Chamber and committees

Would Robbie Drummond welcome a more strategic approach? As Mark Ruskell indicated, climate change is happening. What does that mean for our seas and the experience of them? Who takes responsibility for that? Is that simply left to you as an operator to deal with on an operational basis, or do you engage with Transport Scotland on what future needs might be? If we have different types of ferries, such as electric, battery and hydrogen ferries—who knows?—where will the weather analysis come from? Who is leading on that? Who should lead on that?

It is clear that churches are concerned. There are many concerns. The fact that, following the transitional period, criminal penalties will apply for non-compliance is of concern to church trustees. Three specified individuals would have to be named. Churches change their office bearers, as do various organisations, so the anxiety is understandable.

I think that you are saying that you think that the extra year will give them more time to do what you wanted them to do in the first place. I am a bit concerned that there has not been the level of engagement that there could have been. I understand that the churches are saying that they have not had a response since their meeting with you in September. Therefore, I think that there is a genuine issue here.

I recognise the need for openness and transparency in land reform, which I am very supportive of, but I think that there are some practical difficulties. Like many organisations that have come through the pandemic, churches are having to re-establish themselves and so on. Can you reassure us that you will continue to engage with the churches in order to work out a way forward, so that the new requirement does not overburden them or worry them unnecessarily?

Is building bigger ferries the natural evolution because those are more profitable?

Harald Høyem, what is your view on whether ferry operators prefer to have a large vessel with fewer sailings or two or more vessels that operate? Are staffing issues leading to bigger vessels, as we have just heard from Dag Hole? What is your experience?

Has that perhaps been lacking to date?

I put the same questions to NorthLink, and you can decide who might be most appropriate to answer. What role have you had with project Neptune? Do you have a view on what would be the best operating and organisational model for the future of our ferry service in Scotland?

I have finished my questions, convener.

Thank you.

I want to move on to the future of ferries, which is the subject of this inquiry. I will put this question of Robbie Drummond first. What involvement have you had in project Neptune? Do you have any views on its recommendations? There is speculation about a possible merger of Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd and CalMac Ferries. This is your opportunity to say publicly what your view is. How do you think the organisation or organisations tasked with ferry delivery should be structured? I think that you were listening into the session with our Norwegian witnesses, who have a completely different model. Do we need to be a bit more radical about what we are proposing for the future?

I think that the 12-month extension is a pragmatic move. It is a wise thing to do for a number of reasons. However, I am less convinced that the engagement with churches has been what it needs to be, particularly bearing in mind the points that have been made about companies and the original legislation, and the fact that there were other means by which the information in question could be sought. It has also been brought to our attention that the Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Bill, which is currently going through the Parliament, has a requirement on transparency, whereby trustee information must be included.

It was interesting that the minister set out the four kinds of information that are required. If use could be made of the 12-month period to look at the practicalities involved in those four areas, perhaps something sensible could be arrived at. I think that the worst thing that we could do is not approve the instrument, because we need the time for such consideration to take place. However, we need to take close cognisance of the points that have been made.

The minister is absolutely right to say that we must have standards for everybody and that, if we have exemptions for one group, that can lead to inequities elsewhere. That has obviously been the judgment that has been taken so far, in deciding not to look at policy reform. I think that there might be an intelligent way to address the issue, because many churches are very vulnerable at the moment, and they are helping vulnerable people. In some areas, the proposed requirement might deter people from taking on responsibilities, which is the last thing that we want to do. If anything, land reform is about getting people to take more responsibility and to be transparent, but our churches probably need a bit more support and engagement.

I propose that we support the instrument, but we must keep a close eye on the situation. I will be interested to see how engagement proceeds with the Church of Scotland in the forthcoming year.