Chamber and committees

Indeed.

At this time, it is quite difficult for us to say what the future cost will be. Donald Morrison and I mentioned, I think in response to Ms Lennon’s question, that some local authorities are further down the road than others, while some are waiting and holding back their consultation and assessment processes until the regulations come into force. Therefore, we do not yet know where they are in their planning or what the associated costs with that would be.

We would certainly want to continue working with local authority partners. They have been part of the working group to develop the parking guidance for example. That has been pivotal. They have helped to shape and change the guidance as officials have worked with them during the past year and a bit.

We as a Government recognise the need to listen and respond to changes accordingly. I take Mr Kerr’s point seriously, because I recognise some of the financial challenges that local authorities and, it should be said, the Scottish Government face at this time.

We have provided funding of £2.4 million, and we will continue to work with local authority partners on those costs. However, at this time, it is not possible to give a quantifiable amount for each local authority, because some are further down the road with their assessments than others and others have yet to start the process and therefore will not have a cost associated with the work itself.

Yes.

The local authority would have to judge. If it had a certain number of objections in a certain area and identified that there was a real challenge, you would expect the local authority to respond accordingly. It is very dependent on the level of interest in the exemptions at local level. However, as I mentioned in response to Mr Ruskell, in terms of driving the behaviour change that we need to see, we do not want to see vast swathes of exemptions. The regulations give local authorities a power, but there is, nonetheless, still a national pavement parking ban.

That it is a fair question. Elise McIntyre will come in on the specifics, and I might speak about ministerial directions after that.

I do not think that I have seen the quotation in context, and I would be grateful if the committee could share it with me. However, I recognise the need to do more in relation to islander representation on boards, in particular. The matter obviously predates my time in office but has affected island communities in recent months. In a number of my interactions with island communities on different matters, predominantly in relation to ferry services, it has been raised consistently.

I should make the committee aware that one of the petitioners, Angus Campbell, has been asked to lead the consultation work in relation to project Neptune, so he is involved in some of the wider work to consult island communities on the governance and provision of ferry services. Some of that work might examine directly the issue that the petition is considering. However, on the principle of the member’s question, I agree that there is more that we need to do in that respect.

In addition, last month, I updated the Parliament on two different appointments. Morag McNeill has been appointed as the chair of Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd. Murdo MacLellan has been appointed as a non-executive director on the CMAL board, and he is an islander. That is progress, but I recognise that more needs to be done, and I am committed to working with Angus Campbell and others on how the Government delivers that.

That is quite important with regard to the opportunities that are available to island residents.

We are advertising on the vessels, too, are we not?

I am prepared to be wrong about this, but my reading of the petition is that HIAL is being used as an example of lifeline services to island communities and that the petition is not focused only on HIAL.

I think that, in relation to lifeline services to island communities, we are really talking about three boards: CMAL, David MacBrayne and HIAL. HIAL’s board has six members, I think—not eight. If we were to add three members to it, its composition would alter significantly. I am not saying that I am against the proposal—I am sympathetic to it—but Fergus Ewing is right to say that I would like to speak directly to HIAL about it. It is a relatively small board. In fact, the membership of all the boards is relatively small. Some of the challenge therefore relates to how we can recruit people with the skills and expertise that Alexander Stewart was asking about while, at the same time, assuring islander representation.

I am happy to write to HIAL on the point that Fergus Ewing has addressed. I am not sure that I agree with the petitioners that three members of that board should come from island communities, given that it currently has only six members. However, we can do more to formalise islanders’ voices on the boards, to ensure that they are properly heard and that their views are taken account of.

Fran Pacitti may want to say more about that, as she met HIAL last week.

I am happy to allow Fran Pacitti to talk you through the process. As the minister, I will need to sign off some of those appointments, but it might be best if Fran talks you through the technical detail of the requirements of the application process itself—for example, how candidates are sifted.