Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I do. Something that I picked up with Transport Scotland a few months ago brings me back to Mr Kerr’s question about the choreographing of all those things—CHFS3, project Neptune and the ICP—because my concern as minister was that we could not go out and consult on three different things. I do not think that that is wise. We are trying to learn lessons through project Neptune and gather some information through Angus Campbell’s hugely important work in that regard.

However, I recognise what Ms Lennon has said about consultation fatigue. In my view, that is what happens when people do not see things changing, and they get fed up. The next important step is to show people what change will look like in future and to follow that up. Angus Campbell’s work, which concludes at the end of next month, will be vital in setting out what the next steps will be and where the community wants us to go and ensuring that that is where we get to and that we avoid the issues that Ms Lennon has outlined.

Unbundling is not an option that is favoured by the Scottish Government. I think that that decision was reached in 2014, although Chris Wilcock will correct me if I am wrong. At that time, a decision was made that unbundling would not be the approach that we would take.

Ultimately, if I thought that unbundling would be a silver bullet, it would be on the table. I am not sure that it is. In my job, I hear different things from communities on a daily basis, and it is not clear to me that unbundling would work, given the variety of routes and vessels that we have in CalMac.

It is important that we concentrate on delivering a better service across the network. That is certainly the decision that was taken historically in relation to unbundling. It could also be a distraction from the focus on improving resilience and reliability. We will not be reopening that question as part of project Neptune. I know and understand that people have different views on it, but it is not something that the Scottish Government will be considering at the current time.

It is important that we have trade union representation. Having Roz Foyer on the SRH board brings a strength to our relationship with trade unions but also to the delivery of the service model. Therefore, absolutely, it is a model that we should look to roll out across more of our public bodies, because direct engagement and representation are really important.

Absolutely. The committee’s inquiry is really important and I am keen that we use it and the recommendations that you will provide us with to inform the draft ICP, CHFS3 and where we get to on project Neptune. I very much welcome it.

I am happy to provide the committee with that.

Yes, there is. I think that we have a couple of examples of where that has happened in recent times.

Both operators—today we are talking a lot about CalMac, but we must not forget Serco NorthLink—have mechanisms in place for prioritising medical appointments, which is really important. The point that Mr Ruskell makes about last-minute journeys is not lost on me. It is consistently raised with me when I go out and speak to island communities. It is worth pointing out that CalMac has—in very recent times, actually—agreed to some changes to the criteria for short-notice medical appointments, which I know has been welcomed by island communities.

Transport Scotland might want to say more on this, but it has been working very closely in the past couple of weeks with the Mull & Iona Ferry Committee to look at a potential pilot on vehicle deck space for islanders who are travelling at short notice. It is fair to say that that work is at a pretty early stage but, from what I am told, it has been broadly welcomed by the Mull & Iona Ferry Committee. Officials might want to say more on that.

I was not asked for comment on the story, so I am glad that I have now got that on the record.

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.