Chamber and committees

It was in March of this year.

I will hand back to the convener. If I can pull out the relevant dates to help to jog your memory, I will send a note to the convener.

Yes.

In that case, I have one final question for Andrew Miller. Are you able to explain for what reasons the board was unhappy with David Tydeman’s previous evidence to this committee? There are board papers that seem to suggest that the board was unhappy with unsubstantiated opinions that he had given to the committee. I want to understand what is behind that.

Okay, but, in terms of the Glen Sannox, has everything been completed that was in the original design and specification?

Thank you. I appreciate the limitations of your knowledge on that. I will put the question to Andrew Miller as chairman, because it is really important that we are confident that all lessons that can possibly be learned have been learned. Are you able to say whether the board is satisfied that the specifications were appropriate and correct? Were they over the top or overambitious?

Malcolm Combe, do you agree with Calum MacLeod? I note that your written evidence says that your inclination would be to reduce the trigger value to 1,000 hectares. Have I got that correct?

My apologies, convener. I am not pressing any buttons, but I have been muted and unmuted a few times. I will go again.

Malcolm Combe, in your written evidence, you highlighted the concern that the proposed scheme for composite holdings might lead to some difficulties in application. Will you please set out your concerns?

I am sure that they will forgive you for missing today.

Thank you for those answers. Before I hand back to the convener, I asked Andrew Miller about project domino. Just to clarify, the paperwork released by the Scottish Government suggests that that was a code name used by the Government in March this year, and that it may have been used only internally. We might be able to ask the Scottish Government about that separately.

Right on cue, I will ask about land management plans. We honestly did not rehearse this before the witnesses came along.

From the written evidence, we know some of Calum MacLeod and Malcolm Combe’s thoughts on the issue. So far, the committee has taken a fair bit of written and oral evidence on land management plans. We have heard from witnesses about a number of concerns, including cost and administrative burden, lack of reference to crofting and commercial sensitivity.

I want to give you the chance to say a few words about the level of detail that should be in the land management plans. What would be appropriate? Is anything missing from the bill in that respect? I can see Calum MacLeod, so I will come to him first. All that I can see of Malcolm Combe is the back of his head.

This question is for John Petticrew. I believe that one of the requirements for vessels that are procured under the small vessel replacement programme is that they have to be electric. We know that there have been issues with the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa as a result of the LNG fuel system. Do you have any concerns about that, or have lessons been learned that make you confident that you can handle that specification?

I have not, unfortunately—not yet. Is that an invitation?