Seòmar agus comataidhean

No. Can we separate out the issues? In the work on the direct award, we are focusing on the operation of the Clyde and Hebridean ferry service. The issues around CMAL, which I think is what you are referring to—and the idea of putting ferries officials and the ferries arm of Transport Scotland into “Ferries Scotland” by joining or merging them with CMAL—are separate issues. If you were to leave Transport Scotland alone and to merge CMAL with CalMac, that in itself gives rise to lots of different questions, and I have just gone through the implications.

I do not think that we would be doing those things in the middle of the process of due diligence. There are other factors that I have not even touched on yet, dare I say. As I know from a previous time as a minister, having brought together four different bodies to form Skills Development Scotland, way back in 2007, 2008 or 2009 or whenever that was, there are pensions issues and a whole load of different other factors, and they must also be considered in the process of a direct award.

I am trying not to confuse things, and if you need explanations later I am happy to provide them offline, but that describes the complexity of the things that are happening, and doing things in order is therefore important.

More vessels are being delivered than was initially anticipated, because the two for the Little Minch are now four, which will have a major impact. I am delighted to say that the MV Loch Indaal launches this weekend. That is an important next step in the delivery of those vessels.

On the SVRP, I am keen that we can move ahead with procurement. Under the pre-election guidance, we are not allowed to make any announcement on that programme, and we do not anticipate such an announcement, before the end of the pre-election period. Ministerial consideration of the business case remains on-going. However, we want to move to procure as soon as we can, in order to make sure that we can deliver within the next two to three years—probably three years—depending on the timescale for the procurement and the response. We are keen to press ahead, so the period might be shortened if it is open procurement; of course, it might be a direct award.

With your agreement, convener, I will bring in Fiona Brown, who has been involved. In Scotland, we have challenges and issues with an integrated ticketing system, because, particularly on the bus side, we are in a deregulated market, so we have to make sure that we take private operators with us on that.

It is fair to say that, in Scotland, zonal ticketing is happening—for example, with the Glasgow tripper—and there are quite a lot of developments, not least on the rail side, in the flexibility of what can be used. Also when it comes to what we are trying to achieve, simplicity of fares is an important strand in encouraging more people to use the public transport system and in the operation of integrated ticketing itself.

Our biggest challenge in Scotland is the technology platform that is needed. The national smart ticketing advisory board was set up specifically to address those issues. It is chaired by an expert in smart ticketing procurement. I think that its final meeting was at the end of May, so I expect the report on how we will achieve that very soon.

Scotland also has challenges in where the customers are and where they will be. Clearly, there are far more people who use their phones and phone technology than previously, in comparison with those of us who prefer a card. I have my flexipass. When it comes to the technology, we also have the saltire card, and the technology around the flexipass is common across different areas. Interestingly, we have just rolled out support for the digital purchase of northern isles ticketing. We are not just waiting for something to happen. Lots of things are happening. It is about how we join that all up. Barcode technology is also a problem for Scotland, comparatively, so we will need to identify how we can help to improve that.

When the report that I mentioned comes, I am sure that the committee will have a keen interest in it, so we can share it with you.

I ask Fiona Brown to come in.

It is too early to say. My officials are engaging with operators and I am keen to engage directly with them, but I have not personally done that since the publication of the report.

No, I am not nervous. I am shocked that you think that canals are a Cinderella. Actually, Mr Fairlie is the lead on Scottish Canals. I certainly do not think that canals are a Cinderella, because the Union canal goes through my constituency, which is why I have recused myself from making ministerial decisions on that.

We agree with you, because we think that, conceptually, it is the same thing, whether the act involves you as an individual or the automated vehicle. However, the UK Government is saying that there is a difference and that, because there is an automated driver, the offence does not apply in the same way. You are right; that is why we agree with you that—

Yes, that is correct, because the problem would be with the vehicle and the manufacturer of the vehicle. The issue with clause 50 is about changes to devolved legislation. It would give the UK Government powers over speeding or other aspects that would be offences.

That is the problem. I suspect that it did not. Therefore, this is retrospective. How do you fit in what is novel legislation in a situation where you are bolting it on to existing traffic provisions? Quite clearly, many of the existing traffic provisions are devolved. All we are trying to do is to respect those devolved issues. You bring up an important point that I have not referenced, which is the need to review the legislation precisely because it is new legislation. It is an issue that we have raised with the UK Government.

The UK Government says that clause 38 is sufficient because it reviews the practice and the experience of automated vehicles, whereas we think that, because this is a framework bill, the secondary regulations will be important areas as well. The UK Government has said that it will engage with Police Scotland and the Crown Office, but it is new territory. Therefore, we think that a more established formal review of the legislation will be needed precisely because we have a new piece of legislation that is working with old pieces of legislation in a brand new area that is novel to us all.

There is the potential for change in the future, and, if we are to have consistency across the UK, there should be a basic assumption that the UK Government will talk to us about those changes or consult us formally. That is all that is being asked for by the Scottish Government. We do not think that that is unreasonable, bearing in mind that we are giving consent to the rest of the bill. The UK Government would probably not want to consider clauses 46 to 51, for example, to be LCM issues, but we do, although, as it happens, we agree with the policy content, so we are not objecting to the them, apart from clause 50, for the reasons that you have set out.

There were quite a lot of questions in there, and I will try to recall a number of them.

The CAVForth project ran from May 2019, with the bus service itself operating from May to August 2023. The partners in the project were Fusion Processing, Stagecoach, Alexander Dennis, Edinburgh Napier University and Bristol Robotics Laboratory, and I think that it was supported through Innovate UK. Transport Scotland has not been directly involved in anything subsequently, but a number of trials are taking place in different parts of the UK, so exchange and monitoring in that respect will be really important.

I am trying to remember your other questions. Jim, do you want to come in on anything that you might have been asked about?