly owned and publicly accountable. He's greatly missed. Now, we note the First Minister's undertaking to this Parliament to stop short of unbundling Clyde and Hebrides ferry services, but it is a matter of record that Transport Scotland and CalMac are currently carrying out, what they call a market assessment of each route. What about a social assessment? An equality assessment? A community assessment? After all, people don't live in markets, they live in communities. Let me set out the reasons why I think that the public ownership of CalMac is critical. First of all, these are, for the most part, monopoly services. They are natural monopolies. They should not be run as private monopolies. Secondly, they are lifeline services, so they must be running the public interest for the public good, not according to the fiduciary duties of private capital to beneficial shareholders. Thirdly, this is one public service that works most efficiently when organised on a larger scale. This is not just the largest ferry operator in Scotland, it is the largest ferry operator in the whole of the UK, and such a concentration of power must remain in public and not be in private hands. To the Tories, the real choice is not between monopoly and competition, that is a fiction. The real choice is between monopoly capitalism or socialised public ownership. That is the choice. As a democratic socialist, I do not just believe in ownership by the state of our ferry services, I believe in democratic socialised public ownership of our ferry services, which is why we demand change. Excuse me, could you resume your seat for a second? It appears to me and it is up to each individual member that the member is not taking interventions and therefore there is no point in standing about it because the member is indicated that he is not taking the intervention. Mr Lerner, please resume. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We demand change. We demand participatory democracy, where islanders, passengers, where seafarers, the workers and their trade unions really share power and are not merely consultees. What those ferry services provide is not only an economic lifeline, they are a social service too, one that in my view should not only be obtainable by payment but should be available as of right. We need a developmental state where government intervention is not simply defensive but is positive, is radical and is visionary. That means the implementation of a regional policy to iron out the social, environmental and economic imbalances within Scotland of which ferries are an essential part of the solution. That means a planned economy, not economic planning, which is piecemeal or expedient but planning, which is comprehensive, which is strategic. For one, the programme of replacement CalMac vessels is back on time, is based on local labour, is properly planned and invested in. My message to the Government today is this, rule out privatisation, rule it out, expand ferry capacity, deal with the backlog of fleet investment, invest in the workforce, put passengers before profit and let us truly secure at last a people's CalMac. Thank you. I now call Paul MacLennan to be followed by Graham Simpson up to four minutes please, Mr MacLennan. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Katie Clark for bringing forward this debate this afternoon. We can all agree that ferry services provide an essential lifeline to island and rural communities and the economies that we have heard from members who live in these islands. I am aware how important they are to the communities that they serve and what it means to the economy and general wellbeing of such communities. We have to acknowledge that technical issues have caused much frustration to islanders not just in the past few weeks but in the last few months. It is also worth acknowledging that more than £2 billion has been spent in service contracts, new vessels and infrastructure since 2007, and in that, in the current five-year period, a further £580 million has been committed. The Scottish Government commitment to publish the island connectivity plan by the end of 2022 is welcome, and we know that the island's connectivity plan will replace the current ferries plan, looking at aviation, ferries, fixed links and investing in more sustainable ferries. The island connectivity plan will also be taken forward through the national transport strategy in the strategic transport projects review. That will enable us to consider the other potential value options about connecting the islands. The island's connectivity plan will replace the ferries plan by the end of 2022, and engagement is key and consultation will enable substantial public and community input. That is key as we move towards options in 2024. The island communities must be part of any solution. Project Neptune's remit was all about a review of the legal structures and governance arrangements that exist between Transport Scotland, Seymal and CalMac. It is, in quote, to remain fit for purpose to deliver an effective, efficient and economic ferry services. It has just started and, of course, we will deliver a final report later on in the year. The Scottish Government is also developing a revised ferries stakeholder engagement strategy and again community input into that, if I have time. Does he think that the current ferries network is fit for purpose? After 15 years of the Scottish Government, does he think that it has any responsibility for the state of the Scottish ferry network that is in? Of course, the Scottish Government has an input into that. I said I mentioned before about the £2 billion investment and the £580 million that the Government has been looking at. Of course, we are then talking about how we will be taking that forward. I am going to come back to the ferries stakeholder engagement strategy. The strategy has all set on an approach to engagement in three issues, operational issues, which has been mentioned, strategy and policy. The infrastructure investment plan for Scotland 21 to 26 will also produce and maintain long-term investment plans for new ferries, and development supports to improve resilience, reliability, capacity and accessibility, and reduce ignitions to meet the needs of island communities. That includes effect fares, and that is important as part of the island's connectivity plan. Moving on to public ownership, and I am quoting here from Transport Scotland, Scottish ministers have already ruled out privatisation and have no plans to split up the CalMac ferries network. The independent review of governance arrangements for the Scottish Government's lifeline ferry service will prevent a framework consisting of a range of options to the overarching objective of effective, efficient and economic delivery of lifeline ferry services to enhance passenger experience and support island communities. We will then engage with all key stakeholders to ensure the most efficient and best value arrangements to deliver our key lifeline ferry services. In conclusion, the First Minister has insisted that there are no plans to privatise lifeline ferry services to Scotland's island communities and made a commitment, and I quote to keep ferry services in public ownership. She also said that ensuring that ferry services are delivered through public contracts, given them control over service levels, timetables on fares operated by CalMac on the Clyde and Hebrides routes. She also said, and I quote, Let me say it again. We have no plans whatsoever. We will not privatise our public service ferries and equally have no plans to split up the CalMac network. That is the position of the Scottish Government. It could not be any clearer. Many thanks, Deputy Presiding Officer. I start by congratulating Katie Clark for bringing this motion to the Parliament. However, I have to say, hearing Katie Clark speak, I was left completely baffled by what it was she was attempting to say. When I intervened on her and asked her what she would change in the current system, she promised to tell us later in her speech and she didn't. Had I been able to intervene on Richard Leonard, I would have asked him exactly the same question. I did not get to intervene on Richard Leonard. I think that Katie Clark, from a sedentary position, is trying to intervene. If I am right, I will allow that. I did take an intervention from the member, so I am grateful for him to return in the favour. Just to be absolutely clear, I am arguing against the fragmentation of the current structure. I am arguing that the ferries, CalMac, SEMAL and indeed the ports should all be in public ownership and therefore that would enable better decision making. Indeed, in my speech, I used some examples of poor decision making that has been as a result of the failure to have a model of that nature and indeed the failure to involve islanders and the workforce in decision making. It sounds very much like Katie Clark once business, as usual, is on the ferries apart from the ports, which would appear as if she would want to nationalise the ports. Labour needs to put a cost on that if that is what they are suggesting. Her motion says that lifeline ferry services should be in the public sector. We on these benches support lifeline ferry services and we do not come to this with the ideology that Labour is approaching this with. We want ferry services that work for the islanders. They are the most important people in this. Katie Clark might not be aware, if she was not a member at the time, but there was an exhaustive inquiry into ferries, into the Ferguson debacle and into how we actually run ferry services by the former WREC committee. One of the recommendations of that committee was that the Government should commission a review into how we procure and run ferry services. That led to the Government appointing Ernst and Young to carry out the project Neptune review. The Government cannot be criticised for having done that because a cross-party committee of this Parliament asked them to do that. It is entirely right that we should explore options around a system that is clearly failing. The problem is, of course, that Ernst and Young have completed their review. They have produced a project Neptune report. It has been sitting with Transport Scotland. The minister has that report. Despite promising to issue it to the Parliament, she has not done so yet. We simply do not know what that report recommends. We do not know. It is right to look at the governance. It is right to look at the questions of, should we unbundle the West Coast services? That does not have to mean privatisation. It does not. The whole thing could still be run and paid for, subsidised by the Government. You might just introduce other operators. For example, Western ferries who run a very good service already or Pentland ferries, they probably would not be interested because of where they are based, but operators like that could come in. Frankly, if Labour listened to people like the Mull and Iona ferry committee, that is exactly what they are calling for. At the end of the day, we need to put islanders first. We need to be open to new ideas and get rid of the dogma that Labour has certainly bogged down in. Before I call the next speaker, due to the number of members who wish to speak in this debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I now invite Katie Clark to move the motion. The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I now call Ariane Burgess to be followed by Emma Roddick up to four minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to also congratulate Katie Clark for securing this important debate. First, I would like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor as Green MSP for the Highlands and Islands John Finnie for his attempts to see the Northlink ferries in Orkney and Shetland nationalised. Ferries should be run in the interests of islanders, not Serco's global shareholders. I am very grateful to the member for taking the intervention. I am from Orkney, I use that service all the time as I highlighted in my speech. I am yet to meet any more than a handful of people who want a nationalised Northern Isles contract. How many people has she spoken to? Does she agree with me that people in the Northern Isles just want reliable ferries and they do not want an Orkney and Shetland version of CalMac? Ariane Burgess? Thank you. I thank the member for the intervention and I will continue and unfold my argument in my speech because I think what we are looking for here is a joined up approach that is reliable. Scottish Greens believe that public ownership of Scotland's ferries is critical to reversing depopulation, supporting community regeneration and delivering a fairer greener transport mix for our islands. The next 10 years are vital for the future of our planet and public ownership enables an approach to procurement that centres environmental impact and community wellbeing instead of shareholder profit. I have been contacted by an island constituent who, due to ferry cancellations, had to fly to the mainland to assist her elderly parent with hospital visits. Other constituents have been unable to get things like animal feed or, more importantly, attend funerals. In the draft STPR2, we have committed to moving towards reliable zero carbon ferries so that constituents like those are not forced to fly or forced to flit. We must work to ensure that there are always islanders on the boards and staff teams of CalMac and Simal. With the public ownership model, we can achieve that. I will work with my colleagues in government to ensure that lifeline ferries are viable and reliable and that they are publicly funded, where essential connectivity cannot be met by the market. I am not going to take an inventor. Sorry, I just need to get on. If ferry operators enjoy the certainty of much longer contracts, then they could seek investment on the back-of-future ticket sales to procure vessels without the need for substantial public vessels investment. That would also allow operators to develop a strategic cost-effective long-term plan to upgrade and decarbonise the fleet. Perhaps that could be considered as part of the Bute House agreement commitment to assess the model of ferry services delivery, to ensure that our approach delivers good outcomes for communities, value for money, accountability and transparency. We also want to see inter-island ferries categorised as publicly-owned Scottish national infrastructure in line with requests from local authorities. Those council-owned operated ferries must be sufficiently funded to allow island councils to operate them effectively. The Scottish Green Party believes that we should extend the policy of free bus travel for under-22s to ferries, bringing parity between islands and the mainland in Scotland's public transport offer. For many travellers, a lack of interconnectedness between rail and ferry routes renders islands inaccessible to those who wheel and potentially unsafe for lone travellers. The train to Thurso is frequently late, which makes connecting with the ferry to Stromnes from Scrabster challenging and leaving people unexpectedly stranded. A more joined-up approach between ScotRail, high-trans, northward at Link and Pentland ferries could resolve that. With ScotRail now also in public ownership thanks to the Scottish Government and the Greens, it paves the way for new exciting ways of collaborating and working towards a more fully integrated public transport network. The Scottish Green Party believes that our islands should not be an afterthought, but at the forefront of Scotland's journey towards net zero to conclude that public ownership of ferry services, especially when supported by publicly operated rail and bus networks, have the potential to reverse rural depopulation trends, revitalise communities and make islands more accessible for those who walk, wheel and cycle. Thank you. I now call Emma Roddick to be followed by Jamie Greene up to four minutes please, Ms Roddick. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's honestly baffling to me that we're here debating this motion today. As others have noticed, Katie Clark asked the First Minister directly to commit to keeping ferry services in public ownership only two months ago and, as in the quote that my colleague Paul MacLennan read out, the First Minister provided that assurance in no uncertain terms. I don't really understand why I'm looking at a motion that suggests otherwise. It's shameless and frankly reckless that, after receiving the First Minister's personal unambiguous commitment that ferries are not being privatised, the member has brought a motion for debate referencing calls in the Scottish Government to categorically rule out privatisation. It has rolled out. Sitting here listening to Richard Leonard talk as if privatisation hasn't been ruled out and, if there's no such thing as a PSO, has been a waste of time and it's no surprise that you wouldn't take an intervention on that point. There are plenty of things worthy of debating on the issue of ferry and other transport services in Scotland. Personally, due to a health condition that's so far prevented me from driving, I rely solely on public transport and sometimes the goodwill of pals with cars, and that is not easy in the Highlands and Islands. The Minister for Transport and Government, anyone else who will listen, hears from me in my office pretty regularly on matters of trains, ferries, buses, bikes and more. I care deeply about improving our ferry services. I'm a regular user of CalMac and of Northlink services. I'm very familiar with CalMac and cheese dinners and being rudely woken up when docking in Kirkwall on route to Aberdeen. I care about our ferry service and I will engage in debates about procurement, about timetabling and prioritisation, but this debate is a waste of our time and I failed opportunity to talk about something that actually matters, I will. The motion is very clear that the contract, the CalMac contract coming to an end in 2024, I have been raising this issue over the last year and asking what model are we going to move to. It's clear that the current model doesn't work for the reasons that I outlined in my speech and others no doubt will outline. So does she not think that that is something that we should be debating in this chamber and that that is something that we should be debating today? As I said earlier, I think that there are discussions to be had and it's confusing to me that, in Katie Clark's own motion, she calls it a matter of alarm that there will be public consultation on future governance of ferry contracts and that there's to be a consultation on project Neptune. Her own party constantly claims that ferry contracts in this country are not up to scratch and her own leader has been heavily critical of ferry contracts, so Labour should welcome the opportunity to debate the finer points and involve constituents in the conversation. Submitting a motion outlining the dangers of a privatisation that is not happening is as legitimate as submitting a motion expressing concern about the potential loss of tourism caused by Nessie coming out as a Republican. Pressing over and over for a commitment that has been given clearly and unambiguously and repeatedly by the First Minister herself is not one of those many worthy issues that we could be discussing today. The motion is purely political, it's deliberately misleading and Labour should be ashamed that they wasted a debate slot in this place on making a point that only serves to provide anxiety for ferry users and ferry workers who have nothing to be concerned about because privatisation is not on the table. Thank you. I now call Jamie Greene to be followed by Paul Sweeney up to four minutes please, Mr Greene. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I don't really know how to follow that speech that says that talking about ferries in the Scottish Parliament is a waste of time. My goodness, that really sums up the state of debates about Scottish ferries. You know, in 2007, the official report shows us that members in this chamber made fewer than 100 contributions with the word ferry in it at all. This year to date, and we're only in April, there have been more than double that. Doesn't that say something? Doesn't that say something about the state of Scotland's ferries? There's not a day goes by where the media is filled with stories of the utter fiasco that people in our island communities are facing. Just today, we know again that they are in ferries out of action because of engine problems. Again, and again, and again, islanders are scunnered. They're scunnered of listening to contributions that say we're wasting our time even criticising the Government about this. It's absolutely right that we criticise the Government about this, because each and every one of us have a responsibility to stand up for our island communities and tell the Government that what is the current scenario, the current stage goes simply is not working, which is why I have to say thank you to Katie Clark for bringing forward another debate on this. We brought many debates on this. I did the same when I was Shadow Transport Minister. We as a party raised this in our own party time, and every time the senator benches say that we're politicising the issue. Here's where I do find fault, however, with Labour's proposal today. I think it's a slightly odd debate, because Scottish Labour are attacking these benches somehow for purporting the privatisation of everything that moves. Well, that's simply not true, and I want to make that clear. There was a statement made in the chamber yesterday that somehow you want to privatise CMAL. It's an official report. You can check that. Simply not true. I also want to put that on the record. Where I do think, though—and I think that this is an important point—it's a shame that we're not acknowledging this point—is that there are private operators out there doing good work. That's a really important point that I want to make. Whether it's Pentland ferries, whether it's Northlink, whether it's Weston ferries that services the Gwyrwch Dunwne route, they're doing good work. Some of them are in receipt of public subsidy, and some of them aren't, and good on them, the ones that aren't. If they're able to run an effective service that operates between mainland and islands or mainland and mainland, good on them. I say to Richard Leonard that that's what really matters to islanders. It's all very well grandstanding on the soapbox about the ideology about public versus private. What islanders really want, Mr Leonard, is a service that runs—they couldn't give two hoots, who owns it, or what the structures around the ownership are. They don't have that at the moment, and that's what they're asking us to debate. The other points that I want to make around the actual contract, which is the substance of the motion—which I do find interesting, there's lots of it that I agree with. That's this concept of permanent in-house operation that Labour wants to see, which is fine. Permanent in-house operation of the contract—the problem is that the contract is flawed, Ms Clark—and everybody knows that. We have ferries that don't operate in the ports that they're designed to. We have ports that aren't fitting the ferries that are running on them. We have ferries that are not interoperable between ports and routes, and we have onerous contracts that only CalMac could bid for anyway, to be quite honest, and we knew that from the last contract. I'm all for tenders because it keeps people on their toes and it brings out the best of the operator. CalMac won that last tender, and rightly so, but the contract itself is onerous. The people of Arran don't want a cruise liner with beds and bunks and bars. They want a ferry that runs on time, and I don't care who operates it or indeed who owns it. The other problem I have is this idea of ruling out any form of private ferry operators. I just simply say to the Scottish Labour on that. Who on earth is going to meet the capacity? Who on earth is going to get the whisky off of the islands? Who on earth is going to get the grain and the cattle between? If someone can come along and do night-time routes, freight routes, winter routes, all the areas where there are pinch points in the current services, then I say bring that on. This ideological position that we're going to roll them out simply because of politics is now reminded. Actually, if you listen to islanders, it's not what they want. Everybody knows that. That should be lying at the heart of this entire debate. What do islanders want? Are we doing enough to meet those requirements? Let's park the politics aside just for once in this debate and deliver phrase to our islands and do it now. I now call Paul Sweeney, who will be the last speaker before I ask the minister to respond to the debate. It's a pleasure to speak in today's debate, and I thank my colleague Katie Clark for securing the debate and bringing this motion to the chamber, although I have been disappointed by the paucity of analysis, particularly from the Government benches about what is a critical issue to Scotland's general prosperity and wellbeing. CalMac has essentially been in some form of public ownership since 1948, when the railway companies were nationalised, taking its current corporate form in 1990. There has long been a settled recognition that ferry services in Scotland were a lifeline and are a lifeline for island communities. At the best way to future proof them and to operate them was to ensure that they were publicly controlled and not subject to market forces. However, to meet the requirements of a European Union guideline on state aid to maritime transport, Caledonian might brain was split into two separate companies in 2006. Caledonian maritime assets limited seamale retained ownership of CalMac vessels and infrastructure, including harbours, while CalMac ferries submitted tenders every so often to be the ferry operator. The fundamental point of contention is that it is clear that this neoliberal experiment in corporate Chinese walls has utterly failed. Just as we have seen with the rail franchising, it has failed on a similar basis, most spectacularly so in the procurement of vessels 801 and 802—a tragedy for Scotland's industrial base and for any form of this model being seen as a success. For far too long, vital lifeline services in Scotland have declined under this form of quasi-privatisation and absurd market simulation. Look at the ScotRail under Abelio, services cut, prices rising and a constant battle of attrition between unions and management, as well as buck passing between network rail, rolling stock operating companies that are privatised and train operating companies. The same failed model plays out with the ferry system and it needs to end. Look at bus services in Glasgow, too. Root services in services cut due to lack of profitability, drivers demoralised and leaving in their droves due to poor paying conditions, and ultimately a dramatically reduced service for commuters. It is a common story of failure. We cannot let Scotland's ferry services continue on the same path, and that is why they must remain in public control fundamentally, but they must be fully reintegrated under one team, one owner of assets, one operator and, indeed, arguably, one shipbuilder, as well. That has an opportunity to happen when we see the ferry contract structure expire in October 2024, and that is the assurance that we want to seek from the Government today. That being said, we need to have that conversation about why it is fundamentally beneficial to be publicly owned. I think that there is general agreement across the chamber on that matter. It is to provide a solid, stable foundation for management that improves standards, increases investment and is ultimately harnessing the power of the state to provide for Scotland's economy and common prosperity. If we were to do that, we need to reinforce it with a national shipbuilding strategy that focuses on the workforce on a stable, long-term pipeline of work, and on developing Scotland's shipbuilding assets. I have said this before, and it has been mentioned by my colleague, Kate Clark, that there are 33 vessels on the Calomac fleet, each of them with a 25-year lifespan on average. That is a one-vessel drumbeat every nine months for a Scottish shipbuilding industry. Why are we not ensuring that Scottish yards have that guaranteed permanent shipbuilding programme, securing jobs and actually giving the confidence for shipyards to invest in the process, therefore building a virtuous cycle where we are drip-feeding a free-market feast-and-fam and order cycle that has plagued Scotland's industrial base for so long? We need to change that landscape and have an assured long-term shipbuilding strategy. Indeed, Babcock has just delivered a world-class new shipbuilding facility in Recythe because it has an assured naval programme. We should be doing the same with the commercial side as well. We have assets like in-screen dry-dod that should be in public hands, but instead of being hoarded by their owners, peal for no reason, are not to give their shipyard on the River Mersey a competitive advantage. CalMac vessels are sailing south to Mersey's side for refits, while Clyde dry-docks lie derelict from Government to Greenock. Ambition is what is needed from this Government for Scotland's ferry services, not quasi-privatisation and weird market simulations that have not worked enough to introduce chaos. Ultimately, we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of our ferry services is. They are not a commercial business. They are to provide a fundamental public service. It is not good enough for the Government to attempt to wash their hands of this fundamental structural problem that they have created and left the taxpayer liable for Scotland's island communities, seafarers and shipbuilders to deserve much better. I now call on Jenny Gilruth to respond to the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government up to seven minutes, please. I want to start by thanking Katie Clark for her securing time this afternoon for this really important debate on the future of Scotland's ferries. To every member who has contributed to this afternoon's debate, I find it to be largely helpful and pretty informative, too. We are all here because we share a desire to see a more reliable, affordable service that meets the needs of our island and remote communities. As we heard from Jamie Halcro Johnston, it needs to be beyond the politics of this chamber. That has been a fairly common theme in contributions from members this afternoon. As the motion eludes to, CalMac has carried out over 47 million passengers and 12 million cars in the last decade alone, which is to be lauded. However, as we have heard today, there are many challenges faced by CalMac and its ability to deliver an efficient service. I now want to respond to some of the points in today's debate in turn. Katie Clark opened by talking about a publicly-owned ferries company, or a twin structure that she alluded to, that worked for communities and that listened to communities. Again, that has been highlighted to me throughout the course of the past three months in office. It is something that I have committed that we need to look at. I have started conversations with officials on how we might be able to do that, for example, through the board structure. I think that that was also highlighted to me by Alice Rallan in the recent debate that we had at the end of the term. She raised the point about the view on standardisation of vessels. Yes, absolutely. I am grateful that she seems to be sympathetic to the idea of islanders and boards. Is she also sympathetic to the idea of workplace trade union representatives on boards? Broadly, yes. I would like to come back to our more detail on that, and I do not want to make policy up on the hoof in a member's debate, but, yes, I think that it is important that we have boards that are representative and that listen to trade unions as well, of course, as our island communities. On the point about standardisation of vessels in terms of cutting costs, one of the issues that we face, of course, is that we have a relatively old port infrastructure. There would be challenges around about standardisation of all vessels in terms of future procurement, however, I am happy to take that up with Seamild directly. The member asked for a plan, and, as we have heard from Ms McLean this afternoon, the island's connectivity plan is going to publish later this year. I would ask all members if they are able to contribute to the formation of that plan. It has to listen to communities. To me, it represents a way forward and an opportunity to do things better and to do things differently and to improve, ultimately, the services that islanders are currently receiving. Jamie Greene This is my second term in this Parliament. I sat in the REC committee and, six years ago, we asked the Government for a phrase action plan. We said back then that we needed 12 vessels, 12. That was six years ago. They could have been delivered by now. The question is, minister, where are they? Where is the plan and where are the vessels? I do not think that it is fair that Mr Greene's characterisation of what has been delivered is inaccurate, to some extent. We have, for example, just seen the recent delivery of the procurement rather of the two Eileen vessels, so it is inaccurate to say that no vessels have been delivered in that time. What I am saying to him is that the island's connectivity plan offers us a way forward. I would ask that all members, including Mr Greene, take part collaboratively in that process, because it is absolutely essential that we get this right. To move on to some of Mr Halcro Johnston's points, he mentioned—a few other members mentioned this point about the issues on project Neptune. I have been very upfront with Mr Simpson, who I work closely with as a Conservative representative on transport, about wanting to publish the report. We are not at that stage yet because, of course, we are now in Perda, and Cabinet Secretary have advised that we would not be able to do so at this moment in time. However, after local government elections, I am more than happy to publish it. The other thing that we need to take a licence of is that we need to engage trade unions in this process and staff in this process. We need to speak to island communities too before rushing the publication of that document, which will ultimately have impacts potentially for them in the future viable to the service. I am grateful to the minister for taking the intervention. It seems that we are making some progress on publishing project Neptune. Can she put a date on it? Will it be in May? I cannot give Mr Simpson a date today. I apologise for that, but I will speak to officials about doing it as quickly as possible. I recognise the need for transparency on this, and we have discussed it previously. As we have heard from members today and as the First Minister has made clear, I think, in response to an FMQ from Ms Clarke, this Government has no plans to privatise or unbundle. To date, that has ensured control over service levels, timetables and fares in contracts, but I am acutely aware of the need to deliver a service for our island communities, which works. I am not clear, Presiding Officer, that that is what is currently being delivered. Over recess, I had the privilege to visit the Western Isles to meet with local communities in Barra, the US, Harris and the Western Isles Council, where I had the opportunity to listen to their views and hear about some of the challenges that they are facing. It was made very clear to me during those conversations for those communities that various are absolutely a lifeline, and their operations continue to affect day-to-day life. I apologise to those communities both in person, over the recess and also here in the chamber. I do so unreservedly again today. I am absolutely clear that communities are not getting the service that they need and deserve, although the recent period of disruption has been particularly acute due to weather in Covid. In January and February alone, for example, 92.75 per cent of all cancellations were due either to weather or Covid-19. As we have heard from some members today, it is notwithstanding that Aging Fleet is also having an impact here in terms of the infrastructure. There is a challenge to CalMac here about communication with islanders. That was a fairly common theme picked up from my meetings with islanders over the course of recess. That communication with island communities in a timely fashion is absolutely essential to, I think, allaying fears and anxieties around service cancellations. It may be that she is coming on to this point, but is she going to address the issue of ownership of ports? She will be aware, for example, in a draw-son that the ownership of the land and harbour rights by Peel has caused massive problems more than four years of delay. Is she sympathetic also to looking at how we bring ports back into public ownership, because that will make decision making easier in the public sector? I am sympathetic to that. She will know that our draw-son is not in public ownership as a direct result of UK Government privatisation back in the early nineties. Of course, if we had our draw-son in public ownership now, we would have been able to move more quickly in terms of the improvements that required at our draw-son. I am sympathetic to that point. I will be happy to meet Ms Clark on that in more detail and to provide her with reassurance that that is something that we are certainly amenable to. To respond to Ms Minto's point, she made the point that ferries not only connect people, but also connect a multimillion industry in her constituency with regard to the whisky industry. I recognise that, for her having 23 islands in her constituency, the most islands out of any MSP in the chamber will not be without challenge. I think that the wider issue that she alluded to with regard to population growth and population decline is really important. To give her an assurance, I have held initial meetings with the cabinet secretary for islands to discuss this in more detail to ensure that our officials are working together on how we can better support that work. Richard Leonard mentioned a point about market assessment. I want to clarify that that is a requirement for any public provision, but it is also combined with a community needs assessment. He asked what about that community assessment. I think that that point about language is important. I agree that it should be run, of course, in public ownership and for public good, as he alluded to. He also asked about participatory democracy. Again, I am not against that. If he had listened to the debate that we had at the end of the term, I gave that undertaking to Alasdair Allan to look at how we get greater representation, for example, for islanders on island boards. Paul MacLennan points to the importance of the islands connectivity plan, which I previously mentioned. Mr Simpson spoke about ferry services that work for islanders, which we all want to have happen. To speak to Arianne Burgess' points, she mentioned some of the issues around the under-22 scheme. That issue has been raised with me by Beatrice Wishart and a number of others. It is something that we are considering, of course, as a result of the fair fairs review, which will look at the modal challenges that we face across the public transport network. Now, we can better connect train, for example, to our ferry network to give some resolution to some of the issues that she discussed. Jamie Greene mentioned some of the issues that Arianne has been facing. I want to touch on that very briefly, Presiding Officer. Officials met with Arianne Burgess' committee this morning, and I will meet them tomorrow morning. I want to give him and them an undertaking that I am prioritising. That is a matter of absolute urgency. I know that the boat itself is in tune at the moment for repair, and it is being looked at today. I will expect an update on that in terms of the timescales tomorrow. I am conscious of time. In the interests of that, I will move to my concluding marks. I have touched on most members' points today, but we have had a very wide-ranging contribution from members. If members feel that there are any issues that I have not addressed in those remarks, I will be more than happy to write to them directly on that. Obviously, from my perspective as transport minister, there are things that we need to improve. The next round of Tuesday gives us an opportunity to do that. We have heard contributions from different members today on how we can best do that. I give an undertaking to all members that I am keen to work with every political party in here to ensure that we deliver a service that best meets the needs of our island communities. That concludes the debate, and I suspend this meeting until 2.30.