 The next item of business is a debate on motion 1175, in the name of Edward Mountain, on behalf of the Net, Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, on a modern and sustainable ferry service for Scotland. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Edward Mountain to speak to and to move the motion on behalf of the Net, Zero, Energy and Transport Committee up to 10 minutes, please, Mr Mountain. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I'm delighted to open the debate as convener of the Net, Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, and I'm delighted to move the motion in my name. I'd like to thank the clerks and the committee members for all their hard work in producing what I believe is an excellent report. Let's be clear, too many of Scotland's ferry services are below standard. Over 15.5 months, the committee conducted an inquiry in how to improve the situation. The question we needed to answer was, what could be done to what would constitute a modern and sustainable ferry service for Scotland? This was very much a forward-looking solutions-based inquiry designed to go beyond the specific problems of delivering the much needed 801 and 802 ferries. These issues are actually being dealt with very ably by the Public Audit Committee, and I would like to pay tribute to the work that they're doing on behalf of the Parliament in relation to those ferries. The catalyst for our inquiry was a petition, and this led to the engagement with ferry-dependent communities. The need was established when we engaged with communities and helped to shape the remit of our work to come. We visited Orkney, Arran and the Western Isles to meet community groups. We received literally hundreds of written submissions. We did, however, never lose focus on the human costs of unreliable ferries, and I would like to wholeheartedly thank all those who contributed to the committee's work in relation to the inquiry. They told us some things. They told us to be bold. They told us to end the endless cycle of meaningless consultations, and they told us to deliver a commanding and compelling case for change. I believe that we've delivered this through the recommendations of our report. Our report emphasises the need for strong leadership from the Scottish Government, which has been lacking. I'm delighted that Fiona Hyslop, the deputy convener—or the ex-deputy convener—of the committee during most of the inquiry is now involved as a Government minister. She knows the challenges, and I hope that she'll rise to them. Sadly, however, the Scottish Government has allowed the responsibilities for aspects of ferries to fall within three Cabinet Secretaries portfolio. Therefore, it's still unclear who has ultimate responsibility for delivering the leadership and the long-term strategic thinking that the committee recommended. This is unhelpful and muddled. We made a series of recommendations designed to progress towards improvement of the management of our ferries and the contracts for running them. I will begin with the structure for the decision-making and delivery of ferry service. There was widespread agreement that the current tripartite agreement for managing the Scottish Government-funded ferries is not working effectively, especially for the Clyde and Hebrides ferries. The Scottish Government is considering the various options for reconfiguration, as outlined in Project Neptune's report. The committee has recommended that the future of SEMAL must be considered. I make no bones about the fact that I believe that the future of SEMAL is an independent organisation that should be ended, but the committee has offered various other options for the future role, including mergers with CalMac and Transport Scotland. What we believe, however, is that the status quo is completely unacceptable. However, the underlying issue here is the lack of clarity on whether the Scottish Government can amend the tripartite agreement. The Project Neptune report was delivered to the Scottish Government in February 2022, and this matter is still yet to be resolved. The cabinet secretary does not appear to know if the tripartite agreement can be amended. I suggest that, before we go any further, we need a clear answer on this, because the time is marching on. The next Clyde and Hebrides ferries contract is an opportunity to improve services through asking more from the operator to improve the services and reliability, and we need to grasp this opportunity to benefit the ferry-dependent communities. Here are some fundamental questions. When will the new contract start? Will the contract be awarded following a tender process, or will it be awarded directly? Does the Scottish Government know whether a direct award could be made? Those were the questions that we posed in our report. We are 11 months away from the end of the current Clyde and Hebrides ferries contract. There has been a lack of action on the procurement exercise, which will be resource intensive. Audit Scotland warned that previous procurement exercises did not allow sufficient time, and the committee is concerned that lessons have not been learned. Without endorsing how we get there, the committee felt that, from this starting point, a direct award did have some advantages. As laid out in the Project Neptune report, it may save resources of Transport Scotland, CalMac, and allow Ministers to focus on strategy. There is an important caveat. We stipulated that our recommendation, if it was carried forward, must be with the acceptance of communities. The then Transport Minister said the same thing in September 2022. The report of the Charity of the Ferries Communities Board, which sadly did not come out until after our report, recommended that operator services should be put out to tender. The question that we have to ask now, and hopefully will be answered, is what is the Government's view on this? Will the Government make an offer to extend the CalMac contract, given that there is now insufficient time for the tendering process of the magnitude to end the current contract? What will it do? The committee also recommended that the Scottish Government should consider extending the length of future contracts. The committee considered also that the forthcoming islands interconnectivity plan, a strategy to replace the ferries plan, which ended in 2022. This currently only consists of a series of proposed plans. The first on the long-term plan for vessels and port was published in draft for consultation in 2022. The Scottish Government's response to our report said that the revised draft of this will be published again later this year. If I have time, Presiding Officer. There is not much time in hand. There is a little bit at the moment, Lee MacArthur. Could we have Mr MacArthur's microphone, please? Could Mr MacArthur move a seat? I thank Edward Mountain for taking this extended intervention. In the work that the committee carried out, which I warmly welcome, did the committee consider as well as the confusion, lack of focus, caused by the tripartite arrangement and the succession of different transport ministers and ministerial responsibilities? Was it helpful for Orkney and Shetland internal lifeline ferry services to be excluded from the connectivity plan, which in the sense that, as the member suggested, is the replacement of the national ferries plan? There is a very long answer to that, but in very simple terms we looked at the ferries and the internal ferries in Orkney. I actually went and visited some and saw some of them. They are beyond their lifespan at the moment. It is quite clear that the Government needs to take positive action with the local councils in conjunction with the local councils to make sure that islands are not left without ferries. The Scottish Government's response to our report said that a revised draft of the consultation plan that was published in December 2022 would again be published later this year. It is not clear to me when the other intended sections of the island co-inactivity plan, including community needs assessments, and the low-carbon plan will be finalised. The question is, when will the final comprehensive island's co-inactivity plan be published? Will it be published in advance of the next Clyde and Hebrides ferries contract? It really needs to be. We also sought some commitment that this will include elements that the committee identified essential to the effective plan, and some of those have been accepted by the Government. On the basis—I'm running short time, Presiding Officer—I'm going to move to some of the key things and cut them down as quickly as possible. We also made recommendations that the future ferry services in general need to be more accountable, and that we needed better measurements of performance and more transparent working of the operators. We didn't have much confidence that the statistics reflected the performance, and therefore they need to be changed. We welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to a feat with an average age of 15 years, but we also made it clear that we need more ferries than we've got at the moment. That is long-term strategic planning. To deliver this, we'll need a rolling vessel replacement programme and maintenance and upgrade programme for ports and harbours. There is a lot still to do. Rather than keep going on because I'm sure everyone in the chamber has read our excellent report, what I would say is that I believe that the Scottish Government needs to listen carefully to what has been said by the committee, and they need to implement the recommendations of the plan and be decisive and make clear decisions, because allowing the status code to continue is unacceptable to the people of Scotland and also to the committee. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I now call on Minister Fiona Hyslop up to nine minutes, please, Minister. Presiding Officer, can I start by thanking the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee for securing time for this debate on what is a well-evidence and considered report? I would want to reiterate the opening points of the Scottish Government's formal response to the committee, which welcomed the time that we were at the report as considered, balanced and forward-looking. I am pleased that, as a Government, we have accepted our noted recommendations to inform current and future decision making. I want to make clear on the record that, prior to becoming a minister in June, I served as deputy convener of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee throughout the evidence-taking on this inquiry and left the committee before the report was finalised and published. The Government response was rightly issued by the Cabinet Secretary, but many of the actions are now being led by Meme. One of the strengths of the committee's report was its approach around putting the needs and views of islanders who use and depend on these services as central rather than the interests of institutions or companies involved. As minister, I am determined that Government, our agencies, the operators must do likewise and engage widely and regularly with island communities as we shape services and contracts and, in doing so, be informed by and reflect on the recommendations of the committee. Since my appointment, I have met with many chairs of island, ferry committees and a number of committees themselves. Most recently, Ila online last week and Harris ferry committee in person in October and will continue to do so. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the hard-working port staff and vessel crews who are often the most responsive to events and, indeed, challenges in the network, along with the back office teams in CalMac and Northlink for the service that they provide. In relation to the report's recommendations, many of them were already under way or being considered prior to the committee publishing its report, but there are some critical elements where the conclusions of the committee will help shape and inform the next steps of Government. The Government's response accepted 43 of the recommendations, either in full or in principle, including review of data on performance, on collection of performance, the operator in the new contract to be required to work with local authorities and communities, identify ways to support standardisation of ports and harbours and reconsider fair policy islanders' priority and impact of RET, among others. We also noted 29 of the recommendations, where those were partly observations with no further action required, and there were only two recommendations that were noted as not being taken forward. On the headline request set out in the executive summary of the report, I would like to confirm that. We aim to publish the island's connectivity plan later this year, which will be a strategic paper covering wider issues than ferries, but the vision and strategic thinking for ferry services and ferry dependent communities is a key part of that, building on the pre-consultation long-term plan for vessels and ports paper produced in December 2022. We are establishing the governance and the delivery structures capable of delivering the vision, both in governance, formally of Project Neptune and on Chiffs 3. The fair's fair review is also due soon. The committee wanted to bring a cohesive approach to all those four elements, and that is what I am doing, and I will announce those as appropriate to Parliament. The budget for support for ferries rose to a record £251 million, and the vessels and pier's budget to £189 million in the current financial year, noting that the fulfilment of our long-term plan is dependent on funding allocation decisions that go beyond the current Parliament. We are committed to working in collaboration with ferry dependent communities in informing future vessel procurements. In terms of that budget process, she will be aware of the commitment given by the former Deputy First Minister that the ferries task force looking at the internal services and procurement in Orkney was intended to feed into that budget process. Is there anything that she can say by way of an update to that process? The ferries task force for both Orkney and Shetland, both of them, are meeting very shortly, and also with the Deputy First Minister, who is also the finance secretary, sharing that, and that is part of those on-going discussions. On governance, we welcome the principle set out in the recommendation 12 on accountability, transparency, competence, value for money, meeting community needs and supporting delivery of net zero. Those were principles along with the work of Angus Campbell, who led work on the ferry community consultation, engaging directly with communities, and that will help to perform future decisions on that matter. I would like to place on record my thanks to Angus Campbell for his work. The committee recommended merging CML and Transport Scotland into a new ferries agency but recognised its work on that and on the CHIFS-3 contract. The ferries community board had yet to report, but the board recommended that CML and Calmark were merged. The Scottish Government is in agreement with the committee that the island's connectivity plan represents a real opportunity for fresh thinking around ferries services provision. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. Does she agree that the current tri-palte setup should be changed? Yes, I do, and it can be changed, but the form in which any change would take place in any shape or form would require to be robust in terms of the impact it would have for legal and technical and other reasons. A specific proposal will have to be put to meet the request from the committee to answer the question that they put in terms of that governance arrangement. I am afraid that I will have to move on. We have already issued a pre-consultation draft on the port and vessel infrastructure plan, and later this year intend to launch a formal consultation on that, along with the overarching strategic paper that will help to bring together the various sections of the island's connectivity plan. That reflects on the recommendations from the committee that the ring-binder approach to developing the plan needs to ensure that it is coherent. Clearly, I understand that there is a great focus from the committee and wider stakeholders around the appropriate form of contract for the next chiefs procurement. As I confirmed when I appeared before the committee recently, this is a decision that will need to be made in consultation and agreement with wider Government-Cabinet colleagues. Clearly, there is urgency around this matter, giving me within a year of the end of the current contract, and I will set out the position on this matter as soon as possible, including a statement to the chamber shortly. I would also again welcome the committee's confirmation around not unbundling the services and would again highlight that this Government will not split up the CalMac network. However, one thing is clear. Regardless of the form, the contract of procurement, there is a need for real and significant change in delivery to put communities at the heart of ferry services, and I am determined that that will happen. Whether that will be a clear and revised set of key performance indicators, including lived experience around actual versus contractual performance around cancellations, or greater local involvement and decision making around their services. Scottish ministers have been clear that reliability of ferry services needs supported by resilience in the fleet. That is why it is important that we are committed to the delivery of six new major vessels by 2026, as well as further investment in port infrastructure and the initial phase of the small vessel replacement plan. Design work is also progressing on the replacement freight vessels for NIFs. Reports of the committee on the four new major ferries for Islay and Little Minch, as asked for, are due with the committee shortly, but I can confirm that they are progressing well and are all set for delivery, due for delivery at various points between October 2024 and September 2025. I was pleased to recently open the new terminal at Tarbert, Harris, and to note the progress with Lokmadi and Uig. I would in particular like to thank the communities and regular ferry users for their patience and perseverance throughout these works, particularly during the closure period that is necessary to ensure that these works can be delivered. They will help to deliver resilience, replace life-expired infrastructure and increase the range of vessels in the CalMac fleet that can use these facilities. We have also committed to the provision of a resilience vessel to help to ensure disruption across the network is minimised with the charter of the MV Alfred for another six-month period. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the crew of the MV Hebride and Isles, along with others in CalMac, Transport Scotland and Seam Isle, for their work to return the vessel to service in time for the busy winter overhaul period. To conclude, the committee produced a comprehensive report, and my comments and those remarks only touch on some of the elements of the report and our response. I would hope to return to some of the remaining elements in closing, and of course those will no doubt be expanded upon in wider contributions today. I thank the committee and the clerks for their work and the report. Thank you, minister. I now call on Douglas Lumson up to eight minutes, please, Mr Lumson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks to the members and clerks of the Net Zero and Transport Committee for what has been said as an excellent report that raises some really important questions for this Government and the members of the tripartates agreement. On reading this report, my first and immediate reaction is that this isn't rocket science. The committee report says that ferry services should be efficient, competent, on time, reliable, provide sufficient capacity, charge reasonable fares are accessible, and that the administration should be transparent, accountable, competent, value for money and community-led. All seem to be blatantly obvious to everyone on the outside looking in, so why has this been so difficult for this Government to manage? Why has this Parliament, its committees and our island communities had to wait so long for this Government to act and they are still waiting? The evidence that has been submitted to this committee inquiry is damning, Presiding Officer. They heard from communities about how businesses are failing, goods are not arriving, urgent health appointments missed, constant never-ending consultation with no action resulting, delays, cancellations and lack of available tickets. They heard of an ageing fleet that are unreliable, overpriced and overdue contracts for ferry replacements, new solutions being discounted for new reasons such as fixed links, catamaran fleets or more smaller ferries. John Swinney. I am really interested in Mr Lambson's comment about ferry services being overpriced. Has he taken into account any of the reductions in costs that have come as a consequence of the introduction of road equivalent tariff? I have, but there is still more that can be done and I am sure that we all, as a Parliament, can agree on that. Those lists only include a small amount of the failings of this Government and I am sure that my colleagues will pick up more. Quite frankly, if I was a Government minister, I would be embarrassed coming into the chamber today, but I admire the minister coming forward with some positives today. I look forward to working cross-party to try and improve the service for our island communities who have been so badly let down. Let us not forget, as a Parliament, that it is those island communities who have been so badly let down by the state of our ferries and it is those communities who are suffering. On the mainland, we are lucky and we have choices. Depending on where you live and how rural you are, you can drive, take a train or use a bus. Islanders do not have those choices. Without a reliable ferry service, I fear that problems with depopulation on many of our islands will accelerate. It is the human cost that the convener mentioned that is the most important. We need improvements and we need to send a message to our island communities that change is coming. One of the clear messages in the report is that the Government should look again at the administrative arrangement of the tripartite structure that currently exists. I would ask the minister to be very clear in their remarks this afternoon about how they will take this forward and what consideration has been given to the committee recommendations in this area. We are very clear that the current structure is flawed in many ways with communities confused as to who is responsible for which bit of the service and who is accountable. Much more transparency is required. The minister should give us an update as to the plans to include local representatives on board and management groups of ferry services to ensure that the voices of local people are heard loud and clear in the day-to-day running of services. As the convener said, recommendation 28 of the committee report states that contracts should be longer than currently offered and should be offered on a 10-year basis. Can the Government give an indication today on whether that will be the case for future contract rounds? One message that came through very clearly in the evidence session was the need to think a bit more out of the box when it comes to linking up our island communities. The Government needs to consider much more closely the benefit of smaller vessels running more frequently between islands, more flexible ticketing options for locals, making essential journeys, penalties for companies that book space and do not turn up, subsidise travel for those travelling for educational purposes and fix links between smaller islands that are close to their neighbours. The Government promised that the island connectivity plan would be in place by the end of 2022. It is good to hear that the plan will be released later this year, but why has it taken so long? Is the Scottish Government on target to achieve the aim of reducing the average age of a fleet to 15 years by the end of the decade? Perhaps the minister could include that commitment in its remarks and give our island communities an assurance that that will be the case. An age and ferry fleet has huge implications for our remote communities. It is a liner service that provides them with goods and services and vital educational links for our young people. Cancelations in 2021-22 was 1,678 up from 1,064 the year before. Every single one of those cancellations means that vital goods and services were not available to our island communities. Businesses lost money, children missed education and goods did not arrive. Those are not just numbers, Presiding Officer. This is people's lives and livelihoods. When considering the awarding of contracts for ferry services again, I have to return to my list of the obvious. I am still flabbergasted that this needs to be said. Audit Scotland in 2017 told the Government that they had to improve their procurement process, ensuring that lessons are learned from previous processes. Sufficient time is built into process to prepare documentation, but there should be provided with clear, good quality and timely data and sufficient number of people with the right expertise to effectively manage the contract. I hope that the minister that this is in place. Presiding Officer, in closing, I want to pick up one paragraph of the report that is short but is incredibly important—that on staffing. The report rightly recognises the importance of the staff across all aspects of the ferry service, from booking officers to on-board crew, and it particularly recognises their work throughout the Covid pandemic to maintain the vital link for goods to the islands. Any threatening behaviour to any member of staff is unacceptable, and I would support the ferry operators in dealing quickly with any incident involved in staff failing or being threatened. One thing that came out very clearly is that in no way were any of the staff responsible for any of the failings in the service that was being provided. The need for investment to train and maintain staffing levels was clear, but the staff themselves are held in high esteem. The staff are doing the best they can with the ageing tools that this Government has given them. Presiding Officer, I look forward to the minister's response to this committee report, a report that the minister helped shape. It is a damning indictment of a failing service, a service that has failed our most remote communities with an unreliable, inconsistent, inefficient ferry link, bringing untold economic damage upon fragile communities. The report sets out a series of recommendations that should be obvious to anyone looking in, and yet time and time again this Government has failed to deliver that service, a service that is reliable, efficient, with a capacity that matches demand, a service that is locally based, locally inspired and meets the needs of local communities. The community heard a lot in their discussions about consultation fatigue. Our island communities are fed up being asked what they want. It is not rocket science. They want ferries that work run on time and are affordable, and it is time for this failing SNP-green devolved Government to stop talking and start acting. This report demonstrates just how much they have failed to do that, and I hope that the minister has come today with some answers and not more platitudes. I thank the committee for the work that they have done in carrying out this inquiry, and for the very informative report that we are debating today. It would be an understatement to say that the people of Scotland feel badly let down, by the way in which our ferry services are currently being managed. The impact of poor services on island communities are well documented. I would have to say that the social and economic impact has been particularly devastating. The committee states that the root cause of the current problems includes an ageing fleet, lack of resilience, increased usage and a parcell of responsibility culture in the governance structure, coupled with the lack of political leadership on those matters. In terms of governance, I note that the committee states that the tripartite arrangement, which is that of Transport Scotland, Calmark and Semal, is widely perceived as enabling the parcell culture, a culture in which no one takes ultimate responsibility for the effective delivery of taxpayer-funded services. The project Neptune report, when looking at the issue, points to a lack of clear roles and responsibilities, causing conflict between senior personnel and, as a result, a lack of a joint approach and aligned positions. Although the committee says that no clear consensus has emerged from the inquiry as to what form the governance should take, it is clear that the tripartite arrangement is not working. It goes on to recommend that the Government gives consideration to a transport Scotland merger to create ferry Scotland, an arm of transport Scotland. It is clear from the report that changes are needed. It is important that the Government tackle the smarter, setting out what they consider to be the options and how they intend to proceed. Is the member taking Edward Mountain or Graham Simpson? I thank the member giving way. I think that there are lots of permutations, but would the member agree that, as the Government does not know what they are legally entitled to do at this stage, we are absolutely stuck with nowhere to go? That is why we need the clarity that the committee has clearly been asking for, but the evidence presented suggests that, as you said, the status quo is not on the table. I would add that it would be very important that, if any new body were to be established within transport Scotland, it would have to have the proper resources, be properly resourced, ensuring that it has the expertise and the knowledge to guarantee that the current failings become a thing of the past and not a continuation of the present. The committee also examined the issues around the next contract for the Clyde and Herbidee's ferry service and stated that putting those into a single bundle had many benefits. Those include greater service resilience, economies of scale, the ability to maintain relief vessels and to redeploy staff and vessels to deal with periods of disruption. They do, however, point out that that is not being achieved under the tri-part arrangements that are in place just now. Those arrangements must be reviewed and changed as soon as is practical. My understanding was that the Labour Party was in favour of keeping the chiefs contract as a single contract and were not in favour of bundling. Are you suggesting that they should be unbundled through the two? On the question of the next contract, the committee goes on to say that it understands that the Scottish Government's preference is to make a direct award for Clyde and Herbidee's ferries services and recognise the benefits of doing so. It would be good if the Government were to clarify if that is indeed their position and if it is their preference, it is also important that the Government sets out its understanding of the law post-Brexit. Can the minister clarify the specific procurement regulations and elements of the subsidy control act 2022, with which a direct award must comply? That is important, as clearly it will inform the final decisions on whether to accept the committee's recommendations of a direct award or to undertake a highly risky tender process of the chiefs contract. Scottish Labour supports the principle of a direct award of the next contract, hence why it is important that the Government clarifies its position and understanding of the legal position post-Brexit. The report commissioned by the RMT union on the critique of the project Neptune by the University of Glasgow highlights that key elements of the Scottish Government's fair work policy are delivered through companies such as CalMac. CalMac is a leading provider of good-quality jobs, security and career progressions to the islands and mainland communities where such jobs are even more scarce than in urban areas. As such, the wider social and economic value of a publicly-owned ferry operator must be taken into account when making decisions on the awarding of the new contract. I would also suggest the committee's view that the contract should be for 10 years in length is the right one. As stated earlier, the ageing fleet is also highlighted as a major cause of the current problems. The committee notes that the previous commitments to fleet renewal have not been met. I expect that the chamber will have the chance to move forward to debate what exactly went wrong with the ferries being built on the Clyde, but the message must be that the Government must get its act together. I note the committee suggests that the design of the new ferries, ports and harbours should be standardised. I look forward to the Government's response to that, but what is clear is that we need a fully-costed, deliverable ferry replacement plan without which the rest is all-academic. Inclosing islanders are being let down, workers are being let down and Scotland has been let down. The Government must get its act together and deliver a modern ferry service that is fit for purpose and meets the needs of 21st century Scotland. I welcome the committee to debate this afternoon and thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for their work on the issue and the clerks for their crucial work behind the scenes. The comprehensive report will go some way to addressing the present complexities surrounding Scotland's ferries and the need for a modern and sustainable ferry service. Ferrys are a lifeline service for islanders. I submitted views from Shetland during the consultation stage, as did other local stakeholders, including the Stuart building transport group. Earlier this year, I asked Shetlanders for their views on the external ferry service between Lerwick and Aberdeen. What was clear from over 1,000 responses received is that we need 21st century services for 21st century passenger and business needs, sufficient capacity for both freight and passengers, accessible cabins, affordable prices and the ability to book up to a year in advance. Staff work hard to assist passengers and keep things running, which over the past few years has been an uphill battle, not least with Covid disruption. Often bad weather delays, but staff and crew expertise ensure that livestock and perishable freight can move and reach markets when it is safe for sailings to resume. Freight capacity can constrict the Northern Isle contribution to Scotland's economy. Similarly across Scotland, agriculture, fishing and aquaculture sectors are impacted when sailings cannot go ahead due to vessel breakdown and lack of resilience. Hollyage businesses, crofters, farmers and seafood exporters experience additional costs and seasonal pinch points for livestock exports, which are well known to Transport Scotland, exacerbate the issue. Coastal communities on the west coast have been let down. Businesses forced to close, tourists unable to travel, perhaps never to return, shops unable to restock their shelves and misery for those living in the islands. Funerals missed, health appointments disrupted, extra travel costs to stay in the mainland. Small communities impacted disproportionately. People in Orkney and Shetland see what has happened on the west coast and fear a repetition on the Northern Isles route. Plans must be in place today to secure the viability of communities tomorrow. We need a programme of renewal and outgoing ferries, retired in good time, before they are unable to run a reliable service on the route. We need to see a swift move to carbon neutral ferries to help dramatically reduce Scotland's carbon emissions. You will be aware of my support for short subsea tunnels connecting islands in Shetland. I have often laid out their anticipated benefits in this chamber, including the environmental impact of reducing ferry emissions in the islands. New ferries will still be needed in Shetland. That renewal of vessels needs to go ahead now as operational limits are pushed, with the average age of the Shetland fleet at around 35 years. Our Nordic neighbours put us to shame, having had electric ferries for some time now, providing reliable transport and cutting emission outputs. A sensible, workable model we can look to for sustainable and low-emission inspiration. Before I conclude, I want to highlight the recent announcement that under 22s will receive two free return journeys on island to mainland ferry routes. While that is a welcome expansion, island young people are still disadvantaged compared to their mainland counterparts. The policy amounts to an island student paying to get back to university after the Easter break, while a student living on the mainland can travel whenever they like for free on buses. The inequity for young people who travel on inter-island ferries also continues despite the use of inter-island ferries being like local buses. It is a policy that means some people get free travel while others in the same age group do not. If, for example, you are under 22 and live on Bressie, the only way to get off the island is by ferry. There is no free bus that will take you across the stretch of water to Lerwick. I want to see Scotland's inter-island ferries included in the free under 22 travel provision, and that is something that members of the Scottish Youth Parliament have previously called for. I hope that the Scottish Government can be persuaded to further extend its islands to mainland offer. When pressing the Scottish Government on this, I have been directed to the fair fairs review, the outcome of which is long awaited. The ferries need to be at the heart of the Scottish Government's transport and net zero plans, and serve the needs of islanders. We will now move to the open debate. As a member of the net zero energy and transport committee, I am pleased to be speaking in today's committee debate. I want to begin by thanking the clerks, my committee colleagues past and present, and all those who gave evidence to the committee. Without their input, this inquiry and our recommendations would not have been possible. The inquiry, as we heard earlier, was over a year long, and the committee wanted its inquiry into a modern and sustainable ferry service for Scotland to be a chance for communities to relate their experiences and also give their views on potential solutions for the future. We wanted to hear about the current and evolving needs of ferry users, and to put forward considerations to the Scottish Government on how future services could be designed to best meet those needs. The report contains 74 recommendations, which the committee felt were essential to ensure a sustainable and reliable ferry service for all going forward. Those recommendations will hopefully assist the Scottish Government to ensure that our ferry service is fit for purpose, centred on the needs of ferry-dependent communities and responsive to those needs. During the inquiry, we heard from island residents who are the ones trying to get over to the mainland in winter when the weather is unpredictable and in the summer when the ferries are fully booked with tourists. It's great for the businesses that need the visitors, but not so great for the resident who needs to get to the mainland for a medical appointment. A reliable, affordable ferry service is a lifeline for island communities. Ensurance folk have access to the mainland for services, shopping, leisure and visiting friends and family is key to the future success and prosperity for our islands. A lot has been said in this chamber already, even today, around the failures of the ferry service, especially in recent months. However, for me, the report is about looking forward and not backwards. The recommendations in front of us today are hopefully seen as a positive step in addressing the concerns of various communities regarding the connectivity of the islands. I hope that we can get across party agreement today that the needs of our islands communities need to be at the heart of our decision making regarding their ferry services. The ferry services must be shaped by the communities that are reliant on them. The success of our ferry service going forward will be reliant on the Clyde and Hebrides services being responsive to the needs of island communities, the services that they require at the times that they need. For example, we heard at committee that some folk were able to get a ferry ticket, but were unable to get their car on to the ferry, meaning that their onward travel on the mainland was impossible due to a lack of public transport connectivity in some places. I also welcome the recommendations regarding the local authority input into shaping the ferry services that will serve their communities. As a former local councillor myself, I recognise the valuable input and local insight that councillors will have to shaping a ferry service that best serves their communities. They are the ones on the front lines with the most first-hand experience of the challenges faced by their constituents. Closer working between the operator, local authorities and communities is key to ensuring the success and longevity of our ferry services. I truly believe that it is not just the islands that need a modern, economical and sustainable ferry service. Improved ferry services benefit the whole of Scotland. As I said, it is vital that we now look forward, taking into account the views of the communities and ferry users provided to the net zero energy and transport committee and not focus on what has gone wrong in the past, but what we can do to improve the connectivity of our island communities with the mainland moving forward. I really appreciated the opportunity that this inquiry gave me to hear first hand the issues of our island communities can face on a daily basis with connectivity to the mainland. I look forward to hearing the response from our transport minister who, as a former member of the NSET committee, heard first hand the issues with connectivity to our island communities. I know that she will do everything in her gift to ensure that the sustainable, reliable ferry service becomes a reality in the near future. First, I thank the committee for its work. It is a thoroughly decent and very thorough report. All 161 pages, all 74 recommendations, although I appreciate that everyone was a direct recommendation. It seemed to me like a genuine cross-party effort, as very often those things are. It made me quite nostalgic from my days on the Wreck Committee because it is no surprise, like many people in this chamber, that I have been speaking for over seven years about what a modern and sustainable ferry fleet ought to look like in this country. I have to say that, when I picked up this report, I was a little bit depressed because some of it made for quite grim reading and how little has changed over the years and over so many debates about the same issues. It talked about the ageing fleet. It talked about the lack of resilience. It talked about the lack of new ferries, the lack of responsibility, the lack of governance, the lack of political leadership, the lack of meaningful data and the endless churn of Government ministers. I have to say to the Government, have we learned nothing over the years from multiple reports, from the 2017 report, from the 2020 report, the 2023 report, from various committees of this Parliament, from Audit Scotland, from independent experts? This latest report, however, focused on three very distinct areas. It really, I think, rightly tried to look forward to the future, and it is that what I want to speak about today. First of all, of course, I had to identify what are the root causes of so many of the issues that we face today. I think that this report really did justice to those to whom it matters, the voices of island communities and ferry users themselves, who were absolutely clear when they said that services are not good enough and need to change. We all know that already. It was also disappointing to read that the work of the committee was, in my view, hampered by the lack of data when it was gathering evidence. I was entirely unsurprised to learn that CalMac's own criteria for measuring reliability is, in the words of the committee opaque, poorly understood and not widely trusted in ferry using communities, quoting from the report directly. I read far too often phrases such as fatigued, damaged and hindered. Those words jumped out of the pages of the report at me. How on earth do you measure the operator performance if the parameters used to measure that performance are not to be trusted? How on earth can we have a conversation and a frank conversation about how to make direct awarded contracts to that same operator if you cannot measure the success of its existing contract? Perhaps that is a debate for another day in this place. The biggest issue that I think fails my inbox and probably that of most people with an island community interest is the issue of reliability. CalMac only reports that which is of required of them in the contract, i.e. their contractual reliability statistics. It does not, for example, include proper information to islanders about cancellations due to weather. We cannot control the weather, but here is what we can control. In my view, more importantly, is what is the vessel's ability to deal with such weather, because what is too often in the case is the inability of the vessel to deal with adverse weather, not its ability. We have an ageing fleet. We all know that, averaging 25 years old vessels, the whole system is operating with no capacity in the system. What does that mean? When there is a last minute breakdown or there is an unexpected maintenance issue, which means that vessel is taken out of the route, where do they find another? They find it from another route. The report described that as the cascading effect. That is one way to put it, and our resident moraculatory described it to me as the island wheel of misfortune. That is before you even consider the exploding costs of maintenance, which has risen sharply over the past few years. That is money that could be used to be buying and building new vessels, to be honest. The past is the past. The report challenges this Government. It challenges on what needs to change, and quite directly so. Yes, of course, we need to build or buy more ferries. Yes, of course, we need a younger fleet of vessels. Of course, we all agree that we need to change the ineffective governance structures that currently exist. I have spoken at length in the past about the unholy alliance of the so-called tripartite agreement between SEMAL, CalMac and Transport Scotland, because we all know that it is the blame-shifting and the lack of governance, which is why Hull 801 is still floating in Port Glasgow and is not sitting in Brodwch right now. Project Neptune, a good piece of work, agreed that CalMac and SEMAL should merge. It seems to be met with quite a mixed response from the Government. The Government seems to push back using issues such as pensions as a reason not to fully make progress with that. The real question is, would ferry Scotland solve all the issues? Would having that singular body streamlining and decision making really end the problems that we have? In my view, you can tinker around with the agencies and the lines of responsibility all you like, but if you have not got the fleet, the port infrastructure and the vessels, it is not fit for purpose. The committee made that abundantly clear. Of course, the final word in all this should go to the islanders themselves. That is why so many people on the island of Cumbria were demonstrating last weekend at the inability of Transport Scotland and CalMac to properly consult with them. It is no surprise that they do not feel listened to, bizarre officer, because they are not being listened to. They are sick of endless consultations with no tangible results. Scottish ministers have a lot of questions to answer in response to this report. If they are to reject any recommendations in this report, they must explain why in full. If they are to accept all the recommendations, then they must deliver them, end of. This Parliament has very understandably had several debates in the last couple of years on ferry services. For obvious reasons, they have completely, legitimately focused on the very real problems that services have faced. Equally legitimate, however, is the need to look to the future, and that is what I believe that this report and I yet hope that this debate does. I am therefore grateful to the work that the NZ Committee has done in presenting this very substantial report to the chamber. As others have said, the shore staff and the crews of CalMac do an outstanding job. They are not the ones that we criticise today, but there have been plenty reasons to criticise wider aspects of Scotland's ferry services in recent years, and I have certainly done my own fair share of that. It is worth stressing, however, what I hope is the consensus that our island communities simply could not exist without the substantial and entirely merited public funding that ferry operators receive. To illustrate what I mean by that, I was genuinely shocked recently to discover what the ferry service looks like when it does not have a Government willing to give it that support. I met last month with local representatives from one of England's very few inhabited island groups, the Silly Isles. They explained to me that the UK Government provides no subsidy to their ferry service at all, leaving them with an operator that only sails for six months a year, does not accept cars and charges foot passengers £200 a time to travel to the mainland. I thank the member for taking the intervention. Will he also recognise that we have private ferry operators in Scotland that also do not receive subsidies? One of them, Pentland Ferries, is currently providing a ferry to help the Scottish Government to help the SMA plug the gaps in the routes. I accept the facts, but I am not quite sure what they have to do with the point that I am making. The reason that I point some of that out is to point to the importance of publicly subsidised services. Our £2.2 billion has gone into Scotland's ferry services and infrastructure over the past 16 years. I do not point that out to detrack from the very genuine and real problems that continue in a constituency like mine, not least the recent issues on the sound of Harris and the sound of Barra, where the inter-island vessels are rapidly approaching the end of their working lives. I have made a case to the transport minister for the replacement of those vessels to be brought forward for that reason. However, the focus of the net zero energy and transport committee's report is, as I say, on the future and on real, tangible progress. I note the substantial upgrades to vital infrastructure in my constituency, which have been completed, including the piers at Stornoway, Tarbot and Lochmade, as well as those serving them in Alla Pwll and Uig on the mainland and Skye. Those examples are relevant to one of the primary recommendations in the committee's report, namely the importance of increased standardisation of port infrastructure, where practical and vessel design. The benefits of building vessels to more similar specifications, such as the four that are variously under construction or under order in Turkey, will include lower maintenance costs and quicker repairs, with standard parts allowing easier replacement. My constituents in the islands of Harris and North US have long called for dedicated vessels for Tarbot and Lochmade, and the Scottish Government has listened. One of the new vessels that is being constructed will be allocated to each of those two routes, improving capacity and crucially helping the network's overall resilience, as well as representing a significant reduction in the average age of major vessels in the fleet. In its report, the committee recommends that the Scottish Government consider how public ferry delivery organisations can include meaningful representations of the island communities that they serve. I remain firmly of the view that there should be significantly more seats on the relevant boards occupied by people who live in islands and therefore rely on ferries in their own lives. That would ensure that more decisions were informed by local knowledge and experience. Concessionary travel for younger people was another element that the committee and many others recommended to be explored by the Scottish Government. I am very pleased that action has already been taken by the Transport Minister with the recent announcement of four free ferry journeys each year for all islanders under 22 years of age. I will, yes. I will take the intervention. Does he think that the four free passes that have been announced go far enough? I certainly think that it goes a long way towards what the committee was recommending, and I am sure that communities will continue to work with the Government to see if more can be achieved, but there is a substantial way towards achieving what the committee was seeking from the Government. I want to say, too, that another thing that is key to the report is the simplification of Scotland's ferry service governing structures. Recent consultation with island communities showed that there was a desire to see CalMac and Seamall merged, while the committee favoured an approach that would see Transport Scotland and Seamall merged. What is clear is that there is an agreement that the current tri-part structure is not working and that restructuring will help streamline decision making, improve accountability and provide better transparency, all of which our island communities want to see. I am pleased to contribute to this debate and to thank the committee for their thorough report. The consistent message is that Scotland has an unreliable ferry service because Scotland has an unreliable ferry fleet. Islanders repeatedly tell us their livelihoods and indeed the very future of living on the islands is being affected by the frequent mechanical failures. Last winter, Aaron faced food and fuel shortages due to the unreliability of sailings and supermarket shells were empty of vegetables and much else over the festive season last year. I welcome that the minister has made clear that change is needed. The report considers the proposals for reorganisation and I fully understand why they feel the tri-partite structure does not work. As someone who was involved in debates before the last reorganisation, which of course cost tens of millions of pounds and indeed campaigned against that reorganisation and so is no supporter of the current structure, I have to say that it is the Scottish Government's history of poor decision making and the broken procurement model, which is the root problem of the lack of reliable ferries. I would ask the minister to advise the Parliament of how much she understands any future reorganisation might cost to help inform the debate. I welcome the committee's recommendation of a direct award, which would provide certainty. I have asked various transport ministers if they believe they can make a direct award legally and they have indeed been asked that questions on more than one occasion today. I would also ask the minister to respond to that so that that could inform this debate. I also urge the Scottish Government to look at governance structures and put islanders and trade union representatives on the board. I am bundling, which, just to be clear to the minister, Labour believes is privatisation by another name, would be a grave mistake and would lead operators grasping for what little profit can be made on lifeline routes. The Scottish Government's own ferry services procurement policy review concluded an in-house operator. I will take an intervention. So apart from putting islanders on boards, what does Labour want to change about what the current situation is? I am confused. I will make that clear, I hope, during my contribution. The Scottish Government's own ferry services procurement policy review concluded an in-house operator is capable of delivering similar levels of operational efficiency, innovation and service improvement to those that might otherwise be obtained from tendering. Despite that, ministers still spent taxpayers' money commissioning Ernst and Young to scrutinise how the ferries are run. The Zero Energy and Transport Committee has since concluded that the Project Neptune report from Ernst and Young failed to sufficiently engage with island communities or indeed the workforce. I welcome that the report from the committee does engage with communities and the workforce. I also welcome that the report references the current poor procurement approach. CMAL has sourced the globe and examined 650 second-hand ships over a five-year period. Only the Alfred has been commissioned and the chieftain, which is now a CalMac vessel. Four projects to build ferries have been outsourced to Turkey, a country in which the TUC says that workers face random arrests and unions operate in a climate of fear. It certainly makes a mockery of the Scottish Government's supposed fair work procurement policy. The report says that efforts by CMAL to purchase or lease existing vessels abroad are not working and should not be relied upon. However, if we agree that this is unsustainable and, as the minister said, changes are needed, where is the Scottish Government's sustainable alternative? The Scottish Government's draft islands connectivity plan contains very little detail on rebuilding shipbuilding capacity anywhere in Scotland, but rebuilding capacity is going to be central if the Scottish Government is going to be able to abide by its commitment to dramatically reduce the average age of the fleet. As the tendering process opens for the small vessel replacement programme, I hope that the minister can provide some assurance that islanders and local communities and the workforce will be centrally involved in the decision-making process so that vessels are commissioned, which meet the services need and the wider socio-economic needs, which Alex Rowley spoke about in his contribution. I have to say as somebody that has represented island communities over many years that islanders consistently do not feel that they have been listened to or indeed consulted. Standardised vessels also require standardised ports. I would ask that the minister provide an update on the address in harbour redevelopment, which, of course, is essential for the address in broadic route. I welcome this debate and the opportunity to consider the long-term future of Scotland's ferries, and I urge the Scottish Government to come forward with its own proposals. Thank you, Ms Clark. I now call Kenneth Gibson to be followed by Mark Ruskell. I welcome the committee's report calling for a comprehensive vision of high-quality service for all ferry-dependent communities, and I know that my Arn and Cymru constituents will, too. The understandable frustration of island communities has long been recognised and is, indeed, throughout the report, and I look forward to seeing meaningful action being taken by the Scottish Government to create a resilient, transparent and reliable ferry service. I am also pleased that the Scottish Government will take forward 43 recommendations with 29 noted. Our ageing ferry fleet is a key issue that causes regular delays and cancellations. Only yesterday, I was unable to travel to Cumbria for a meeting with local government committee colleagues due to a technical fault with MV Loch Fyne. Although CalMac had MV Lochshire in operation on the route less than 90 minutes after announcing the fault, undeniably caused difficulties for those waiting, not least because it was communicated that the ferry would not sail for longer than it actually transpired. Continuous delays surrounding the MV Glen Sanox and recently named MV Glen Rosa failed to instill confidence in our ferry communities. As those vessels continue to meet issues impacting timing and budget, a number of Scottish islands are being denied a full, flexible year-round service. Those delivery problems suggest difficulties throughout replacement programme processes, including funding, procurement, design and specification. The Scottish Government's £695 million funding to progress ambitious fleet renewal plans was welcomed in 2021, however, as islanders wait for new vessels to come into operation, frustration grows. An achievable rolling vessel renewal programme is required to build islanders' confidence in the service and ensure delays and cancellations are significantly reduced. Yesterday's announcement to continue operating the MV Alfred in the Clyde and Hebrides ferry service network for our fellow six months, providing much-needed additional zillions over the winter period, was welcomed by islanders. Nevertheless, news at the MV Caledonian Isles may be approved for deployment to Isle or Mall has created concern that the Alfred will be used to provide a single vessel service to Arn with a reduced timetable over the winter period, and I hope that the minister will be able to confirm that that is not going to be the case. The rescheduled timetable allowing the Caledonian Isles to participate in these sea trials was announced only days before its implementation. My iron constituents would appreciate frank and regular updates and opportunities to provide feedback on the situation to ensure decisions are made with ferry users and local island businesses in mind. The Alfred has only half the Caledonian Isles capacity, and therefore I too share concerns now that timetable sailings are already vulnerable to weather-related cancellations. Both Arn and Cumbria rely heavily on tourism, and an improved ferry service would significantly boost island businesses and in turn employ livelihoods. A rolling programme of investment in new ferries would ensure that the network no longer operates at full capacity, preventing problems that are cascading through the service when a vessel is inoperable. The introduction of road equivalent tariff for the Clirell is in 2014, which I had long campaigned for, more than half the cost of visiting Arn by car. This greatly boosted visit numbers and Arn's economy. Capacity was increased to the six-week two-vessel summer service, extending to six months, and the dilapidated MP Saturn, which the Scottish Government inherited, was removed from the fleet. It had a 14.2 per cent cancellation rate, eight times the fleet average. Even so, summer capacity remains at a premium, and the glensalix capacity is a reduction to 852 passengers increases that concern. It is essential that CalMac provides accurate performance metrics to drive improvement and ensure that accountability is accepted when issues emerge. Considering the Neptune report, it is essential that governance structures are streamlined and transparency improved. Decisions made following the report's key findings must recognise both the network feedback provided and the detailed study informed by over 50 ferry-aligned communities demonstrating a Scottish Government commitment to working in collaboration with ferry users. Kenny Gibson sits on the Audroson harbour task force. Can he give us an update on progress there? I have to say that I cannot give an immediate one on where we are at this precise moment. It is a movable feast. There have, of course, been a number of issues, particularly relating to the fact that the Tories privatised the harbour some 30 years ago, which means that the Scottish Government is not able to build or redevelop the harbour without having to negotiate with people who are driving a very hard bargain. For example, even when a deal is agreed after a long period of time, we have a situation where my inflation eats in and people want the public sector to meet that. The roots of that go back to the Tories' privatisation of the harbour. I hope that we will have meaningful progress in the weeks and months ahead. The committee references the need for meaningful engagement with communities throughout the report, which is something that Ile Van Ferry committee has called for over many years. Under seats on the boards of CalMac and Seam Isle, it could only be advantageous allowing the knowledge and lived experience of island life to influence decision making and turn improving customer focus. Increased public engagement would help CalMac to ensure time for the tabling decisions and meet the needs of both islanders and visitors, boosting island economies, while also ensuring that timetables are in sync with other modes of public transport and allowing ferry users to continue their journey in a timely manner following the crossing. Within my constituency, the volunteer members of Arran Ferry committee and Cumbry Ferry users group represent community and business sectors voice ferry-related matters on the two islands effectively, and they are dedicated to working with CalMac, Seam Isle, Scottish Ministers and others to improve services and, importantly, increase the engagement of ferry service providers with islanders. Change is urgently needed, as I explained to the First Minister when the Ile Van Ferry committee met him on 23 August to change and must start at the top of the company operating the contract. The current situation for Arran is at an all-time low in terms of engagement and communication with community representatives and any suggestion of a direct award to the current operator, even with significant management restructuring, would not be well received by the communities served. They assert that customer respect and customer care is totally missing and must be improved first. I welcome the Scottish Government's decision to extend the free ferry service for young people to all island residents under the age of 22, allowing islanders to save money and removing cost barriers to transport. However, if Graham Simpson had actually intervened on myself rather than Alasdair Allan, he would know that I am asking the Government to consider increasing the number of journeys permitted, given that young persons free bus travel pass has no restriction on journeys made throughout the year and I agree with Beatrice Wishart in that regard. The Scottish Government's new vision for a high-quality ferry service must make it clear that the prosperity of island communities is the priority. To achieve that communication and an opportunity for constructive feedback is key, as well as a comprehensive rolling programme investment to deliver, I think that it meets the need of islanders and the lifeline services that they are relying upon. I thank all the ferry-dependent communities because their evidence has been absolutely central to this inquiry. I also thank the workers who operate in incredibly difficult conditions to connect our island communities to each other and to the rest of Scotland. For me, the central conclusion of this inquiry is that the experiences of those ferry-dependent communities need to be at the heart of how services are designed, delivered and monitored going forward. I very much welcome the comments earlier on in this debate from the Minister and I acknowledge her early work to really intensively engage with those communities. I recognise that they are now a time for intensive engagement with those communities because it is clear that there has been an erosion of trust over a number of years and that communities themselves should be involved in the co-production of services going forward, including the ability to be able to propose new services and alterations as appropriate. Ferries, unlike trains and buses, did not have a regulator or a customer champion who can ensure services stick to agreed standards. If bus services do not stick to timetables, the traffic commissioner can and sometimes does step in, but there is no such regulator for ferry services. For years, ferry-dependent communities have relied on ad hoc parliamentary scrutiny or consultation exercises in order to be heard. That has led to a situation where expectations have often risen only to then be let down again. There was a strong sense of consultation fatigue throughout this inquiry. In the absence of ferry services that communities can shape to meet their own needs, some have even gone as far as proposing their own services and have made the case that the chief's bundle will be unpicked. It is welcome that the Government has resisted calls for unbundling, but I can understand where some communities are coming from in making that call. The view from many who gave evidence was that the tripartite arrangement between Calmax, Seaman and Transport Scotland was not working and had led to a past-aparsal approach of transferring responsibility. As we have heard from the convener, there was no consensus from the committee on the exact model going forward. If it emerges that there is a new ferry Scotland body linking Seaman with Transport Scotland functions, I am sure that many would welcome that, but only if it results in more accountability, more transparency, competency and responsiveness. If a 10-year direct award emerges for Calmax, it will be critical that a changing culture based on those principles of good service takes hold. The involvement of unions and community members at board level will be really important to affect that culture change. I note that the Government has rejected the option of a ferries commissioner as overly bureaucratic. I certainly recognise the intense parliamentary scrutiny on budgets for commissioners at the moment. However, the decision does put the emphasis back on to any new structure that emerges to show that a commissioner function is unnecessary. The Scottish Parliament is not set up to scrutinise the minutiae of timetable changes and individual reliability issues. From time to time, those will arise in parliamentary questions and through committee work, but they should be issues that are primarily dealt with first through customer operator forums. With that in mind, I welcome the Government's commitment to continue the ferries community board and to ensure that the next GIF contract comes with clear KPIs. I also warnly welcome that there will be a renewed focus on accessibility with a role for the Mobility Access Committee and in the ongoing development of services. Recording the reliability of services will help to rebuild trust again. That data should reflect the real experience of ferry users. Understanding and communicating the reasons behind cancellations will also be important, especially when cancellations come from problems with other services that have cascaded down. Ferry ticket prices was another area that the committee looked at, and I was pleased to hear the recent announcement of the extension of the free ferry scheme to all under-22s. I look forward to the transport minister concluding the wider Fairfares review. I recognise that this Government has the most ambitious scheme of concessionary public transport fares anywhere in the UK. In these financially difficult times, the minister will be wrestling with difficult choices, but offering help to young people to continue living on our islands is a shared priority between both the SNP and the Greens. On road equivalent tariff, the principle remains important, but the model of implementation and any possible extension needs to take account of unintended consequences, while remaining firmly focused on supporting island residents first. The procurement of new ferries is a highly charged issue, but it is important to note that vessels being built in Turkey are on track for launch next year and in 2025. Going forward, the climate emergency must feature strongly in choosing all sustainable transport options. That means looking carefully at whether fixed links make sense in terms of both lifetime cost and lifetime carbon emissions. I hope, like Beatrice Wishart, that small electric vessels coming through the replacement programme will be far easier to design and build than 801 and 802, and that the low-carbon ferries plan strongly drives the options going forward. Signing off to the Aging Ferry Fleet and the difficulties of procuring boats on the international market has obviously dominated the performance issues for island communities, but as the light appears at the end of the tunnel and new ferries are on their way, there is an opportunity to put communities first and to redesign service delivery in a way that is accountable and responsive. That is what communities deserve after years of waiting. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate on a subject of such importance to my islands and islands region as convener of the Parliament's CPG on islands and as an island of myself. Can I firstly thank the work of the committee and the clerks and all the witnesses in conducting this inquiry and helping to produce this report? It is a report that, in its very first few lines, succinctly summarises the problem. Ferry services are not good enough and need to change. I doubt that anyone who lives in any one of our islands or in one of our ferry-reliant communities would argue with that. We need change and we need it urgently. Because over the 16 years the SNP has been in power, our ferries network has lurched from crisis to crisis and from scandal to scandal. The focus today for many will be on the west coast routes, but I have long warned that the crisis engulfing those services will eventually impact in other areas such as in the northern isles where I am from. That is already happening. The MV Alfred, a relatively new ferry built on time and on budget and operated by a private company without any government subsidy, has had to be chartered to plug the gaps in Calmax operations. This has meant that Orkney, my home, has seen capacity reduced with a smaller and older ferry providing cover. Yesterday that charter was extended, meaning that a key Orkney route will continue to lie on that older vessel and its reduced capacity for most of the next summer season. The cost of the taxpayer will be, I understand, around £15 million in total. £15 million is a charter for 15 months, a vessel that is reported to have cost between £14 million and £17 million to buy new. What could better highlight the utter failure of the SNP's procurement processes and the financial consequences of their panicked response to those failures? It is not just the islands that suffer. One of Scotland's busiest ferry routes is across the Coron Narrows in Lochaber. Its usual ferry, the 23-year-old MV Coron, has just spent an entire year out of service. Its cover vessel, the 48-year-old, made of Glencwil, broke down, was reintroduced again with restrictions and then broke down again. The communities served by those vessels have been left without that vital link through the busiest time of the year. I want to be clear that this is a Highland Council run service, but the council seems to have no clear timetable on delivering a solution while successive SNP transport ministers have just washed their hands of the problem. I was able to use the crossing only a few months ago as part of my summer surgery tour. Having travelled through local communities and met with residents and local businesses, the impact on the disruption was clear. Footfall in local businesses was reported to be considerably down, and some businesses were considering whether they could even continue. Local accommodation providers and hospitality have seen bookings cancelled last minute because there was no ferry to carry their guests, with others struggling to take long-term bookings because confidence in being able to reach the area had plummeted. There were real concerns of depopulation for the area if a reliable ferry connection could not be delivered. To meet the communities in the Ardlenburgan peninsula and heard their concerns, would he welcome the fact that CML has been working with Highland Council to look at how they can help Highland Council in their future procurement? I would welcome that, but I think that what we need is to make sure that those meetings are more than just talks, which has often been the case, more than just more hand-ringing, and to deliver a solution. That will be absolutely vital, because those local communities need to see action from SNP-led administrations in Edinburgh and in Inverness. It is vital, as the report recommends, that local authorities and the Scottish Government collaborate to ensure that communities can rely on our lifeline links. As many want to see longer-term across the coronary narrows, that fixed links, light bridges and tunnels, as others have mentioned today, are seriously considered by the Scottish Government. Stronger consideration for fixed links would certainly find favour in other areas, such as in Shetland, as Beatrice Wishard highlighted, and where I met in the summer with campaigners for tunnels, as well as with the local council, who see fixed links as a viable and realistic option, but they will need Government to help support and facilitate that. Presiding Officer, this is an extremely welcome report, but in itself it will change nothing. We know change is needed, that is clear in this report, in the testimony that we have heard from the cross-party group on islands and from many of the speakers today. But change requires an admission and an acceptance from the Scottish Government that they have got things so terribly wrong so far. Is it a scandal? Yes. The US got to the moon quicker than it has taken this SNP Government to plan and build the two-phase. It still hasn't delivered. Is it a crisis? Yes. But worse than that, it's a tragedy for the ferry-reliant communities, and my concern is that the cancellations, the restrictions, the unreliability we see now will only get worse. More islanders will be impacted, more businesses will be damaged, the very future of some of our most fragile communities could be at risk. Because, as the report says, ferry services are not good enough and need to change. Thank you. I call Stuart McMillan, the final speaker in the open debate. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First, I'll like to remind the chamber that my wife works part-time for CalMac. I'm pleased that the motion for today is to note the report and not support it, as I certainly can't support everything in it. I want to start with two brief points. Firstly, I thought the layout was helpful to any reader who is exploring this issue for the first time, and secondly, when the Opposition called for a ministerial sacking in the future, I'm sure that this report will actually be referenced. The executive summary provides a good understanding of what is covered in the report and, importantly, highlights the challenge of providing standardised ferries and ports. However, what the report fails to explain however is how that would actually be done. It also fails to recognise what comes first and how it will be paid for. Page 57 onwards does not provide the answers. The job that Seymal has been undertaken with regards to ports infrastructure certainly fulfills that task. The point that appears to have been forgotten is that ferry procurement in the past was based on the existing infrastructure instead of planning ahead. That could tie in with the proposed CHIF, three-contract award for 10 years, as has been suggested. Now, recommendation 29 of the report suggests, and I quote, ensuring that it delivers real improvements for communities. CalMac of the past was of its day and possibly not challenged anywhere near enough, but the current contract award had 350 improvements to be made indicative of how little attention had been paid to modernising the business until Martin Dorchester became the chief executive. The first of the key points for my constituency and myself are recommendations 21 and 22 with regard to the direct award. There is something that I support and principle but recognise that the many hurdles that this would face also support a direct award of the small vessels programme to be built at Ferguson Marine for that matter. In addition to this, recommendation 63 will, however, sound alarm bells in my constituency. The potential to tie in moving either the HQ or HQ staff from Gwyrwch to elsewhere in the network will be challenged across my constituency. I am sure that there will be some understanding of why a small number of positions could be moved, however, a route in branch removal of CalMac from Gwyrwch will not be accepted. I note that the RMT briefing for this debate, it supports the direct award, but it is silent on the jobs potentially leaving Gwyrwch, something that I am sure that it would end up campaigning on in the future. The executive summary also mentions the valuation of the road equivalent tariff at RAT now. My reading of this leads me to suspect that this is about increasing costs for business while offering up cheaper fares for younger passengers. The social economic impact mentioned in recommendation 25 of the report will certainly be of interest if the island's business community were to pay more to ship their goods to the mainland to subsidise younger passengers. I realise that the Scottish Government is undertaking a fairs fair review to consider all aspects of travel, but I am sure that businesses would not want to be penalised, especially if they are making a profit and that will reference recommendation 49 of the report. The recommendation 11 and the tripartite relationship is the second of the key points of this report for me and also my constituency. It is clear that there has been a long-held vendetta against CMAL and by extension its workforce, even after the positive report from Audit Scotland in March 2022. The vendetta was obvious in the last Parliament session and also it sadly continues today. What is clear, however, is that the relationship between all three tripartite partners needs to be more transparent, which Project Neptune aimed to address. Sadly, Project Neptune left more questions than answers, and that was clear at the two briefings that I attended along with other MSPs from across the chamber. Recommendations 15 and 16 in this report highlight the considerations of emerging CMAL with either CalMac or Transport Scotland based on the Project Neptune report. I have got grave concerns over those suggestions. The committee report highlights the rationale for breaking up CalMac in 2006, which was very helpful in terms of the historical element of why we are where we are now. In comparison, CMAL's focus on investing in important infrastructure is testament to its skills and a task that was long overdue. Merging with Transport Scotland to create a ferry Scotland could and be merit-worthy, but it cannot be at any cost. That is where the local social economic impacts come into consideration. CMAL is based in Port Glasgow in my constituency, employing 50 people. Not everyone will live locally, but the staff do contribute to the local economy. If a structure change were to happen, placing the workforce somewhere else out of a serious social economic impact upon the town and also my constituency. I do not believe that the authors of the report have fully considered that impact if recommendation 16 is pursued. As co-chair of the Inverclyde social economic task source alongside the council leader Stephen McCabe, I cannot stand here today and ignore how devastating the loss of 50 jobs to Port Glasgow would be. If a merger occurred as per recommendation 16 or some form of new structure is implemented, there needs to be a no detriment policy for my constituency. Why should my constituency be negatively impacted when it is already top of the list sadly of many negative social economic factors? In addition, and something that has also been touched upon in this chamber before, I do not agree with the calls to shut Ferguson's and base it down in Shkrene Drydoch. Even without considering the vast amounts of capital money that would be required for this, it would have a devastating effect upon Port Glasgow town centre. Local businesses have already told me that they would shut. The town centre would be decimated if the yard were to relocate. The town would never recover and the population decline would increase at a rate not seen since the decimation of the ship-burning industry locally under the Tories from 1979. Although there are some aspects of this report, which will be positive for other parts of the country, it raises grave concerns and could be detrimental for my Greenock and Inverclyde constituency. I want to thank the committee for its work on the report. I also want to thank very important staff for the services that they deliver. The ultimate responsibility for the Clyde and Hebrides very fiasco lies squarely with the SNP Government. It is its relentless incompetence that has left island communities waiting for years for new lifeline ferries and tax payers picking up the ever-increasing bill, likely to be over £400 million by that time we are finished. Shetland and Orkney into island ferries have similar issues. Those councils do not have the funding to replace their ferries, a point made by Liam McArthur and Beatrice Wishart during the debate. It seems true of the coron ferry that belongs to Highland Council, again ageing infrastructure. The island connectivity plan needs to include those ferries as well, because we know the problems. The ageing fleet, the average age of the CalMac vessels is 37, years old. The Scottish Government has committed to lowering that to 15 years old by 2030. We need to see a detailed plan that does that and how it will achieve that promise. There is a lack of resilience in the system. Breakdowns are common, there are no spare parts, there are no spare capacity. We need political leadership to make the difference. That has not been forthcoming in the past while, with very few transport ministers staying in post for more than 18 months. Katie Clark made the point that the lack of resilience in the system led to food and fuel shortages, and that happens all too often. Many of the speakers in the debate talked about the tripartite system and the need for restructure, because it does not work. As Alex Rowley said, it ends up with people passing the parcel of blame to other organisations in that tripartite. Decisions have to be made closer to the community. I think that just about every speaker in the debate that made that point. Alasdor Allyn talked about islander seats in the board. The committee made the point that trade unions should also be on the boards of those companies. I am not convinced that the answer lies with Transport Scotland, because they feel more distant from communities than anything else. Indeed, it may well be part of the problem, but whatever new structure we have, it needs to have the resources and expertise to deliver those services, as Alex Rowley said in his opening speech. Turning to the award of the contract, Edward Mountain told us that there is only 16 months left of the contract. There is not time to put it out to tender, but we have long advocated the direct award of the contract. Indeed, in the last Parliament, my colleague David Stewart talked about the tech exemption and how that would have exempted those services being put out to tender. Alex Rowley and Katie Clark asked about the current legal advice post Brexit and whether that was now possible, and we would urge that it should. Any disruption will cause more trouble to our islands. The contract needs to run for an extended period, so people know who is delivering the service and that it can receive the proper investment. We also, when we look at that, need to look at all of those who are delivering the service, because we should be committed to fair work in every contract so that everybody who delivers those services has to be on the same terms and conditions, a point that is made by the RMT in their briefings for this debate. We need standardised designs for harbours and ports and ferries. Three interchangeable designs for ferries would mean that harbours would be able to accommodate them, and that was a point made by the minister herself when citing new harbour development. It would also allow our ship builders to plan and invest. If they knew the designs that were coming forward, they would be able to plan into the long term and deliver those ferries more cost effectively. We should also look at how we deliver that and maybe listen to the people and the community of the Isle of Lewis who asked for two smaller ferries, rather than one large ferry, because there was better efficiency benefits and indeed better interchangeability when boats were in dry dock in the winter period. We have to learn the lessons of the past. We have to make sure that we do not repeat them. We need to make sure that our ferry services are fit for purpose, that they are accessible to all users, and that is especially an issue with the Northern Isles, Interisland and ferry services. They are not accessible to disabled people. The ultimate responsibility for the Fiasco lies with the SNP Government. We need from them transparency and collaboration with local communities in order to deliver a ferry service fit for the future. I thank the committee for its outstanding work in producing the report and recognise the contribution of all previous and current members. Obviously, I will talk about the report, but you cannot discuss ferries without looking at some of the wider issues, because the upshot is this. Scotland's islanders are being let down by the SNP and it is now reaching a critical point. This fine report is just the latest produced by a Parliament committee. After previous ones, nothing has happened. The report starts off by talking about leadership. If we had leadership, we would not be in the current predicament with an ageing and unreliable ferry fleet and a paralysis of decision making, which means that the Scottish Government is booking tackling the big decisions. Like what are we going to do about the next Clyde and Hebrides ferry contract just 11 months to go? On that, will it go out to tender? If not, why not? How long will the contract be for? If it is 10 years or more, as the committee suggests, will the ferry operator also be responsible for owning the fleet and buying new ones? A similar model to the successful one operating in British Columbia, where it runs successfully dual fuel ferries. After all, you cannot possibly argue that the current rather bizarre setup where one part of the Scottish Government buys and owns the ferries and another runs them works well, and all with Transport Scotland sitting above them reporting to a succession of transport ministers going back a very long way. Now, I'm hoping that the current incumbent will achieve something meaningful, a ferry system that works, and maybe we'll find out about that next week. Coming back to those questions, why rule out private sector involvement? Why rule out islanders taking on services themselves? Why box yourself into a corner which can only have one outcome, the same failed model that we have now, the very model that is putting island economies at risk and making people think about leaving them? It's not as if we don't have other models in Scotland. We do. Councils run ferries, the private sector runs ferries. The one bit that gets all the headlines for the wrong reasons is the one run by the SNP. We have today labour figures like Katie Clark wanting all that to continue. The committee says that Scotland needs modern, economical and sustainable ferries. The Scottish Government should set out how it will deliver on its commitment to reduce the average age of vessels to 15 years by 2030. Indeed, it says that Scottish ferry services must be reliable. That would be good, wouldn't it? As Douglas Lumsons said, in his excellent contribution, I'll take your intervention. Emma Harper. I really appreciate you taking an intervention. You mentioned that the only time ferries are in the news is when it's calmock, but does the member not remember what P&O did by sack and its workers? That's a private company. That point is rather irrelevant to this debate, but I think everyone in this chamber criticised the actions of P&O at the time. The committee also called on the Government to make ferries more affordable for young people. It's gone some of the way to do that, but four passes a year is not the full-time arrangement that's needed. You would never put up with that on mainland buses, which is the equivalent. I urge the minister to go much further, a point made by my good friend Kenny Gibson and Beatrice Wishart. The committee agreed that the tripartite arrangement needs to change but could not agree on what should replace it. Imagine some members were maybe waiting for a steer from the Government, they still are. As time runs out on that, the next Clyde and Hebrides contract, no-one can plan ahead, so we are by possibly deliberate default heading towards more of the same. Presiding Officer, the minister has a lot of decisions to make by the end of the year and no shortage of reports and consultations from which to fall back on. We had Project Neptune, which told us nothing we didn't know already. We've had Angus Campbell's review and we've just had the musings of Barry Smith KC, who was asked if there was anything fraudulent in the procurement of the Glen Sannocks and Glen Rosa, an allegation that precisely no-one has made. We still don't know what Mr Smith was paid to produce his report. We do know that the former procurement manager at CML, George McGregor, says his claims that senior staff broke procurement rules and the odd should not have been shortlisted were not included in the report. Isn't that just the sort of thing that a KC should have been tasked with looking into? Those two ferries have swallowed up a huge chunk of a budget that could have gone on more new vessels. If the SMP had not been hell bent on giving the work to a yard that was plainly not up to the job of building two large ferries, then islanders would now have been enjoying travel on new ferries and other routes could have been enjoying the same. What a scandal. It's certainly a scandal, all right, but in true SMP style, well, I can hear some chuntering and I'll come on to that. No-one has taken the blame. No-one's been sacked. No-one's resigned because of it. The Scottish Conservatives have argued that the current tripartite system should end. The committee did that too. The minister today agrees that it's not fit for purpose. We've called for longer contracts. The committee has done that also. We've said that CML should be scrapped. The committee does not go quite that far, but they do suggest a new body ferries Scotland. We've criticised the Government's dithering over the awarding of the next Clyde and Hebrides contract. As I've said, this and all likelihood will lead to CalMac getting it again. We've said that we need an ongoing ferries replacement programme in order to lower the age of the fleet. We've also called for clarity of the future of the Ferguson Yard. This was not part of the inquiry. Only Neil Gray can do that, and he is rather typically dithering. Maybe we'll find out more about that next week. At the heart of this are islanders. They are the ones who are suffering, and they are the ones that we should be looking out for. I call on Fiona Hyslop up to eight minutes, minister. Presiding Officer, I would again thank the committee for its report, which ranged in its recognition from outstanding by Graham Simpson and Douglas Lumson said it was excellent. Jamie Greene was a bit more lukewarm, as in it was decent. I hope he, in reading the response by the Government, recognises that the Government has accepted 43 of the recommendations. We also heard, latterly, from a very critical view from Stuart McMillan, but I think that this has been a good debate because it has aired sincere informed perspectives and although different views. I think that it is clear that issues around delivery of ferry services remain an important topic for all parties, and it is incumbent on all of us to continue to work together to improve the current position that is moving forward in the interests of all those who rely on the services. I am pleased that we all agree on the impact that the forthcoming islands connectivity plan can have. That represents an opportunity to address a number of issues to look forward to in its approach. I want to turn to some of those, and indeed some have been raised in contributions from members. First, we recognise that the ferry is often only part of an overall journey, and it is therefore important to consider onward and connecting travel as an essential element of that. In particular, we need to look at how we encourage across Scotland more journeys to be undertaken using low-emission vehicles, public transport and active travel, and I would also say that STBR2 refers to tunnels. The islands connectivity plan will have a workstream devoted to this element in relation to the onward travel aspects. We are also conscious of ensuring sufficient opportunity and facilities for interchange at individual ports and making sure that there is sufficient scope in timetables to allow connections to be made. On that, we need to be taken into account of the needs of disabled travellers and benefit from their input to design decisions, and that was referred to by Mark Ruskell. Those issues already form part of engagement with communities on timetables, but those with lived experiences and knowledge of the services are invaluable in helping to inform improvements made to those services and facilities. That means expectations of board membership with island members of those boards. We are also clear in our objectives to ensure that the development of replacement tonnage and infrastructure plays a key role in decarbonising operations and the pathway to net zero. Beatrice Wishart referred to net zero as in Mark Ruskell. Again, that will be an element of the islands connectivity plan that deals with that. We are already taking significant action in this area by investing in more efficient vessels and looking at electric vessels for the small vessel replacement programme where the technology can support that. At the same time, we are modernising that part of the fleet in other ways, including improved accessibility with people with disabilities. That strand of work of vessels replacements will form, to assure Alex Rowley, our thinking part of the islands connectivity plan in terms of giving that future thinking. I have now been transport minister for six months. I want to address a number of points of people from the debate, if you do not mind. I have now been transport minister for six months. I have spent a lot of time engaging directly with ferry stakeholders, including communities, seamal, operators and trade unions. I recognise all the effort that people are putting in and the suggestions that are being put in to improving ferry services. I have also heard about the direct challenges that they have made. I think that their input in providing an outline in the strategic direction that we need to move to sustainable and reliable services across our next networks will inform my decisions and that work. I also want to again put on the record my thanks to the ferry community. I will do it. Edward Mountain. I thank the minister for giving way. I appreciate that she has now been in role for six months. Is she in a position to tell us what she is going to do about the award of the new contract? Is it going out to Tender or are you just going to award it back to CalMac? We would like to know. I think that that is a key question. I do have a little time in hand. I will make the point that the issues that are raised will be addressed in a statement that I hope to be able to give to Parliament when that is announced by the Parliamentary Bureau. To be clear, I will set out as many answers to the questions as I can when I come to Parliament on the further future of the CHIFS contract. I was about to place on record my thanks to the ferry committees and the ferry community board and all those representative bodies who gave their time to represent ferry users and work in the interests of improving services. I know that the committee heard directly from a number of those as well. Improvements are already being made. I refer to the recent development of a pilot project around island essential travel that will see a different approach to releasing booking on the CalMac network that should allow greater opportunity for island communities and those who require to travel at shorter notice. That involves retaining a proportion of deck space on services to call, to email and Iona and releasing this closer to sailing time. I also would like to thank in particular those communities who were involved in shaping this work and we will look to see whether this approach is successful by before rolling it out further. Another area where we continue to listen to communities is around the provision of additional vessels in the fleet to minimise disruption in the event of an outage of a major vessel for any period of time. Therefore, I am pleased that we have the MV Alfred and that has been agreed in terms of arrangement between CalMac and Pentland ferries. I think that communities are recognising that it is very helpful that the Hebridian Isles is back in order to help in that issue. There was a reference and question about Addrossan in terms of harbour and I am pleased that members referred as much to ports and harbours. They are very much part of this and the procurement process for the Addrossan harbour redevelopment is paused to deliver a refreshed business case. This is a complex project. There are additional infrastructure works that have been identified and work to reassess project scope and costs has begun and all funding partners are involved in this exercise. Local authority ferries that are referred to by Jamie Halcro Johnston and Beatrice Wishit among others. We do fund those ferries services. We have agreed to support the local authorities in their revenue funding with a fund of £178 million over the last five years and that has increased fairly recently to support the operation of the services within their remit. I would say on the tripod issue that was addressed by Graham Simpson, I said that I was asked should it be changed and my answer was yes. That was the specific quote if he ever wants to use that again. I want to finish because I think that the pretend officer we've got some time I think. We do minister. It's on the tripod agreement. There was some clarity required about whether it could be changed or whether it had to remain legally. Are you able to say whether it is able to change? There are a number of issues that are involved, which depend on different moving parts within the system. When you ask for legal advice, is it on a specific proposal? In terms of can the tripod arrangement be changed in some way, my view that it is possible to do that, but in terms of the legal and technical impact of that and whether that is wise and advisable to do, that will be part of the diligence work that I would undertake in looking at any of this. In terms of the processes, I would remind everybody that there are four parts to this. There is the contract issue for CHIFS, there is the islands connectivity plan, there is the fairs fair review and there is the governance issue. One of the recommendations from the committee and their thought was actually how do we make sure that there is a coherence with all those moving parts and I can assure you that that is exactly what I have been spending my time doing, making sure that there is order to that and of course I will inform the Parliament when we are ready to do that. I want to address the islands run ferries and just to reiterate that the Deputy First Minister has been sharing task force looking at the options and costs for the replacement of ferries and infrastructure owned by Orkney and Shetland council. That work is on going. The next meetings of the task force are on going for this month for Orkney and Shetland. In terms of one of the other questions that Alex Rowley, I am trying to address some of the points made in the debate if you don't mind. Alex Rowley asked about procurement compliance and of course any procurement, future procurement would have to be compliant with the current subsidy control legislation and that can be set out at the time. In terms of time, she is asking me to wind up. I do want to record my thanks to the committee for its work in preparing this forward thinking and positive report. If it is read that way, I think that people will read it in different ways but I think that it does give it a direction and a way forward. I do give assurances to the chamber that this Government will continue to work through the recommendations and along with communities and key ferry stakeholders seek to improve the ferry services that we deliver. I will continue to work constructively on this issue and other transport issues with the committee and I again thank them for producing an evidence-based, well-considered and timely report, which I think shows this Parliament and its committee structures at its best. I call on Ben Macpherson to wind up the debate on behalf of the net zero energy and transport committee. If you can take us to decision time, Mr Macpherson. I am grateful to close the debate on behalf of the net zero energy and transport committee. I have recently joined the committee and, for clarity, was not part of the committee or present during the inquiry. However, I am pleased to speak to the body of work undertaken by my colleagues, which has been widely acknowledged in the chamber today and elsewhere, which is thorough and comprehensive. That has been demonstrated by the discussion and the range of contributions that we have heard today. I thank all those who have been involved in the publication and the assimilation of the report, including our clerks and all those who gave evidence. I thank all those who have taken part in the debate today. If any of my fellow committee members in particular wish to add or emphasise anything in the minutes ahead, I would encourage them to intervene on me. The convener outlined the context for the committee's inquiry. He spoke also of its conclusions on the future of the governance model for delivery of ferry services. Specifically, the committee called for a comprehensive vision for a high-quality service for all ferry-dependent communities in the island's connectivity plan. That is vital, and I will highlight some of the elements of the committee that the committee recommended for inclusion in the final plan. It starts with the fundamental need for more capacity on our ferry networks. That starts with investment and a rolling programme, as others have said, of vessel and harbour upgrades. The committee's report recommended that the Scottish Government should mirror the UK commitment to ensure that, by 2025, all vessels being ordered for use in UK waters are being designed with zero emission propulsion capability. The Scottish Government's response indicates that CML will consider this where possible. A new UK plan is anticipated this year, and international counterparts are already operating fully electric and hydrogen ferries, as Beatrice Wishart emphasised in her contribution, for example. The committee urges the Scottish Government to demonstrate ambition, and we are grateful to the minister for setting that out in her response and in her contributions today. We also extend that ask for ambition to all vessels in need of replacement in Scotland. Local authorities must be supported in the procurement of low-emissions vehicles. The low-carbon aspect of the island's connectivity plan is essential to this. However, the committee felt that that was not being sufficiently prioritised. Indeed, almost a year after the first element of the plan was published, that is still being developed. Another key area that was considered by the committee was fares, including for businesses and freight, as was emphasised by Graham Simpson, for example. We noted calls from stakeholders on the need to conclude a review on freight fares and looked forward to the publication of much-anticipated fair fares review later this year, rather than much-anticipated fair fares review later this year. Also due later this year is the strategic transport projects review 2 delivery plan, which will outline how integrated transport to and from ferry terminals can be achieved. Yes, Graham Simpson. I thank Ben MacPherson for taking the intervention, which I know he was wanting some. I'm happy to help out and spin it out as long as possible to give him a hand. I just wonder what Ben MacPherson's own view is on the government's offer on under-22 ferry fares. He'll be aware that there's only four passes a year being offered currently. Does he agree with other members in the chamber that that offer should be extended? Ben MacPherson. I will state the committee's view shortly and note the contributions from other members in the chamber today and think that this debate has provided a good forum for those issues to be discussed. Briefly, yes. Paul Sweeney. I thank the member for giving away. Does he recognise that the 30-year cross-government shipbuilding pipeline identified in the national shipbuilding strategy refresh is critical to the Scottish shipbuilding enterprise and in order to maximise the economic opportunities of that 30-year cross-government shipbuilding pipeline of orders, there needs to be a consistent stable design and a consistent integrated approach to procuring ferries in the Scottish shipbuilding industry? Ben MacPherson. I thank the member for that contribution. I know that the minister will have been listening attentively to that contribution. I know that those are aspects that the member has engaged in significantly, not just with regard to shipbuilding but with regard to other aspects of the Scottish industrial strategy, and I commend him on his interest in that. The committee was of the view that ferry departure and arrival times must marry up with public transport options for travelling to terminals. That will reduce car kilometres and help reduce demand for car spaces on ferries. This has been growing in recent years, an unintended consequence of the road equivalent tariff or RET. Clearly, the committee identified that RET had been a success but had unintended consequences and obviously increasing travellers, passengers by 11 per cent and car use by about 20 per cent. Obviously, that has had consequences in terms of availability of space. Therefore, future thinking about what vessels can carry or should carry and what the end-to-end of different vehicles might be in terms of electric, higher etc. Was an area and is an area that perhaps you might want to think about as tourists in particular start to look for more green options as well for travel. Ben Macpherson, I think that those are important points. The committee was also grateful to consider those. In terms of the fair fair's review, it is also considering an evaluation of the RET from 2021. The committee saw assurances that any charges changes and expansion of the RET scheme resulting from that would not have further unintended consequences. Those are points of consideration going forward as we appreciate that the minister has outlined today and in response to the report. The views of young people were important in the inquiry. To that end, the committee thanks the Scottish Youth Parliament for their work on ferry services and for meeting the committee to share their findings. Members were also pleased to hear the views of young people on visits in the Western Isles in Orkney, and the committee recommended that young people should have concessory fares for ferry travel. In some places, after all, catching a ferry is just like catching a bus, as members have emphasised today. Therefore, the extension of the national ferry concessionary travel scheme to islanders under the age of 22 is a welcome start. The committee looks forward to hearing how that can be built upon when the fair fair's review report is published. It is of the view of the committee that is unacceptable that some of Scotland's ferries are not equal accessible to everyone. Therefore, the committee called for an audit of vessel accessibility to identify priorities for investment, and we are glad that the Scottish Government will consider that. The final theme of the report was ensuring that ferry services are shaped by the voices and experience of those who use them. That must include staff and trade unions also. The committee heard calls for representation from island communities on the boards of public ferry delivery organisations. The Scottish Government requires an understanding of island life as a key criterion for appointment. However, an understanding and a lived experience of the committee is of the view that is very different. Increased regulation and oversight of the activities of public ferry delivery organisations is needed. The committee considered that that could involve an independent ferry regulator, and the ferries community's board went further and recommended that. The Scottish Government has ruled out that, but that does not remove the need for oversight and a champion for passengers. The committee calls on the Scottish Government to outline how it will provide that. I turn now to the ferry services delivered by councils. The committee strongly supports the principle of local management of lifeline ferry services. However, it also recognises the scale of the challenges that councils face in running services and replacing their ageing assets. Commitments by the Scottish Government to funding the operation of ferries have been well received by local authorities. The committee called for an effective collaboration between the Scottish Government and local authorities on vessel procurement, and it also called for long-term support in both capital and revenue to ensure that communities have a reliable local ferry service now and in the future. The committee heard calls for the option of transfer of responsibility for ferry service plans to remain on the table in the island's connectivity plan. In addition to requiring new vessels, some local authorities wished to also pursue fixed links such as tunnels and bridges for longer-term reliability. Again, the scale of the upfront investment needed requires collaboration between the Scottish Government and councils, and as the committee said in its report, unless capital is forthcoming from the Scottish Government, few, if any, projects are likely to progress. The committee recommended a review of the feasibility at sites around Scotland. In conclusion, more than 15 months, service users told the net zero energy and transport committee that ferry services in Scotland are not what they should be and that needs to change. The committee believes that leadership in the form of long-term strategic thinking and investment is required to bring all Scotland's ferry services up to an acceptable standard. Therefore, the committee hopes that its forward-looking, solutions-focused work will contribute to delivering this improved ferry service for all of Scotland's island communities. I urge that the Parliament notes the report. That concludes the debate on a modern and sustainable ferry service for Scotland. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business, and that is that motion 11075, in the name of Edward Mountain, on behalf of the net zero energy and transport committee, on a modern and sustainable ferry service for Scotland be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed, and that concludes decision time. We will now move on to members' business, in the name of Finlay Carson.