Seòmar agus comataidhean

The straight answer to Mr Kerr’s question is that I do not have a figure based on the impact of inflation. I think that we heard Mr Hobbs say that he was not sure what the impact of inflation would look like in relation to the costs agreed. We will have to consider that. Irrespective of portfolio, inflation has had quite a dramatic impact on what we are able to do as a Government. That has limited our potential to create investment in many different parts of the transport network.

Mr Hobbs made a point about accelerating investment. To my mind, that is how to bring down the average age of the fleet. Since May 2021, we have brought in the MV Loch Frisa on the Oban to Craignure route, we have managed to charter the MV Arrow and have made significant progress on vessels 801 and 802. Early last year, I announced the procurement of two new vessels for Islay and at the end of last year I announced an additional two new vessels, making four in total and bringing a really important level of standardisation across the fleet. Therefore, in the past financial year, we have been able to leverage additional investment, which I think is crucial to getting us to that reduction of the average age of the fleet.

However, in relation to your overall question, I make no bones about the fact that the work will be financially challenging for the Government. Of course, the Government has responded—and will respond in due course—to where we are able to prioritise those investments, in order to meet the requirements that the plan sets out.

Well, it would have to, because I am the minister.

Yes, I am. Transport Scotland is made up of civil servants, who are generic civil servants who work in lots of different Government departments, but I have two very experienced officials with me today and I am not just saying that because they are with me. I do not have a concern about the experience in Transport Scotland.

However, at the current time, the capacity within Transport Scotland is quite challenging in relation to ferries. That is because my officials spend a lot of their time responding to parliamentary inquiries, reports and the copious amounts of correspondence that we receive. That is fine, but it takes time and I sometimes think that it is a pressure that needs to be addressed. I have raised that with the permanent secretary, in relation to providing greater capacity within the ferries team, in particular, to ensure that we have the staff on board to deliver the changes and improvements that passengers expect us to.

I think that the response that you heard from Chris Wilcock was that we are not quite clear about whether that could be stipulated within the scope. I would want to clarify that with CMAL in the first instance.

I support the overall point that Mr Kerr has made about providing Scottish jobs from Government investment, but I am not clear about whether it was possible for CMAL to stipulate that within that contractual agreement. If you do not mind, convener, I will therefore seek clarity from CMAL on that point. I would be happy to write to the committee on the detail.

Chris Wilcock might want to come in on that.

I may bring in officials on whether the ferries plan should have been reviewed earlier. It is worth pointing out that the plan, which ran until this year, has already delivered a number of improvements. For example, we have got new routes running. As the committee heard earlier from Mr Hobbs, we have got the Campbeltown route and the new Mallaig to Lochboisdale route.

We have also had the roll-out of road equivalent tariff for passengers and cars on the CHFS network, which has saved passengers a significant amount of money—bluntly, £25 million a year. We have also had big upgrades in relation to port infrastructure, for example at Brodick pier, Tarbert and Wemyss Bay.

On the islands connectivity plan, the timescale was agreed previously with the ferries plan. Learning has been taken from the ferries plan. My understanding is that the timescale was agreed to—I think that it works well. We need to have that long-term forecast for where we are going next.

The plan is in draft. That is quite important. It is key that we engage with communities on what happens next. I do not want to do something to island communities that they are not content with, and it is really important to islander confidence that we mark out a clear way forward.

Chris Wilcock or Laurence Kenney may want to say more about the review period in the ferries plan that ran for the past decade.

I understand Mr Kerr’s concern. I think that it is not unhelpful that the two things are happening simultaneously. As I said in my opening statement, we are going out to consult on project Neptune. Angus Campbell is leading that work, part of which involves asking communities about what they want to see as part of CHFS3, for example how we can change the future contract to deliver a service that works better for island communities. Committee members have gone out and spoken to island communities and know, as we do, where the real challenges are.

I assure members that service delivery will continue, irrespective of the model that we use in future. Transport Scotland is looking at the most appropriate way to continue services. We will engage with key stakeholders. I hope to be able to update the committee more fully in the coming weeks about what those arrangements will look like. Whatever we do with the next CHFS contract, it is really important that that is something that island communities want. I am very aware that some parts of the current contract do not work for island communities and we do not want to replicate that with what comes next. It is important that we hear from communities. The officials may want to say more about how that approach has been developed within Transport Scotland, where the work is on-going.

To the best of my knowledge, they have not, because the work on CHFS 3 is on-going. I will bring in an official to speak on that and I am happy for Transport Scotland to correct me if I am wrong.

I will let Transport Scotland answer that.

Transport Scotland will consult and engage with a range of different experts, and officials might want to say more about that. The ferry expert group was disbanded before I became transport minister, but I have met a number of individuals who used to sit on it. I know a little about its history, and I understand—officials can correct me if I am wrong, because they will know more about the history—that the group had evolved into something away from its original aim.

Ms Lennon’s overall question, though, is important, because although Angus Campbell can provide me with the views of communities, I also need a view from experts on what we are developing and delivering. I have therefore asked Transport Scotland for advice on pulling together a round table of experts at international level. Of course, project Neptune looked at lots of different countries’ delivery models, because it is hugely important that we do not lose out on that expertise.

At the tail end of the previous evidence session, I heard Morag McNeill talk about the importance of academic expertise. Such expertise is hugely important, and I know that CMAL uses it in its own work. We therefore need to cast the net wide, and I am sure—indeed, I know—that Transport Scotland engages regularly with experts. The board was just one way in which that was done historically; I do not think that it is not an on-going process.

No, I am not comfortable with it. In my statement to the Parliament back in September last year, I provided an update on project Neptune, which is looking at that issue in much more detail and at the tripartite arrangements between the three organisations.

I think that you heard from Mr Hobbs in the previous session that there has been good collaborative working between Transport Scotland, CMAL and CalMac in recent times. I think that that has improved, certainly in the time during which I have been the transport minister. However, we need to do more.

The convener has pretty succinctly outlined some of the challenges that passengers experience in relation to services. Project Neptune is looking at a range of options—for example, whether to amalgamate organisations or bring things in-house, as Ms Hyslop alluded to—but we need to move forward now.

Obviously, the REC Committee inquiry was last session, and we have had a number of different reports since then. However, a common theme relates to governance. Therefore, while my mind as the transport minister is fixed on improving resilience and capacity in the current fleet, I also need to make sure that the structures that are in place deliver what passengers need, and I am not yet sure that that is where we are. That is exactly why project Neptune is vital. Angus Campbell’s work in that regard will be key in delivering the improvements that are needed.