Seòmar agus comataidhean

We might have to ask about ScotRail’s experiences and observations. There are tensions that can cause difficulties and people can behave in ways that they should not.

No, I think that things have moved on a bit since then.

I am acutely aware of the timescale for the provision for retendering or, indeed, extension. I am not going to give you any information about what I will recommend to my Cabinet colleagues that we should do on that, but you will be one of the first to know, because of your responsibilities and interests. That is as much as I can tell you just now.

On driving improvement, you are right to identify the tensions. Clearly, there are merits and demerits in terms of the committee’s recommendations, and you acknowledge that. On the views of islanders, I would lean heavily on my experience of talking to ferry committees in meetings and on visits over the past few months. They want to see service change and improvement. Some of that is about attitude, behaviour and relationship management. I do not underestimate or shy away from the fact that the fleet’s lack of resilience has consequences, which CalMac has to deal with. I also make it clear that communities continuously support and praise CalMac’s front-line staff, who often have to deal with the immediate issues.

There are changes that I expect to see, particularly in business-to-business aspects, such as the role of freight, whose economic value and importance we must recognise, as I know the committee has done. If we want to see the expansion of economic activity in our islands that we need—it is happening in relation to renewable energy and whisky from Islay, for example—that must be built into the changes, improvements and service standards that CalMac or any future operator has to deliver on. We can build such service standards into any future contract.

It is incumbent on the board, whose chair I have met, to address what I expect from it. I cannot and should not have to micromanage CalMac. My relationship is with the board, so I will make clear to it my expectations. I reassure the committee that, in my very first meeting with the chair of David MacBrayne, I made it clear that customer focus is a key aspect that I want delivery on.

I know that the committee wants me to answer everything now. I cannot do that, but I will make sure that you are the first to know when such decisions are finally taken.

You asked about the timescale for the review that will indicate what the options are, what the best way to do this is and how to make sure that the improvements that are made are the best improvements and the safety issues are addressed. You are absolutely right to focus on that. It is a really important area for attention. However, I am not going to pre-empt what I will get on the review options. Clearly, we want to meet the timescales that have previously been committed to but, if you look at what the First Minister says in the published programme for government, you will see that the A96 is recognised as the priority that it is.

The timescale that you are talking about came from 2011, which is 12 years ago. I understand that all Governments need to be held accountable. This Government has been in power for a considerable time and we have focused on a number of major transport areas. The review that has taken place has been very detailed, with considerable responses from the public, and we cannot ignore that in our work. That is why the work will be done diligently and appropriately, and I say again that you will receive the report as soon as that assessment has been done.

All the stages of the strategic transport projects review appraisal—the initial appraisal, the preliminary options appraisal, the detailed options appraisal and the post-appraisal stage—have to take place in order to progress the work. That is exactly what I would expect—

Part of that is about engaging with Angus Campbell and the ferries community board about their expectations. I have met him since their report was produced and have had discussions about what the board actually wants, and what it really wants are improvements to the management of CalMac at senior level. I think that it has been absolutely clear about that requirement.

The second condition that is mentioned in the committee’s report is also really important. As unintended consequences will arise from certain decisions, those decisions must be robust. I think that that is what the committee was indicating.

It is difficult, because the committee is saying one thing and the community board is saying another, and I am left to try to navigate between the two as I come to a decision. The committee’s advice is really important, but it is not the only advice, which I think that the committee has recognised.

You have heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition. She leads on major infrastructure in terms of the strategic decisions and, importantly, budget decisions that will need to be made across the piece, as you would expect.

On cross-portfolio working, active travel is really integrated in a lot of our work. I can give you a couple of examples in relation to rail. We recently opened the refurbished Stirling station, which is very much aligned with active travel. That includes accessibility to bus services and particularly to more active travel such as cycling. The same applies to the reopening of Motherwell rail station.

In relation to the A9, which you mentioned, I know that there is interest in how we can ensure that there are safe routes around the A9 in particular areas. A number of MSPs, including John Swinney, have contacted me about those issues, including cycle lanes alongside the A9.

On how we work together, we always need to look for opportunities to connect active travel and rail. That is the big vision for how we can change Scotland through our activity. If we can link active travel, bus services and rail more, with greater connectivity, that is the big picture that everybody wants to see. The challenge is how we actually deliver it, including where and when, and what the priorities are.

I hope that that assures you that we do and will work very closely together.

There is constant dialogue on all those issues. It is good that we have regular dialogue with unions and management about how to improve the railway and other modes of transport.

On the national conversation, you might be aware that, around April, we had a change of First Minister and of ministers and that, subsequently, my appointment took place. There has been quite a lot of flux and change.

In coming into post, my view is that we should focus on delivery instead of general conversation—we do not need a national conversation for us to engage with all those issues. An opportunity exists for regular dialogue, particularly with the management, the operators and the interest groups. Monica Lennon referred to mobility access groups and the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, which has particular leads on rail and has been quite clear about its needs and views. We are also embarking on the peak fare removal pilot, so a lot of activity is happening in this area.

As minister, I am keen to focus on delivery and I do not think that the national conversation will take place in the way that previous ministers envisaged. Now that I am the minister, my view is that I need to focus on delivery, which is what I will do.

As the committee will know, many such issues stem from the need for resilience in the fleet. The focus on delivery of the six ferries is absolute.

However, within that, there is the issue of operation and how that could be improved by driving up standards of management and communication. There are issues in relation to CalMac’s communication and relationships, and it knows that. When I met CalMac, I made clear my views and concerns about its lack of customer focus, and it has acknowledged that and is making steps to improve what it does. At the end of the day, that is an issue for the board that has oversight of CalMac.

The way in which we can address some of the issues is through the standards for the CHFS 3 contract and the expectations of whoever will be delivering that. The ferries community board report made strong points about what the expectations would be, and we can try to build those into the contract. The committee’s report raised a number of other issues and listed the principles by which any new contract should be judged.

Driving change and improvement can and should be done through the contract change as well. Change and improvement also require acute and fastidious ministerial oversight, although there should not be any interference in things that are a matter for the board or for management. I reassure the committee that, having spent a considerable amount of time looking at the ferries issues, I will take a keen and active interest in that.

I am expecting to see such schemes among the comparators that Alison Irvine has talked about. What is interesting is that those are reduced fares—not zero fares—to encourage activity and use.