Chamber and committees

Obviously, as a Scottish Government minister, I support rejoining the EU. Therefore, I would start from a tendency to support alignment to ensure that that process was streamlined.

However, despite the fact that we have left the EU, a lot of the legislation that was previously in place is now covered by the Subsidy Control Act 2022. It is not clear to me from the advice that I have had from officials whether we have the freedom to do things markedly differently from what was previously envisaged. However, some of that is legal advice that sits with the Scottish Government legal directorate. I am more than happy to take further advice on the matter, because the models that are proposed through project Neptune, which Angus Campbell is consulting on at the moment, will depend on Ms Hyslop’s point about the model that was adopted back in 2006.

In terms of the structures, we need to test those principles with island communities, and that consultation is hugely important in that regard.

We are looking at whether the EU subsidy changes allow for more flexibility around the length of contracts. We would have proceeded with that issue even if we were still in the EU. There is potentially an opportunity to do things differently in that area.

In relation to the overall opportunities, I am not yet clear that we will be able to do things radically differently. Officials have been working with SGLD colleagues on that and I expect to get advice on it later this year. That will coincide with Angus Campbell’s consultation work and allow us to see the overall picture of what we are legally able to do.

I am not necessarily sure that it is appropriate. That has been the model historically, and I, as the minister, have not yet had evidence to the contrary to provide me with a range of options. Monica Lennon will accept that I, as the minister, would expect to receive advice on that. I have not yet had that advice, but I am not necessarily convinced that that is the most appropriate model.

In my experience in three different roles in Government, I cannot think of another example. However, I might be wrong about that. Other examples might exist in other ministers’ portfolios.

I am happy for Chris Wilcock to come in.

I do not want them to be in service for 30 years. We want to reduce the average age of the fleet, so that is absolutely not my intention.

Obviously, CMAL will look at mitigation in that regard. There is a solution for the small vessel fleet, which relates to batteries, but it is true that there are more challenges with larger vessels. We now have LNG for vessels 801 and 802. I think that Jim Anderson described that as a transition fuel. We need to think about how we will provide, in the future, cleaner ferries that meet our net zero aspirations. That applies particularly to larger vessels, because the technology for them is just not there yet. We need to keep pace with the technology. That goes back to the point that Ms Lennon made about experts. We need to engage with experts and academics to ensure that we are abreast of all the latest developments and that CMAL has the relevant data to ensure that the design spec keeps pace with those developments.

My officials might want to say more about the specifics.

I very much recognise the challenge to the Government there. The existing arrangements are historical—they have been in place for a number of years, as Ms Lennon will know. The Government will need to look at that, although I have not been presented with any suggestions on how we might change that arrangement at the current time. However, that is something that we will need to consider.

I have recently heard from other members on that point. That is a convention that has existed historically, but we will need to look at that in the longer term.

Yes—absolutely. I am not going to disband Transport Scotland at the committee’s meeting this morning, convener. However, to get into the detail of Ms Hyslop’s question, it is important that we recognise some of the challenges with the current tripartite structure. I am sure that committee members have read the project Neptune report and they will know that the tripartite structure comes with a number of challenges. There is a line in the report that says that the role of ministers is often quite detached from the tripartite structure. That is problematic, because I answer parliamentary questions in the chamber and I appear before the committee, yet ministers can feel very detached from that process.

Ms Hyslop asked whether some of the responsibilities could be transferred within the Scottish Government. Yes, they could. Could that strengthen the relationship between Transport Scotland and the Scottish ministers? Yes. Ultimately, following project Neptune, the community consultation work will tell us where the community wants us to go in that regard, and I am keen to hear from it. I do not want to prejudge that, but Ms Hyslop makes an interesting point.

It is interesting. The Norwegian experience is very different from what we have in Scotland, given the number and type of routes that are run and the type of vessels that are used. If we look at project Neptune, we can see that Scotland is quite unique in how we deliver ferry services. No other country in the world does things as we do them in Scotland. Maybe that is a good thing and maybe it is a bad thing—I will allow the committee to judge that. Nonetheless, I do not think that unbundling would provide us with the answers that we need here.

I return to Ms Hyslop’s observation in her question that the main challenge for the fleet just now is resilience and reliability. How do we improve that? That is what I am absolutely focused on, as transport minister, at the current time. It is about bringing in extra tonnage where we are able to do that, making sure that there is the investment that Mr Kerr spoke about—we have done a lot of that work in the past year—and ensuring that passengers’ lived experience of the network improves. It will need to improve markedly in the interim.

I would be happy to do that.