Chamber and committees

The member has asked a fair question. On the vessels that have been procured and are being built in Turkey, that was a free and open competition, and we could not dictate such terms in that competition. I am prepared to be wrong about that—I am looking at officials in case they are going to correct me. We could not dictate in that competition where the award was made, because it was an open competition.

The point about the supply chain issue is well made. As far as I understand it, there will be benefits to the UK supply chain in relation to the vessels that are being built in Turkey.

Obviously, we will have to do that as a matter of urgency, but I reflect to committee members that that is the first time that I have heard that statistic. I do not know whether officials have heard that previously in relation to inflationary impacts. It is also important to reflect that we have already leveraged £580 million into ports and vessels, so the additionality, which has been brought in the past financial year, joins that contribution.

In answer to Mr Kerr’s wider point in relation to inflation, of course, we will need to work with CMAL on mapping out what those inflationary impacts actually mean for the current fleet and the deliverables, which are absolutely key.

However, today was the first time that I had heard that particular statistic in relation to the inflationary impacts on the fleet. I am happy to hear officials’ views on that, but I think that we will need to look at the point that Mr Kerr has raised.

Yes, absolutely; I would.

As I think that I alluded to in my opening statement, I am very conscious that a lot of evidence exists of the problems and where we need to go next in relation to the delivery of ferry services in Scotland. What I need to do now is move us forward on project Neptune specifically. However, your point about trade unions is a good one, so I will certainly take that away as an action point from today’s meeting, and I will speak to CalMac and CMAL about what we might be able to do in that space.

There should be lots of scope for greater devolution of management, because, in my experience as minister, island communities often feel that CalMac is a bit top-heavy. In the future delivery model, it would be important to look to have a more people-focused organisation that is on the ground in our island communities. If you go out—I know that the committee has been out and about—and speak to folk who live in our island communities, they will tell you that some of the best people who work in the organisation are the people who work in the ports or the ticket offices or who help them on the boats. There are some fantastic people in these organisations. Obviously, at the moment, we are talking about CalMac, but I should say that that is also true of Serco NorthLink.

Ms Lennon is right in relation to the sentiment of her question about the devolution of management or, I suppose, having a more front-facing organisation, and there should be opportunities for that. One of the things that I have done as minister, in the past year and a bit, is to convene regular resilience calls. It is really important that, as minister, I hear regularly and routinely from island communities when there are periods of sustained disruption. However, it is not just me who comes to those meetings—it is also CalMac, CMAL and Transport Scotland. There is something about organisations facing up to challenges when they occur—of course, I also do that as minister—and the community seeing it, understanding it and, in my experience, actually being reassured when there are challenges on the network.

The people from island communities who I speak to on the resilience calls are reassured when they know that there is a plan. What does not provide them with reassurance is the uncertainty that outages cause.

To go back to the overarching question that Ms Lennon asks about that devolution of management, we need to think about how we can get more of CalMac’s management team into our communities. We also need the organisation to think about the strengths that it already has within it—the people who work in the ticket offices and on the front line. They are fantastic advocates and ambassadors for the organisation, so it is not just all about the managers.

It is not just that. I will allow Transport Scotland to answer for itself, but it is fair to say that, in recent times—I will be careful how I say this, convener—because the issue of ferries has become topical in the chamber and parliamentary committees, as is quite right and is, of course, in Parliament’s gift, the workload pressures on Transport Scotland have been greater than they probably have been at any other time before now. That has an impact on the progress that we have been able to make in a number of different areas. I will allow Transport Scotland to speak—

As the former cabinet secretary will know, I have confidence that my officials are doing their jobs. Project Neptune was carried out by Ernst & Young as the appointed consultant. It carried out that investigation last year and I published it and presented it to Parliament in September.

Overall, the role that Transport Scotland fulfils is a hugely important one, and I have confidence that it is fulfilling its role, if that is the deputy convener’s question.

Absolutely. That is hugely important. I am more than happy to write to officials when I have that data and clarity from the SGLD and Transport Scotland.

I read the same story and I was surprised by it. My officials are of the view that the story in question has taken the actual spend to date for the young persons scheme, which is just over £93 million, and added the forecast spend for 2023-24 that was included in the business and regulatory impact assessment, which is £189.5 million—the figure that Ms Lennon alluded to, I think. The actual spend to date figure was published back in February in a freedom of information response. We think that, in the story, they have added the two together, which is incorrect.

I will answer, then I may bring in officials.

There are a number of elements to the ICP. The long-term plan for vessels and ports was published at the end of last year. There will also be elements on the community needs assessment, on fares policy, on connecting and onward travel and on the low-carbon plan. Those are the sections of the ICP.

I expect to receive advice from Transport Scotland in the coming weeks in relation to the deadline and timescales to which we are working, and I am happy to share updates on that with the committee.

The final ICP will be relatively short, as an introductory document to that ring-binder approach, which I have agreed with Transport Scotland. That gives a more iterative process and allows us to be more reflective as an organisation—to change things when we need to change them. In the past, we may not have been as reflective and as constructive in that respect, because we have been quite static in our approach to policy development and to how that is implemented on the ground.

In relation to your second question, we prioritised the publication of the long-term plan. As I mentioned, an advance copy of that draft was published, on 30 December—I recall reading it between Christmas and new year. That is a working draft. It is important that we now get stakeholder feedback on that draft.

I go back to the point that I made to the convener at the start of the session: I do not want to foist on island communities something that they do not want. A further version of the draft is now being prepared in light of some of the feedback that we have already had. The plan is to commence public consultation in April, I think—officials will correct me if I am wrong.

The ICP and associated delivery parts, which I outlined at the start of my answer, will be supported by impact assessments, too. The majority of Transport Scotland’s work on the ICP and those chapters within it will be completed during 2023 but, as I have said, I await its further advice on the full timetable for the sections that I have updated Mr Ruskell on.