Seòmar agus comataidhean

I refer you to the latest audit report on that, which found Scottish Canals to be in a better and more positive state. There were issues to do with VAT and other areas that were particularly problematic, which the Scottish Government assisted it with. Kerry Twyman might be in a better place to say more about that, particularly from the accounts perspective. However, my understanding is that Scottish Canals is on track and in a better position than it was previously.

I am more than happy to look at any proposals or suggestions. As I said, Mr Fairlie leads on that area. However, I point out that there have already been major investments by Scottish Canals, supported by the Scottish Government, at the southern end of the canal network.

In more general terms, we should think about how we use our canal network more creatively. In Glasgow, in the area around Bob Doris’s constituency, there are major issues about how to tackle flooding and regeneration and redevelopment. Canals were our economic drivers in the past, and I think that they might have a new future, although that is all within the financial constraints and fiscal challenges—as you know, we have a 9 per cent capital reduction in our budget over the next few years.

So far, to the end of March 2024, £20.5 million has been spent on bus priority measures through the bus partnership fund. That is in a capital space, so it is more about the physical infrastructure that is required.

On your point about additional funding to help in processing the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 regulations, that was more focused on the community bus fund. That has been used more recently by local authorities.

I hear what the member says about enabling support. Councils themselves, and councils through their regional transport authorities, may want to use that. There is something to say about how we can have better integrated support for the regional transport partnerships to allow them to make the decisions that they need to make. We support them in particular ways, including from capital infrastructure. I hear what the member is saying but, as we go forward, the case has to be made as to why that funding is important in such a tightly constrained area. I will meet the convener with responsibility for transport for Glasgow this week, and I am sure that they will pursue that issue with me.

I have already announced what we have done most recently.

From activity in the Parliament, you know that there is an interest from Ferguson Marine in the SVRP. As the committee knows, responsibility for the company lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic. However, when it comes to our assessment as an overall Government, everything has to be looked at in the round, and that has been done, particularly in the development of business cases and in relation to the accountable officer assessment and legal advice. Very strict issues surround ferry procurement generally, as well as particularly in relation to any one company.

Planning for any reorganisation can take place. What I want CMAL and CalMac to focus on is the successful operational delivery of the six ferries into the ports and harbours that will be receiving them, ensuring that that works well and ensuring that small vessel replacement procurement is well under way. It is not that we do not want to make changes. My intention is to review what things will look like, as advised and informed by the committee, and depending on what is practical and doable.

There are lots of different things to consider in relation to organisational change. There are issues around taxation, VAT and assets, and different organisations will have different structures relating to what they have. Anything that is brought into the public sector more directly becomes a public sector asset, and that bring issues around whether that is the best value for money to ensure that we can invest how we want to invest.

Although I am saying that the situation is complicated, that does not mean that we cannot or will not look at it—we will. However, my main focus just now does not involve getting tied up in various aspects or different issues involving organisational change given the effort, energy and time involved in that. We are at a key point in the delivery of our services and the new vessels, and putting them into action, and I want the management to be focused on that, rather than on the reorganisational aspects if that is required.

I do not think that the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity is looking at the issue in the way that the member has set out. There is a specific issue in North Lanarkshire that is to do with decisions that have been made by the council, which I am not sure has been replicated elsewhere.

I would be concerned if a local authority decided to use the young person’s bus pass as a substitute for providing school transport, which—as I recall from my time as education minister, a long time ago—is governed by education legislation that sets out the mileages for school transport, as the member has said.

I can try to find out more about that, but I think that there is a specific issue in North Lanarkshire because of decisions that were made by the council. I stand to be corrected if anyone wants to give me examples of that happening elsewhere. I have concerns about that, because it is not sustainable in operational or financial terms, nor is it sustainable if we consider the environmental aspects, in that it could lead to more people using their cars. I hear what the member has said, but the situation relates to a specific area—

Far from nothing is happening. I came in as minister and I made sure that we made a decision on our preferred route, which is a direct award. The due diligence has been live and active, and is progressing very well. The extension for a year is particularly to address issues that could not be done in parallel, in relation to the Competition and Markets Authority in particular. We could have done a pre-application, but it is understood that it is required and that it makes better sense to do that at the full completion of the due diligence. We are still on track for me to report to the Cabinet in the same timescale that I had intended.

However, the convener’s point was about planning from the previous contract to this one. I know—because it is the question that I asked when I came in—what happened in 2019, 2020 and 2021. You will appreciate that all of Government, including our ferries officials, was focused on the pandemic. The priority was to ensure that our islanders had a ferry service that could get them through very difficult and challenging times. I am saying that there was a disruption hiatus in the development of that process. In normal circumstances, the process around making the decision as to whether there should be an open tender or a direct award would have started much earlier. However, that is the explanation for why it did not start much earlier.

When the committee wrote to me, I took the opportunity to update you on progress. The extension is up to a year, and I am keen to make progress on that and to get all the measures in place. To be Teckal compliant, which is the route to ensure that we can legally and financially do it—as happens with any direct award—we have to, under public procurement legislation, ensure that we have the appropriate degree of control and interest. Therefore, organisational change is the next step that needs to take place in developing the direct award process.

That is the explanation, convener. You might not like it, but that is the explanation.

No. I might bring Alison Irvine in to support me on the answer to this one. We need to wait until the CMA comes back with its view on the decisions that I have taken. We had thought that parallel processes might be open to us but they were not. On issues including harbour operating agreements as well as CMA issues, we are trying to make sure that everything is as robust as possible. That will also ensure that our legal position is strong and robust—I know that the committee has always taken a keen interest in that—in relation to the preferred option for a direct award, should we say that that is a go, and particularly in relation to the extension.

On the decision, if the due diligence indicates that it is not possible to go to a direct award, we would know that way before a year from now, because I am still progressing the diligence process along the timetable that I had anticipated. The extra time is in relation to the CMA in particular—but not solely—and we will use the opportunity to make sure that the operational side of Teckal compliance can be put into effect. We will certainly keep the committee informed about that timescale. I still have to go back to Cabinet to recommend that we can give a direct award and everything is in place. If we cannot do that, we will move to tender. That is the same position that I took last November, when I made the announcement to Parliament.

Alison Irvine can correct me if I have misrepresented anything or add anything else that she might want to add.

It is about maximising value for money through making all the improvements at the same time. We heard questions about route disruptions. It is more sensible to co-ordinate investment in a line—in particular, the route track investment by Network Rail—with other changes that are taking place. It is about sensible decision making—integrating the train fleet with the track improvements. Some things can be done in isolation; maybe the member is trying to pursue whether we can continue to do such things. Some of that has happened to date, and we are keen to do that where we can, but we are trying to take a sensible approach, particularly given the challenging finances, to make the most of co-ordinating investment where that is possible.

I ask Alison Irvine whether she has anything to add.