 Fel yran, glwenedig i gael y dweud y tu meddwlach cyntaf an skulli a Mentrall Cymru ar 2023. Y Llyfr Gynnig 5 wrth yw'r Y Llyfr Gynnig 5 yn cael ei phaneu. Y Llyfr Gynnig 5 er isi'r Y Llyfr Gynnig 5 wedi bod yn cyd-derwith ble ar gyfer adrygiadau yn gyrgylchion i'r Llyfr Gynnig 5. Y Llyfr Gynnig 6 yn cael ei phaneu yr eich cerddau ar yr ymddangas yng nghymru i'r pethau. Rwm. Rwy'n dechrau. Y cwm agor. Y cwm ystod 5 i 6 yn ymgyrch yn y prif. Y ddau y 2 yn y gynllun yn y gwybod gydaeth o'r ddraff-statstri fyddion, y Lland Reform Scotland Act 2016, rhaid i'r cyffredinol o'r cyffredinol i gêmwy mewn gweithio a'r ysgrifennu. I welcome Mark Allan, Minister for the Environment and Land Reform. Thank you for joining us today. I'd also like to welcome Rebecca Parry, who is a lawyer, Paul Richardson who is the senior policy adviser for land reform and Fiona Tader, who is the head of land use and land reform unit of the Scottish Government. This instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before it comes into force. Gathleniwyr y sefyd mins ni ddim yn gynhyrchu'r llunig i gynhyrchu'r llunig i ddim yn gwyxud y bwrdd o Gymraeg unrhyw o'r llunig a allewch yn bafnir bod cynnwys mwy gydag hynny yw ymgrifetae ac nid o grains imi ddialf, ond byddwyl yn cael ei fodwyr yn ddim yn ddim yn ddefwyng â hyfforddiant. Rwy'n rwy'n iawn ei fodwyr yn ei fawr o'ch cymdeithaswyr datblygu i'w fawr o'r cyllid makerau. Felly ddim yn cymwyll Plugfennol. legislation to address the concerns of some stakeholders who are in scope of the register of controlling interests in land. The policy intention of the RCI is to ensure that there can no longer be a category of owner or tenant who intentionally or otherwise their decision making or control over a piece of land or property is obscured. As members will know, the register stems from the 2016 Land Reform Scotland Act. The principle regulations establishing the register were passed unanimously by the Parliament and, following scrutiny by the former Eichlear Committee, and that was by a super affirmative procedure. In addition, members of this committee will remember unanimously passing amendment regulations in November 2021. I'm very pleased to say that the register itself went live as was planned on 1 April 2022. Despite that long running and quite deep scrutiny, in recent months some stakeholders have raised concerns with me about the cost of compliance, the administrative burden of compliance. I should be clear that there is no cost to register in the RCI to make a submission to the register, and the process itself is fairly straightforward. However, there is preparation work involved and in practice some within the scope of the register will instruct a solicitor, which of course carries cost. In my view, from the engagement that I've had with stakeholders, the administrative burden arises principally where there is a volume of titles, substantial volume of titles and where there's a complex ownership structure. Those are some of the issues that the register actually exists to try and shed light on and to provide transparency. At the same time, I have listened to their concerns and it's in response to those that I'm tabling this SSI before the committee this morning. That is in whole to offer a one-year extension of the period for registration before the penalty provisions come into force. That would be extending that from 1 April 2023 to 1 April 2024. Extending this period allows the register to continue with its integrity, but it will allow a period over which that administrative task can be stretched, therefore easing the burden and spreading the costs. I'm particularly mindful of the requirement to do that, as the third sector and its charities face a considerable strain just now, owing from the pandemic, Brexit and the on-going cost crisis. As they work really hard to support people in our communities to get through the cost crisis, I'm mindful that I don't want to exacerbate any pressures on them. I'm happy to answer questions, but I hope that the committee will support the regulation. Thank you very much minister. I have got a question, but before I go into my question, I'm just going to remind committee members and those watching that I do have in my register of interest an interest where I own land and I am a tenant farmer on other land. That does affect me, but my question is not about me minister. It's about the churches, in many cases, that have been contacting me. I guess those were people that you were referring to who were concerned about the cost, not because it's a complex matter to do, it's just the amount of applications that they need to do, because each church and diocese will be different. I wondered if you've given consideration to that and whether you think there's any way of ensuring that the burden on them is kept to an absolute minimum, minister? Yes, absolutely. First of all, what we're suggesting today, that extension, is I hope, will I hope, alleviate the burden on the Church of Scotland, on other religious denominations, and on charitable and third sector who are caught in the scope of the RCI. I've had extensive engagement with Church of Scotland. My officials have, as well, over months that I have met with them. They have spoken with the First Minister, officials have been going back and forward with them. They put to me a series of suggestions as to how the burden, as they see it, could be alleviated. For various reasons, none of those were acceptable, but I hope that that one-year extension, as I say, allows them to spread the burden, spread the cost, because the work won't have to be undertaken to the same time period and that that will help them. There are significant reasons why retaining Church of Scotland and other religious denominations within the scope of the RCI are really important. The Church of Scotland owns something like 6,000 titles in Scotland, which makes them probably one of the largest landowners by title, parcel numbers. A lot of their land still is registered in the register of sesings, which dates from the 1,600s, and even experienced solicitors can struggle to note title on. For all those reasons, it is very important that they are part of the register, but I hope that the provision today will ease the pressure on them. Thank you. I don't disagree with you. I understand that some churches own considerable amounts of land, and sometimes it's difficult to find out how much in the extent of the land ownership, so I think that there is importance in that. My question is, did you consider allowing them to make one entry for the whole of the Church, or are you still keen that or do they still have to do it individually as a diocese or a grouping within a region? The provisions that I am proposing here do not change the provisions as they were, where the controlling individual has to register and they will have to register their associates as well. I considered all the options that the Church of Scotland and other denominations put to me. Some of them were a full exemption from the register itself. Some of them were an amendment to schedule two of the RCI that would have created a special treatment for, as they put it, the main Scottish churches, which in itself is a vague term, but there were other reasons why that wasn't acceptable, including the fact that that would immediately raise the concerns of other stakeholders who were being treated differently to religious bodies under the bill, and the consistency was important. I considered all of the suggestions of Church of Scotland, and I continue to liaise with them on that. That is the approach that I think is appropriate, and I hope that it will help them. I thank you for putting that on record, because I am sure that, as MSPs ran this table, we have all had representations from various people in relation to this, so that was extremely helpful. Mark, you suggest that you might have a question here, did you? Yes, and just a brief comment. I mean, it was on the previous committee, the Claire committee, that considered the superaffirmative instrument, and I don't remember these concerns being raised at that point, so I think that those are quite unexpected concerns that have arisen, and it is good to hear that the minister has been engaging with the religious organisations and others. Are there any other sectors that have raised concerns? Is it just the churches and some third sector bodies that have got particularly complex institutional structures, or are there any other sectors that are raising concerns at this point? The engagement that I have had so far, the quite intense engagement over recent months, has been principally with religious stakeholders, but I have no doubt that the concerns are spread right across the Charisabelle and the third sector. Okay, that's good to hear that engagement has been taking place. Can I just ask you about the principle of transparency in land reform? Obviously, hugely important, and I noticed that it is forming part of the consultation into the forthcoming bill. Can you say a little bit more about how you are going to take that thread of transparency through? Yeah, absolutely. Our consultation on the bill obviously concluded, and we are still considering all of the responses to that and formulating how we are going to take the policy forward. I suppose that at this point it is a bit of a delicate part of policy development, where I can't say too much beyond what was in the consultation, but the three principle provisions of that bill are about making the land rights and responsibilities statement statutory, having land management plans that will allow communities and landowners to collaborate on what land is used for and, of course, a public interest test, which injects a, I hope, a degree of regulation and transparency into something that is thus far a very unregulated market. Okay, thank you. I think that that was a bit of a drift on to the next question, but on to the bill that we may be seeing later in this session, but the deputy convener has a question. Clearly, churches are concerned. There are many of them, and following the transitional period, criminal penalties will apply to non-compliance, which is of concern to church trustees. Three named specified individuals would have to be named. Churches changed their office bearers, as different organisations do, so you can understand the anxiety. I think that what you are saying is that you think that the extra year just allows them more time to do what you wanted them to do in the first place. Just a wee bit concerned that there hasn't been the level of engagement, perhaps, that there could have been. I understand the church is saying that they haven't had responses since their meeting with you in September, so I think that there is a genuine issue here is to recognising the absolute openness and transparency in land reform. It is something that I am very supportive of, but I think that there are some very practical difficulties. Churches have many organisations come through the pandemic to get themselves reasserted, etc. Can you reassure us that you will continue to have more engagement and to try to work out a way with them, that it doesn't overburden them or indeed over-worry them unnecessarily? Yes, absolutely. I have been engaged and I can speak to some of that in a moment, but I also commit to continuing to do so. I don't want to see the Church of Scotland or any of our religious bodies being unduly pressured by this, but I think that the point that I spoke to with the 6,000 titles, the majority of those being in the legislative sesions, it being church buildings, it being glee-blanned, it being manned, all of that, I think speaks to why the RCI is required, but I am not going to make the Church's compliance with it more onerous than it needs to be. I do hope that this year will help them. We have had considerable engagement with the Church of Scotland. They have been engaged right from the 2016 act. We held a session with the Registrar of Scotland, held a session with Church of Scotland in the immediate aftermath of the passing of the 2021 regulations to test the beta version of the website. The First Minister's annual meeting with the moderator was raised. I met them very shortly afterwards. My officials and I have written to Church of Scotland in November and December, again on 17 January, and I most recently wrote to them on 16 February, but I will continue to liaise with them. I am grateful for the explanations. I am also struggling with that, because the recogniser has been engaged. From what I have read and the press and emails that I have seen, the Churches are saying that there has been engagement, but there has not really been any change. They are not actually asking for a delay, they are looking for some reform to this. On a question, because this transitional period has been set back a year for everyone, I wonder what is the rationale for that? Could it not have been brought in to catch larger companies and those who are out with the UK? I wonder what is the rationale for giving everyone the extra year? I suppose that it is about consistency. The register is live, people organisations are registering now and they will continue to do so. I should say that with the extended year, we will—registers of Scotland will—continue to work with stakeholders to support them to make the registrations. Of course, that will fall short of the provision of legal advice, as it has to, but we will do everything that we need to support them. The point on companies. One of the policy rationale at the beginning of the act, which I was not involved with, was about avoiding duplication. Companies were not involved in that because of what they required to submit in companies house. I cannot remember exactly what the name of that register is, but perhaps my colleague Paul can. There is the register of people with significant control, and that includes UK companies' limited liability partnerships, for example Scottish Limited partnerships. The idea that the policy rationale and the original regulations was to remove people having to duplicate information and perhaps conform to different transparency regimes that were achieving the same thing. Companies have not been involved from the word go simply because the transparency that the RCI seeks to deliver has already been provided by another register on companies house. Likewise, we are working with the UK Government just now on the register of overseas entities, all of those registers with different names, but that work is on-going on the very well-made point about overseas interests. It is a delay. It is not reform. It is very deliberately not reform because I believe that I want to maintain the integrity of the register and everything that it is seeking to achieve, but I hope that it will help because what I can see is that the administrative burden arises from number of titles and the complex structures within which they are held. Do you accept that there may be unintended consequences looking at, I will not read out the quotes because they are quite substantial, but various church figures saying that that increases complexity and has an impact on volunteers' capacity, clearly costs, but they are very worried about that. From where I am sitting, the delay does not address those concerns, so when you have looked at this in the round, do you accept that there are unintended consequences? No, I do not actually. As I say, we have had really extensive engagement with Church of Scotland and I wanted to meet them as early as I could to understand what their concerns were and to hear what their suggestions were. I have thoroughly considered how possible it would be to make amendments to the legislation to give rise to what they asked for, which was, in one case, a full exemption, which was, in the second case, a special streamlined part of the register for the main church organisations, as they put it. None of them would have been acceptable, they would have created loopholes, they would have created inconsistency, they would have led to, I think, challenges by other organisations saying, wait a minute, where is our special exemption, what is the justification for this? All of that would not have been proportionate when we consider the land holding of churches in Scotland. As I say, I do not want to unduly pressurise any religious organisation, I hope that the extra year will help them to spread the costs, to spread the administrative work and myself and my officials and registers of Scotland will be there for them in the meantime to help that. I think that you have got a brief question. Briefly minister, this is a 12 month extension, which you say follows consultation with various stakeholders, and you said just there, which you hope will alleviate the burden. Can you tell the committee, has the consultation reported back from those stakeholders that 12 months is the welcome time, it is the right amount of time, and it will achieve the easing of that burden and the cost? What is the response from the consultation? I have not had a response specifically from Church of Scotland yet. More widely, not just from the Church of Scotland? We have engaged with stakeholders, so you are talking about a consultation, I am talking about on-going stakeholder engagement, which I have had and in response to Ms Hyslop's question, I narrated. Equally, we have spoken with the Church of Scotland, with the Property Law Committee of the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Land Commission, Scottish Property Federation, Scottish Lands and Estates, Community Land Scotland. We have reached out to all those organisations and informed them of our plan to lead the SSI. I do not know if my officials have had responses from them, which give us the thumbs up. I do not know if we have had that. I have not, but I am still convinced that it is the right thing to have done. Presumably, you asked the question, is 12 months the right time to achieve what we are trying to do? You presumably went and said, look, we are trying to ease the burden, we are trying to ease the cost. We are looking to extend that by 12 months. Is that the right time to achieve that, or is there a better time? Do we only need six months, do we need 18 months? Let me be clear, I thought the original year was sufficient. What this is, is an allowance for the concerns that have been raised with me. But you did not ask the question during the process. It has been part of the conversations that we have had. It has been part of the conversations, but no-one has said to you whether they think that this is the right period or not. It is always back and forward as part of a conversation. I have not had a set written consultation from which I could then tell you, well, here is the responses that I got from those individuals, but it has been part of an on-going conversation. As I say, I thought that the original one-year period was sufficient. Stakeholders have come to me and they have told me that they have concerns. I believe that this is the right way to resolve those concerns. For a number of reasons, I have not been able to take forward some of the other suggestions that were put to me. Sometimes, land ownership and restrictions and burdens on land are difficult to identify. None so much as I would suggest in church lands that may go back many generations with bits given and taken by the church and given away by the church. Is your message to them fill this in as best you can, and as long as you are making the unhonest declaration as far as you are concerned that you are doing what we require and you will not be held accountable if there are some minor inaccuracies at a later date? I would not ever encourage anyone to fill out a public register with anything but the utmost accuracy. However, there are four bits of information that are required. The recorded persons details, i.e. the owner or the tenant of a long lease, the land details, the ownership details and the associate details. I would not necessarily expect all the complexities of legal title to be narrated, but individuals should seek legal advice on that. That is not something that the Government can provide. We will leave it there unless there are any further questions from the committee. We will move on to agenda item 3, which is the formal consideration of motion S6M-07603, calling on the committee to recommend the approval of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016, register of persons holding a controlled interest in land amendment regulations 2023. I am going to ask the minister to speak and move the motion. Nothing further to add. Any contributions from the members at this stage? I think that the extension of 12 months is a pragmatic thing to do. It is a wise thing to do for a number of reasons. However, I am less than convinced that the engagement has been what it needs to be with churches, particularly bearing in mind the points that were made about companies and the original legislation, that there were other means by which that information could be sought. It has also been brought to our attention that the Charities, Regulations and Administration of the Scotland Bill is currently going through the Scottish Parliament on transparency, as it has a requirement for that trustee information to be included. I thought that it was quite interesting that the minister set out before different areas. Clearly, if there can be some use of the 12 months to look at the practicalities of those four areas, perhaps there is something sensible that could be seen. The worst thing that we could do is not approve that, because we need the time for that consideration. However, it is something that we need to take close cognisance of. The minister is absolutely right that we have to have standards for everybody. If we start having exemptions for one group, that can lead to inequities elsewhere. That has obviously been the judgment that has been taken on this so far, not to look at policy reform. However, I think that there might be an intelligent way to try to address that, because many churches are very vulnerable now and are helping vulnerable people. Even in some of those areas, it might be a deterrence for people to take on responsibilities. That is the last thing that we want to do. In fact, if anything, land reform is about getting people to take more responsibility and to be transparent. However, our churches probably need a bit more support and engagement. I would like to support that, but I think that it is something that we should keep a very close eye on. We are very interested in how the minister proceeds with the engagement with the Church of Scotland in the forthcoming year. I come along with an open mind, because it is not a topic that I am an expert in, but I feel a little uneasy. The minister said that there will not be unintended consequences, but I feel that Funa Hyslop has touched on some of the challenges that churches and faith groups face at the moment in their role in our communities in supporting vulnerable people, particularly through costs to living crisis. I think that there are dangers that could be more complex than it needs to be. I worry about administrative costs, because legal fees are not cheap. It will affect some churches differently, but it feels like when people are saying that they do not feel that they have had proper engagement that is a concern. I am a bit torn, I have to say. Thank you, Monica. I am just looking around if anyone else has got any comments. Minister, can I just, before I come back to you, say that I think that the words of the deputy convener in this instance are particularly wise? I think that my concern is that I would not want to vote against this, because I would like to see the extension given, but I would very much do it on the grounds and support this motion to it on the grounds that you would be continuing to engage with churches and such organisations to make sure that the spirit of the act is being applied without it being to the detriment of what they are trying to achieve, because we are in difficult times when it comes to costs and there will be considerable costs, in my opinion, and my experience as a land agent going through all of this. I would like to have the understanding that if I was to support this motion, that you would continue to engage with churches and your door would be open to consider what you are asking them to do is the right thing in the spirit of what we are all trying to achieve, which is open and transparency when it comes to land ownership, which I for the record totally support. I have nothing further to add. Minister, would you like to say anything? I will respond to a couple of points on that. On engagement with Church of Scotland and other religious bodies, I think that I have already said that I am happy to reiterate that that will be on going. I will be involved in that. My officials will be involved in that. Registers of Scotland will be involved in that. We are very keen to use the additional year to make the best of it and to support religious bodies and others through the process. As I say, we will do that thoroughly. It will be short of legal advice, however, I have to be clear about that. Fiona Hyslop's point about the forthcoming charities bill is something that I absolutely considered. That is a result of me having sat down with the Church of Scotland and said, tell me what you think I can do to make this better. I went away and I considered every option that they put to me. One of the things that they had raised with me was the charities bill, but that is at stage 1. What I can see so far is that it will require the registration of the name of the trustees, but that does not link to the property in any way. It is that link that the RCI seeks to bridge. Again, it is about that assessment as to that we do not want duplication, but does the other register do the same or more than what we are proposing? With the charities bill so far, my conclusion is that it does not, but I have considered it. Thank you. As the motion has been moved, the question that I have to ask is, do we approve the motion? Are we agreed? We are agreed. I wish to abstain. It is not agreed. Therefore, we will need to go to a vote. We will do that by division. I am going to ask you to raise your hands. I am quite correctly corrected because we have a remote participant on the meeting this morning. We will have to do this by roll call rather than by a question of raising the hands. I am going to read out the names and ask you to say how you wish to vote on this. First of all, Jackie Dunbar. Agreed. So, yes. Fiona Hyslop. Yes. Okay. Liam Kerr. Yes. Monica Lennon. Steen. Thank you. Edward Mountain. That is me. I vote yes. Ash Regan. I will try that again. Ash Regan. Can the class confirm whether she is actually logged on to Bleeding's? Okay. I will try one more attempt and then we will move on and we will have to show her as not recorded. Ash Regan. Okay. On that. I vote yes. Thank you, Ash. I am welcome. I am glad we managed to get that on record. So, yes from Ash Regan and Mark Ruskell. Okay. Thank you. Therefore, the result is, there are six votes for and one extension, therefore the motion is agreed to. Thank you very much minister and to your officials for attending the meeting this morning. We are now going to move straight on to agenda item four, which is the ferry services inquiry. Thank you very much. Sorry, we are going to continue to work through, we are not stopping there. Our next item is an evidence session as part of our inquiry to a modern sustainable ferry service for Scotland. I refer members to the papers for this item. This is our ninth evidence session of our inquiry into Scotland's ferry services and for our first panel today the committee will turn its attention to how ferry services are delivered internationally. Joining us remotely from Norway, the committee will hear from two experts about Norway's approach to ferry provision and what lessons Scotland can learn from their experience. On behalf of the committee, I'm pleased to welcome Daghold, the director of ferry management, Norwegian public roads administration, and Harald Høyam, the transport analyst from Asplan Viag. I hope I've got that right. Thank you both for accepting our invitation, and we're delighted to have you here. Now, there are a series of questions which will come from each member. The first question, I believe, is coming from me. So, this is really a question on the bundling of ferry services, and I understand that Norway bundles the ferry services into small bundles. The series of questions here is, how long does the process of tendering take, and how many bidders are normally involved? Now, I guess that Dag, do you want to head off on that, or Harald, who'd like to go first? Let's not have a fight, but if one of you raises your hand, who would go first? Oh, none of you. Dag, you're definitely going first then. Thank you. Thank you for having me. As a representative of the National Public Roads Administration, I have to tell you that we have at the moment 16 ferry routes. Six of these ferry routes are bundled into contracts. You can't hear me? No, I'm just getting asked. We can hear you. I'm afraid I'm not as good with my hearing as possible, or I was when I was born. So, I'm asking the sound technician just to turn the volume up so I can hear you better. Off you go. Shall I continue? Perfect. Thank you. Okay. In the Highway Grid, we have 16 ferry routes. Six of these routes are bundled into contracts with two routes in one contract. There is also three contracts with two routes in them. But on the county road network, there are several contracts with more than one route in. In each case, there are made individual research to find the best way to have a competitive standard in the exact circumstances. For our concern, we tried to have three years from signing the contract to the contract starts. And we usually need two to four years before that. That depends the size of the contract, how complex it is, is there a new technology, etc. Okay, thank you. Harold, do you want to add anything to that? No, I think that Doug is better suited than me to answer this more rational question. So, I'm going to add that. Okay. The next question is, do you bundle the ferry services into passengers and freight or do you separate the two? So, Dag, that's probably back to you. Our contract only has car ferries, but no freight service stand-alone. They are rural ferries with cars on all of that. Sorry, so freight moves on separate ferries? Is that what you're saying? Sorry. We only have one freight only ferry in Norway. That's private on the national roads and open roads. All of the ferries have lorries and smaller vehicles, but no freight alone. Okay. My final question before we move on to the next question is, I didn't quite hear and I apologise. I probably ought to go and get the hearing aids. My wife tells me I need, but I didn't quite hear the duration of the tender. So, once you've awarded it and people have got the three years, two to three years to build it into it, how long does the tender last? Because, obviously, if you're going to have to gear up with ferries, it's a fairly long-term investment. Usually, it's from eight to ten years contracts. Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. The next questions come from the Deputy convener, Fiona Hyslop. Good morning, and we're very grateful for you joining us today. I'm interested in, I suppose, the experience of ferry operators and how they prefer to provide capacity, whether there's a model that is about using larger vessels that provide fewer sailings or two or more smaller vessels on the same route, operating more frequent services, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of this? I was very interested, Dag, on the submission that you sent in your slide 10. You talked about pilots and time in the market, and innovations, and whether this has evolved over time and what the timeframe has been to get to the state that you're in just now. So, can I maybe come to Dag first and then to Harold? Thank you. To answer the last question first, we have worked with technology development on ferries in Norway for more than a decade. First time we are talking about electric ferries in Norway were in 2010, official talks about electric ferries. Before that, we had liquid natural gas, so it's been a somewhat a long process to get where we are today, but now we see that the industry is taking on the technology in a larger degree than we are asking for. If we ask for, for example, hybrid solution, battery and diesel solution, we almost every time get a pure electric solution, because that's cheaper for the ferry companies. You had another question as well, and I will ask you to repeat that. That's in relation to the choice by ferry operators to operate, say, one large vessel that can have fewer sailings, but more passengers are freight, or smaller vessels that can operate more frequently. Is there any preference, is there any system that they operate? You have to take in consideration the local needs. For example, are there a large amount of commuters on the ferry routes? You also have to consider the size of the key area. Will the key area be big enough for a larger ferry, or do you have to use smaller ferries with higher frequency? To clear up the key area, to empty it for cars in between the departures. So there's a lot of investigation we do in advance of the competitive pantry, and normally we see that the ferries get bigger and bigger for each contract. Is there a natural evolution to build things bigger, because it's more profitable? We see that there's an increase in traffic on almost every route in Norway. So the needs are getting bigger. It's difficult to get enough crew members to operate on a lot of ferries, so we try to keep the amount of ferries at the right level at this time. I'll stay with you, Dag. It might be helpful for broadcasting, if I just stay with you for my second question, then I'll come to Harold. Which organisations normally own the ports and harbours used by ferry services? If it's not the operator contracting authority, how are decisions made about harbour investments? Usually it's the road owners. If the road is a national highway road, the state owns the harbour. If it's the country road, it's the county that owns the harbour. In some cases it can be private ownership, but that's not as normal as the two other circumstances. Thank you. I could come to Harold and again thank you for joining us. It was to ask you about that view of ferry operators and preferences for larger vessels with fewer sailings or two or more vessels operating. Perhaps you might reflect on the staffing issues that are leading to bigger vessels, as we've just heard from Dag. What's your experience? My approach is perhaps a little bit more academic, so I don't have a full overview of all the more practical details, but a premise here is that in Norway you have a national standard on how many departures you should have for a given ferry service determined by the length and the traffic volume, so this is a normative standard that's used in calculating the subsidies for each or the share of subsidies for different counties, according to my understanding. Then the counties have some flexibility I think in selecting what kind of departure frequency it wants. Then you also have a requirement on how many vessels or how many vehicles that are allowed to be left behind. So if there's not enough room in the ferry, some people might not be able to get a board. And there's a fairly strict criteria in here, about 2 per cent on average per year of users that are allowed to not be able to board a given vessel due to capacity concerns or whatever. And so this may also be sort of a more higher level explanation why you have quite large ferries, because on the one hand the interests of the users and the operators may be a little bit going against each other. The users they would like to have, or it's perfect for them, or to have a high level of service on many departures but using smaller ferries, so we have enough sufficient capacity. But as Doug said, the crew cost is quite high, so if you have a higher capacity but with smaller ferries you need a lot higher crew numbers, then the costs increase quite significantly. So that's fairly expensive to do that. But on the other hand you can sort of satisfy this criteria on how many or how many users that are allowed to be left behind by having larger ferries and that is a lot less costly for the operators. But I think there is also some reason here that to have sufficient capacity it is cheaper to have a one large ferry that is or fewer and larger ferries than many smaller ferries that run more often. Thank you very much. I'll come to Harald first, since he's still on the screen, if you don't mind. My first question is regarding the cruise on your ferries. If they are based locally, do they usually live on board the ferries or do they come from the local communities that the ferries serve? I'm sorry, I don't know really. I have to pass that point to Doug maybe in us. No problem. Yes please. Harald, no Doug. Sorry, Doug, sorry. Okay, hello. That's different from ferry to ferry. All of the ferries have cabins for the crew, but in some cases the crew is local and in some cases the crew comes from other sides of the country. It's just different from ferry routes to ferry routes. Can I ask? It's not a clear answer to the question unfortunately. Is that based on the availability of people or it's just how it's worked out? It's based on the availability of the crew and it's also different contracts used on different ferry routes. The ferry companies use different contracts. In some cases I know that the ferry company would like the contracts that make it more to the, to make it that the crew is more on board the ship because then the crew is available for the operation for a longer time and then they have a longer period of duty where they can travel back to the part of the country where they come from. But there's discussions between the ferry companies and the crew employees and their organisations about how they should do this on the individual contract. Okay, thank you. My second question is regarding ferry fares in Norway. Can I ask who's responsible for setting those fares? Is there a national fare system or is it decided locally or on a route by route basis? I know that some of the things that we've already heard is that some of our islanders think that maybe there should be a different tariff for tourists to local people. Can I ask what happens in Norway and maybe what's your view if I can go back to Dagg, please? Yes. On the national highway roads it's the government who sets the fares. We have a national fare system and also a national ticketing system that is run by us in the national public roads administration. The counties can by law decide for themselves what kind of fares they want to use but so far they are all using the fares that is identified by the government and they also use the ticketing system that is run by us. So at the moment we have a fairly unified fare and ticketing system. There are discussions about for example tourist fares but we don't have that in a large extent at the moment but there are some regions they want to have but at the moment we don't have any fares like that. For the last years the fares in Norway has been reduced substantially so I would say that the cost of travelling by ferry in Norway at the moment is quite low compared to earlier. Okay thank you very much. Thank you for that. Monica, I think you're going to ask your questions now. Thank you, convener. Good morning to Dag and Harald. My first question and I'll come to you first Dag is has there been any significant change in the level of public subsidy for ferry services over the last 10 to 20 years and if so why do you think this has happened? There are several, the subsidies has gone up and there are several reasons for that. First the services has gone better with higher frequency, larger ferries, more night departures and so on and also to be the first mover in technology there will be a slight increase in the beginning of the contract and then the subsidies will go down so in the total duration of the contract the subsidies will be lower with for example electricity than with this and the third reason that the subsidies has gone up the last years is that the prices have been reduced. Just a couple of years ago ticketing would finance about half the ferry services in Norway and that's reduced now and by summer the fares in Norway will be reduced by 50% compared to the level that they had first of January last year. Thank you, I think that the fares have reduced by 50%. Has that seen an increase in passengers? Yes, it has. Thank you and if we can ask the same question to Harold please. Yes, so much earlier you have these ferry service level standards related to capacity and frequency so naturally when you have traffic growth then you may end up with a too low capacity and may also want to revise the level of frequency to accommodate for more users. I also think this is part of the reason behind increased subsidy levels that you also have more passengers to serve and then you need to have a better service according to the sort of the norms on the service level that you have agreed upon and these were also at least according to my understanding revised in 2019. I think that they did a revision of how many departures you should have for each level of demand to accommodate the higher and more level so it might be more of a also a reason why you see this development I think. Thank you, I'll stick with you Harold. One of the issues that's come up in our inquiry is how our ferry services join up with other modes of transport in particular bus and rail. To what extent are Norwegian rail and bus services co-ordinated with ferry services? Can you tell us which organisation is responsible for this co-ordination and how effective have they been in encouraging multi-modal journeys? Probably depends a little bit on where you are in country but at least in the western part of Norway where you have a lot of ferries or then you have several coaches that run between the different cities on the coast and they are co-ordinated with ferry frequency such that you order the timetables at least in my understanding such that you don't have to wait for too long a time and also larger vehicles are able to board with priority at least on some crossings so if the bus isn't like it's not stuck in the queue behind passenger cars so at least those two examples are enough. You also have not car ferries but smaller passenger speed boats that are present in many places in Norway both in the east and the west and they may often be co-ordinated with buses especially if you have these passenger services that go to quite the small remote islands and they commute into a larger city centre then you might have some co-ordination there and then it's the local public transport operator that designs these timetables and sort of just them together. That's interesting I wanted to ask a little bit more about the timetabling because that's been an issue in our inquiry here in Scotland that sometimes the timetable doesn't reflect what people need whether that's businesses or people trying to get to healthcare appointments and so on. Do you have any insight into how that timetabling works and why you think it does work well? I think that this might be another question for the day at least according to the car ferries I think. No problem. Well over to you Dag. Thank you. Well we try to make the services to meet the needs of the public in as best that we can. So we have hearings where we allow the public to say what they need. We have extensive contact with the local authorities. We have extensive contact with the users of our services and the Lorry Association etc in Norway and we try to build in some kind of flexibility in the contract so that buses etc can go on the ferries that passengers will have and the service they need. Can I just do a follow-up on that? Just a quick question on that. Monica, have you finished? No, that's fine. Thank you Dag. My question is is that quite long-term contracts you were suggesting for eight years. Eight years may see changes. Now how detailed are the contracts say if I want to change the time say if I was an operator change the time of the sailing from eight o'clock in the morning to eight thirty because it made more sense. There was more demand for that. Does that become a bureaucratic nightmare or is there flexibility within your contracts to allow operators to respond quickly to changing demand? Probably Dag, that's to you. In Norway the operators don't have that flexibility but the contracting authority, us or the county has that flexibility. We change the contract if the needs are changed in the duration of the contract and that's not very bureaucratic. Sometimes we have to need different interests as a whole and find the best solution for all of the users but in most cases this is quite easy to implement. Then we have to change the way we pay for the services as well. Are you suggesting that once a contract is agreed it's pretty much set in stone? No, it's not. We change for example the timetable almost every year. We change the pairs every year and the contract itself is quite flexible to what we can do with the changes in the needs. Typically the traffic will increase during years and then we have the option in the contract to make sure that we have the services that we need also in the future. Okay that's very helpful, thank you for that. Mark, I think you've got some questions now you'd like to ask. Yes, can I ask how Stad and Sveggves and the municipalities actually involve communities at the outset with the development of ferry service specifications? What does that actually look like in practice? What engagement takes place with communities? How can they influence the specification of a ferry service? First of all, how we do our contracts is quite open and the local authorities know about our work. They know where we are in the contract and when we are starting to work in new contracts we have both formal and informal dialogue. We meet them, we receive their input in writing and we also have hearings when we are doing larger changes in the contracts. So they will probably say that they wanted more flexibility, more influence but I think that we are quite reasonable within the contract, how we involve local authorities and local interests in the contracts. What does a hearing look like? Is this a discussion with the municipality? Is it a public hearing where a business user or a farmer or someone else can come and make a representation? What does that discussion look like in the communities? Normally the hearing will be in writing, that we propose a change, we propose the contract demands or I shall say the outline of the ferry service. What we are thinking about how the frequency shall be, how many night departures, how big the ferry is, the capacity of the ferry etc shall be in the next contract. We state that in writing and we ask local authorities and other interests to say what they think about this to us in writing. But we also have meetings with them where we discuss it and especially local authorities use this opportunity a lot to talk with us and tell us what they think about the services that we provide. Is there consultation required on an on-going basis? Is there regular feedback from users, stakeholders and communities about the quality of service, not just at the beginning when specifications are laid out but in response to changing circumstances? It's not put in a system where we meet them regularly but in practice we meet the stakeholders quite regularly and get their input in what they think. Some of the, for example, the National Lawry Association we meet every month talk about the ferry services in all of the nation, how they see it, what they need, what they think of, the demands that we use, what they think of the ferries and how easy they are to use for larger vehicles. Are the keys fit to use for larger vehicles with turning and the sea level etc? Thank you. Harold, do you want to come in? I think that the day knows much more about this than it said. I'm not anything glad. Okay, thank you. Do you have any further questions? No, I think some other questions have already been asked. Okay, perfect. Yes, I noted that. Liam, I think you've got some questions. Yes, thank you, convener. Good morning panel, just a couple of questions please. Harold, the four main private operators in Norway own or lease their vessels to fulfil the contract obligations that we've heard about. How do those ferry operators procure their ferries and who decides the precise specifications and the size and the crew complements and things like that, which will be procured and ultimately used? My understanding is that the companies themselves buy this. They would like to have ferries that you could use on different crossings. For example, if they win another tender, they might want to have a ferry that's flexible. There are many operational concerns here that I've mentioned, the size of the key and the inlet and so on. To get a very deep understanding of that, you will have to ask an operator. I think that they would have a ferry that they can use on different kinds of crossings and contracts and that is likely to fulfil the needs that they see and are given in the tendering documents with respect to capacity and frequency and amenities and so on. Thank you. Dag, just taking that on then, is it right then that subject to being able to fulfil whatever is in the contract, it is entirely in the discretion, just reflecting back what Harald just told us, it is entirely within the discretion of the ferry operator to procure whatever vessel the ferry operator considers will fulfil the remit in whatever form that may take. Is that correct? More or less, we demand that the ferry can be used on the keys and the route in terms of length and how much the vessel weigh and we demand that it will be able to have a capacity that we have described. They may, unless the vessel is to be for the key, they can have a larger ferry than what we demand. We have demands concerning what emissions they can have and how frequency they should be run. There are also demands by the naval authority in Norway how they should build it and how accessible the ferry should be for wheelchairs, etc. But others than that, we don't have very specific technical demands for the ferry. I understand. We think that the ferry company is, they know better than us what can be used on the ferry route. I'm very grateful. Just staying with you for me, Dag, you talk about setting, or what I'm hearing is you're setting basic requirements, but you said quite clearly in there we have demands on emissions. My next question, which is key for what this committee is particularly interested in, is how do the Norwegian Government, how do the municipalities encourage or require the development and uptake of low and zero emission vessels by what our private operators making their own decisions, please? We use competitive tendering as a tool to implement low and zero emission ferries. We have for several years had extensive process in advance of the competitive tendering where we have communication with industry to find the best way to solve the problem that we are seeking to solve. If you want zero emission on this route, how can that be obtained? Can we use batteries? Do you have to use hydrogen or is it not possible with the technology available today? We use what I think is called competitive dialogue as a tendering form. At the moment we have a competitive tender out for automated ferries and we have several rounds of dialogue with four ferry companies that are, they are, the qualification needed to provide these services for us. And we will have three rounds of dialogue, four rounds, and in the end we will plan contract with one of these course ferry companies. For us, there is that we don't actually know all the details about yet. I understand, I'm very grateful, convener. I'm going to come back to the deputy convener just to follow up on that. Thank you. I'd like to know who then pays and funds the innovation for one-year hydrogen ferry and then, intrigued by, in fact, you've got an automatic ferry that apparently has actually run already. Where does the funding come from that? Are the tender companies going to the market to get long-term investment for this or how is it being funded and how is your hydrogen project coming along? When we have a development contract, first of all, we subsidise the attending in the contract process in the competitive tendering. At the moment, the four ferry companies that are attending the competitive tendering that are ongoing at the moment, they can get up to £160,000 for attending the competition without winning the contract. So we use a lot of money for them to be creative and we use the best ideas that come out of this process and go further with the best ideas. When the contract is signed, we pay the same way that we pay any other ferry contract and the prices can be higher in the first contract with new technology, but our experiences at the later contracts will have lower prices than the earlier price level with traditional technology, if that made any sense. In terms of hydrogen ferries, are there any in development, are there any being deployed, or what is the current status? We have two contracts with hydrogen ferries. One of them is running and starting on hydrogen in the very near future, maybe already next week. The other one is being built at the moment and will run on nearly 100 km long routes in the northern parts of Norway. Can I just ask where is the source of the hydrogen? At the moment, we do not have any ferries on hydrogen, but in the close future we will have. Can I just ask where is the hydrogen coming from? Is it naturally sourced from converted wind to green hydrogen, or where is it coming from? We require that hydrogen is green, but on the first contract we do not have any requirements about where the hydrogen should come from, but in the later contract, the one up north, the hydrogen will be produced locally with local electricity. We will watch very much with interest. Thank you very much. Just looking around the committee to see if there are any other questions. I have got a few, if I may, without hogging the limelight at the end. Dag, just as far as disruptions concerned, what happens when there is disruption and a ferry breaks down? Do these four companies have the ability to move ships around to fill breakdowns and respond to that, or how do you cope with that? The short answer is yes. In most contracts we require that there is a spare ferry nearby to the route, so they have in some cases five hours put in a new ferry, or in some cases there can be 12 hours put in a new ferry. We consider how large the traffic on the route is, how many ferries are in traffic on the route, and how far away is the closest spare ferry used on the route. In most cases traffic will be up and running again in quite short time. Okay, that's interesting. Just on that, the disruptions kept to a minimum, what is the average age of your ferries, or that you would consider an average age of ferries within the fleet of the four companies? Is it 10, 15, 20, 30 years old? What sort of age are those ferries? I think at the moment they are closer to 10 years than older than that. The ferries to lead on the national high roads are quite new because of the requirements of low and zero emission. Okay, so he says with a right smile, if I set up a ferry company and came to you with 25 or 30-year-old vessels and suggested I was going to tender for a job, would you consider me? Would I be outside the scope of consideration? You would probably be outside of the scope because we are always asking for a zero or low emission. Okay, but on the emissions, do you also think there's a problem with reliability when you get to that age? There will probably be an issue with reliability, but I think a bigger concern will be accessibility for the users of the ferry. Okay, thank you. I think that's very illuminating. If there's anything you think we've missed either of you, I'm happy to give you a couple of minutes to add to anything. I don't normally do that, but I think it's really important your contributions today. So if there's a couple of minutes you want to say something, Dag, followed by Harold, I'm very happy to take that before we bring this part of the session to a close. I think from my concern it would be that our experience is that the zero and low emission ferries are cheaper than these ferries in use. You may have a higher cost at the beginning of the contract, especially if you have to work on the ferry key, but in operation electric ferries are cheaper than these ferries. They are low maintenance, they are easy to use and they often have more power and therefore can take the weather better than a diesel ferry. I think that will be my final remark. That's interesting as well. Harold, do you want to say anything? Okay, thank you very much. I think that's been an extraordinarily helpful session for us as part of our inquiry and thank you very much for giving your time generously to us this morning to help widen our knowledge about ferries and how other countries are dealing with the issues that we're facing in Scotland. I say goodbye on behalf of all of the committee and say that I'm briefly going to suspend the meeting and will reconvene at 11 o'clock if I could ask committee members just to say seated for the moment so I suspend the meeting. Welcome back everyone this morning just to clarify something which I should have said earlier on when we were considering the earlier instrument that the minister had come on. I would just like to check with committee we will have to report the outcome of the instrument in due course and I look forward the committee to delegate authority to me as convener to finalise the report for publication. Are you all the happy with that? Good, thank you. So we're now going to hear from today's second panel as part of our inquiry into a modern and sustainable ferry service for Scotland. Joining us are ferry operators who provide government subsidised services, CalMac ferries and Northlink ferries to offer their views on the future of ferry provision in Scotland and to discuss their current activities. I'm delighted to welcome Robbie Drummond, chief executive of CalMac, Stuart Garrett, the managing director of Northlink ferries, Chris Bevan, the freight manager for Northlink ferries and Jim Dower, the commercial director of Northlink ferries. Thank you all for accepting our invitation and for sending us some useful information in advance some of it which arrived in response to a letter sent last week just before this meeting so I'm grateful Robbie for the fact that you turned it round so quickly. It's helpful to the committee. Starting off, if I may, I think I'm going to go straight to the deputy convener, Fiona Hyslop. Thank you and good morning and thank you for joining us. I put this question primarily to Robbie Drummond. There seems to be a significant gap in how passengers have described their recent experiences of ferry travel to this committee. The picture that is painted by the statistics and information, and you've obviously given us additional information on that. For example, the committee has heard that people are having to travel several days before a medical appointment on the mainland to ensure that they can get there on time despite what we hear from CalMac that there are assurances about reliability and arrangements for emergency travel. Why is there this disconnect between what we've been told in our visits directly by your passengers and what your organisation has told us is available? Thank you. There are a number of points there and I'll try to pick those up. I know that we're here to talk about the future ferries that are probably worth reflecting. We are suffering a number of disruptions today and over the next few days and I'd just like to take this opportunity to say sorry to our customers and that we're doing everything possible to rectify that and I'm determined that we will rectify that and bring our services back to normal. On the issue of statistics, we publish all of our statistics on an open basis and the number ones that are important that have sent a submission into the committee that describes those. The important statistics are our contractual ones, which is our reliability according to the contract and that strips out weather. The actual delivery or performance includes our technical cancellations and weather and that's the real one that our islanders and communities understand. Our technical cancellations are about 1 in 100 so our performance is over 99 per cent but when you bring weather into that situation, which is the real lived-in experience for islanders, it's about 95 per cent. Perhaps that explains why there's a different view between what's reported in the contract and what islanders actually experience but it's our job to make sure that we deliver a good service and where we suffer weather or other technical disruptions that we get those rectified and we will always seek weather windows to run additional sailings where that's possible. Another colleague will ask about the weather issues more generally but that's a specific point about people's experience. You know people that have got cancer operations or diagnosis, this is very emotional and can have a big impact on people's lives and the idea that they have to travel so far in advance is that an insurance policy because of the reliability, whether it's weather or elsewhere. Why is it when you say that there are emergency arrangements that people can get on, for funerals or things that are short term operations in advance? Obviously people don't want to miss a long-set arrangement such as a medical operation but funerals have little choice in terms of timing. How do you know what you're saying is working if what we have been told is that there is that disconnect that they can't have that access? When we're sailing in the winter then clearly our sailing is going to be subject to cancellations. That is a feature of the very tough waters that we sail in but we will always try to prioritise customers who have urgent needs where there's urgent medical needs and we will always try and prioritise those at our ports and if customers are unable to travel through with their vehicles we will have a special medical process where they can travel on foot and we'll pay for them to attend at hospitals through taxi. We try very hard to deliver urgent requirements for our customers. Can I just maybe ask Northlink, is there a disconnect between what people are telling us about their experiences and what your passenger satisfaction levels are telling you? For 2022 our passenger satisfaction levels came in at 98 per cent. That was scored over excellent good and fair with a 2 per cent poor rating. We don't have issues in relation to hospital transfer, work very closely with NHS Orkney in Shetland and if there are issues that are addressed at the ports to the satisfaction of those that require to travel. Can I maybe move on and look at the future fairs, which is the subject for this inquiry? Can I maybe ask you, Robbie Drummond, what involvement have you had in project Neptune? Do you have any views on its recommendations? There's some kind of speculation about a possible merger of CMAL and CalMac ferries. This is your opportunity to say publicly what your view is. How do you think that the organisation's task with ferry delivery should be structured and bring in mind that you are listening into the Norwegian witnesses and they have a completely different model? Do you think that perhaps we need to be a bit more radical about what we're proposing for the future? First, we are involved in project Neptune. We were included in the consultations around project Neptune and we took part in a number of workshops. The draft report was shared with us so that we could check it for factual accuracy. I received the final report along with everyone else with that series of recommendations. Our view is that what do our customers and communities want? They want a service that is safe, reliable and consistent. There has been a range of different structures proposed, but whatever structure is selected, it must offer accountability directly to our customers. Stakehold is a clear understanding of who has responsibility for delivering what helens of that contract. That is really important. That is part of any future structure. That is very general. It doesn't tell us what your organisation's views are, but is there not a danger that people need to be accountable for different parts of it, but the complexity that sometimes CalMac is being blamed for things that are CML that have been perhaps Transport Scotland's responsibility? Does the current complexity mean that there is a lack of responsiveness and accountability? As the committee has heard and has been debated and shown in the action report, communities do not have a complete understanding of where those responsibilities lie. Any future model must create real clarity. There are lots of different structures that could operate and operate throughout the world. We deliver services to Transport Scotland—it is really a matter for Transport Scotland—and ministers to determine what is the best structure of the future to deliver what our customers and communities really need. We have the same question to Northland King who can decide who might be the most appropriate to answer. What moment have you had with Project Neptune? Do you have a view as to what would be the best operating and organisational model for the future of our ferry service in Scotland? To Project Neptune, yes, I contributed to Project Neptune and have seen the report that was published. Quite simply, we are contracted to provide a service using assets provided through the mechanism of the contract. Those assets are owned by CMAL, the Government's asset owning organisation. We have a very professional relationship with CMAL. The model works entirely as it should. It separates the asset owning from the asset operation. We maintain our vessels to the standard that is expected by the owner, the classification societies and by the UK and Isle of Manship registries. That provides us with the clarity that the assets are provided and we operate them to deliver the contract. In due course, given the age of any ship at any point in time, there will then be a vessel replacement programme. For vessel replacement, that should be a joint venture between the operator at any point in time, the asset owner and the contracting party. If we look at the island's connectivity plan, we are conducting this inquiry in advance of that connectivity plan to inform it as well. Transport Scotland is currently consulting on that long-term plan for vessels and ports. What impact input have you had into the development of that document? Do you think that it has the opportunity to deliver a ferry fleet to the future needs of our rural communities, particularly in net zero and other areas? Do you think that it can be flexible enough to make sure that we are driving a lower-emission ferry fleet? Obviously, reliability is a huge part of that as well. What are your ambitions and expectations of that island's connectivity plan? It is important to stress that we are contracted to operate the service that stands currently. We can then feed in opinions, thoughts and views as to how a service could be constructed in the future. However, for the time being, that mechanism is drawing in and should quite rightly draw in the thoughts and views that are expressed by the community switch that we serve. The secret ingredient of course is in making it work. It is fine to have lots of different views, but whether or not it can be captured in any future plan is a matter for others. We are here to deliver the service that we are contracted to deliver. Deliver a service? Yes, we deliver a service. Yes, indeed. Surely, you have something that you can say as to what you think it might look like in the future? At the appropriate juncture, we will feed that in, but you will find that the way that the plan is being considered at the moment will be the community involvement through the regional transport partnerships, councils and the various stakeholders that we engage with on a regular basis for the running of the services that it is at the moment. I think that it would be appropriate for us to consider whether or not what is being proposed can be delivered. We all agree that communities need to be at the front and centre of it. That is part of our inquiry, but we want to draw on the experience of everybody who can help to shape that future. The same question to Robbie about the island connectivity plan. What do you see as being the opportunities and potential of that plan to help to improve reliability, to help to serve rural communities? The potential of that is incredibly important. The last time I came before the committee, I said that what was really important is that we set out a long-term strategy for vessels and ports. That is what we would hope that the island connectivity plan would do for our customer communities, because they want to see how the service is going to evolve over that longer term. As part of that strategy, we should be addressing how we have a much more greener fleet than there are huge opportunities. If we look at the energy that is being created by our islands and some of that excess energy, there are huge opportunities to use that to power the fleet in a much more green way, but that requires long-term strategy and long-term thinking so that we can evolve towards that. That has perhaps been lacking to date? That is the purpose of the island connectivity plan. That is what we want to see coming out of that plan. If I can just push a wee bit on that. You are the people who make the ferries work and deliver the services that we want, but you are not the people who specify what those ferries should look like. That is done by CMAL and Transport Scotland, as demonstrated in the construction and design of 801 and 802. I do not quite understand if you give somebody a tool to use and it is the wrong tool, they are never going to make it work, because they are just going to say, well, we have given us the wrong tool. What I do not understand is what the Deputy convener was asking is how CMAL, CalMac and Serco are all part of a wheel, but one is driving the other and the person who is driving the other is not the person who is having to make it work. Is that a bad assumption, Robbie? The way he described it is the way that Thurston described it, that we are the operator and we will use whatever assets are provided to us and those assets are provided by CMAL and that is the current construct. We have a contract that terminates in less than 18 months, so we as the operator have to use whatever is provided to us and we will do that to the absolute best of our ability. However, what is important for communities is that long-term strategy for vessels and ports that starts to evolve the service to what they want. What we have just heard from the Norwegian experience is that it is up to the companies to design the ferries that they need to fulfil their contract. Is that not the right way to do it, Stuart? Absolutely, and we are currently well engaged with CMAL looking at ROPACs and ROPACs plus relief tonnage for the Northern Isles and that is working very well. We sit with CMAL, the Naval Architects. We have addressed the specification that is needed, Chris Bevan here on my left. We have analysed the future freight forecast, we have extrapolated that over a number of years, we have looked at the possible increase in passenger carings, the demand for car deck space and cabin space and working with CMAL we have provided them with the forecast figures and come up with the possible ship design, which would be ideal for the Northern Isles. That is the way that it is working currently. It is not disjointed. I do not recognise the model that was suggested where the wheels were turning in different directions, certainly not from a Northlink perspective. That is interesting from a Northlink perspective, but it is probably a fairly good analogy to 801 and 802, which do not seem to fit the requirements of anyone. I have to say at this stage that I question whether LNG will ever be commissioned on 802, but that is a different story. Liam, you have a question that you want to ask. Good morning, panel. I would like to pick up on something that Deputy Convener was asking around the contractual relationship. I will come to you first, and then I will put the same question to you, Robbie. There is obviously a contractual relationship between your organisation and Transport Scotland and CMAL. What the committee has already heard this morning from our Norwegian witnesses is that the contracting authority can change the contract. What they said was that they described that as not bureaucratic. They said that it was quite easy. They said that they changed the timetables every year and that it is quite flexible to what we can do with it. The question then is whether the contractual nature of Circle North Link's relationship with Transport Scotland and CMAL hindered your ability to provide service innovation or change, or did the contracts have inbuilt flexibility such that you can react quickly and effectively to changing customer demand? We would, on a fairly regular basis, submit contract variation requests. That might be for a change in a sailing pattern or to introduce an extra sailing for specific purposes. Generally, the timetables that we operate are set because they have been proven to be the optimum timetable to meet the freight demand of the overnight passenger services. However, on the fringes of the main contract, we would, on a fairly regular basis, have contract variations submitted and approved. Just out of interest, I will throw that to you, Robin. How long does that process take if you submit the request and you said that it will be approved? What is the window to do that? Is that efficient? Or they could be turned around quite quickly. It would depend on the detail within the contract variation. Sometimes they are fairly minor. Sometimes I would imagine that the contracting agency, whether it transfers Scotland back through to Government, might decide to take feedback from the local community, from the council, from SPADs perhaps, and then we will get approval or comment. However, that is fairly run-of-the-mill, to be perfectly honest. Robin, is that your experience? Yes, it is. The point of having a contract is that the authority, in this case Transport Scotland, can determine what are the right services to meet the needs of the community. That is not up to the operator to determine. That should be determined by the authority, but we have a process similar to what Stuart described of regular changes to the contract, whether that is changes to the timetables or additional sailings that we agree with Transport Scotland and that is done through a contract variation process. We also have the ability around the contract to run additional sailings without requiring approval. As I described, where we have weather disruption or technical disruption, we have the ability to run additional sailings. We do that on a very frequent basis. I have illustrated some of that with the statistics that I provided this morning. A couple of very quick clarifications just arising from something that the convener said. It is clearly a very different model in Norway, but we heard this morning that the Norwegian operators have a great deal of discretion over which vessels they run. Just to clarify exactly what the convener was going on earlier, how much flexibility, Robbie, do you have over the choice of vessels that either you are sailing and or you are running on particular routes or do you just have to go with whatever CMAL Transport Scotland will provide for you? The model, as was described, is that we are the operator and we operate the assets that are provided to us by CMAL. The deployment of the assets, the choices on which vessels we deploy to which routes, is a matter for the operator to determine. We determine that through prioritisation matrix where we try to balance the needs of different communities, balancing demand, length of routes and sea state conditions. The deployment is up to us, but we must operate those vessels that are provided to us. I understand. Stewart, unless you have a different experience, I will just stay with Robbie for one final question. Robbie, you mentioned just in your earlier comments that the CHIFS contract is up in October 24. Are you already in discussions with Transport Scotland about what will happen after that date? If so, where are those discussions? The contract terminates in September and at the end of September 2024, so we are in discussions with Transport Scotland as to what the future contract might look like. You mentioned the figures that you provided to us. I just had a very quick look at them, and I am a bit confused about the figures that you gave to us. We have a force measure. What does that mean? It is within your control, it says. That is covered at a range of different circumstances, but that must be a very small number of sailings that are impacted by that. It is 2,053 in this financial year, up from 1,100 the year before, so it is not insubstantial. I have not got those in front of me, but that may relate to Covid. I think that, in principle, around about 1,100 sailings are impacted through decisions that relate to us. To say that the ones that grab me, which I cannot understand, is force measure, which is within your control, has doubled from last year to this year. Mechanical problems have gone up from 498 to 1,678, which seems to be a huge leap. I do not understand what is Scott Government-approved cancellations, which has leapt from 485 to 1,551? That might relate to changes that we have made to our timetable or our sailings, but the important thing that this illustrates is the number of cancellations, whether that is weather or whether that is technical. The challenge that we face is maintaining our fleet. That is the challenge that we face every day, and every one of our staff is focused on. I understand that 1,600 are down to mechanical problems, and 1,500 are down to Scottish Government-approved ones. I am confused by that. I think that these figures need a bit more clarification, because they would be, on the face of it, quite concerning in the way that they have been produced. You are saying that mechanical problems and force measure events, which are effectively 3,600 odd, are down to within your control, and 1,500, which is about half of those, roughly just under half, are Government-approved ones. What does the Government-approved just say? For example, we are not delivering the timetable as-set in relation to the closure. There is an alternative timetable being set. Some of those will relate to port closures, which clearly are not at the hands of CalMac, so we agree alternative sailings to mitigate any circumstances around those. We operate to 33 ports, and we operate 35 vessels. We are faced with a range of challenges through infrastructure and weather. If you add force measure, mechanical and Scottish Government-approved together, you are jolly nearly more than the ones that are caused by adverse weather. Exactly the same amount is down to things within your control, rather than the weather that you cannot control. I think that those are quite concerning. Sorry, I got slightly distracted. I will come back to the deputy convener. Jackie, it seems to be back to you then. Good morning. It has been muted by some folk in previous sessions that it may be an idea to lower fares for the island in remote rural communities, and may have higher fares for the tourists that use the services. I would like to ask your opinion on whether that is something that you would support, or is there another ticket pricing system that you think may work short if I can come to you first? I think that the first thing to say—I am sure that you are well aware of that—is that fares are set, not by the operator. As such, we would have a view perhaps of what the fair base could be, and we have, at the moment, from January to September. We have no increase at all in fares for 2023, but, as I said, the fairs are set by Government through Transport Scotland, so that is one that we do not control directly. What is your view on whether the island is on the ticket pricing system? I know that you cannot change things as such, but your views would be extremely helpful. I would look at it in terms of what the fair that you are charging is in relation to the capacity that you have available to carry the likely demand. There is an issue then as to whether or not you differentiate, as currently exists for some fares, between islander rates and visitor rates. We also have the issue that our systems are open for booking to all, and there is no prior allocation to any sector of society, no matter where you come from. It is a complex conundrum, as it were. I do not think that looking at it from a fair's perspective in isolation of the other factors would necessarily give any real opportunity, to be honest. Robbie, I am interested to hear your views. Fair is a set by Transport Scotland on a matter of policy. I would say that road equivalent tariff was brought in five plus years ago, and that reduced fair prices by between 30 and 70 per cent. That had a very positive impact that increased demand for our islands. Our demand has gone up by about 30 per cent, but that in itself has created capacity constraints on our card deck. It is an interesting debate as to whether you should create a priority pricing for islanders, and that is really one of the policy. Probably the challenge that we have is that there is no demand pricing. Most all transport operators have demand pricing, so they try to move traffic from busy sailings to less busy sailings. There is something that does not exist within our network, and we have been discussing with Transport Scotland as well as something that could help to manage that capacity better across a week, rather than just on peak sailings. What I am hearing and correct me if I am wrong is that you do not think that changing the pricing policies at state stands just now would be helpful in any way. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but that is what I am hearing. I think that what I am saying is that it is a matter of policy, so if it is clearly cheaper fairs, it is going to help our communities and make the cost of travel lower. That has got to be a good thing, but it is a matter of policy. I think that our main concern is how we better manage capacity across the whole day and across the whole week. Certainly demand management may be appropriate, and that is something that we are discussing with Transport Scotland. I have got a further question, but I will come to them later if that is okay. Mark Ruskell, you are up next. I am looking at the CalMac stats for the number of cancellations because of adverse weather and some of the other categories. It seems to be painting a picture of climate change and how weather is going to change in the future and cause significant disruption and challenges. Is there enough of an understanding of what is coming in terms of climate change and how that is going to affect vessel specification, the way that ports and harbors are going to operate, the way that services should be configured in the future? Robbie, do you want to start that? Yes, sure. Around about one in every 30 salings is impacted by weather. We operate in some really challenging conditions. There is no empirical evidence that we are aware of, but our masters are reporting an increased depth of weather patterns and, certainly, worse sea states that take longer to recover. Initially, Cystic is that, in 2021 January, we had more disruptions than the whole of 2012, 10 years earlier, so we are seeing increased disruptions, albeit there is no evidence. Perhaps that is an area that should be worthy of further investigation. To your point, that is something that should be brought forward into that long-term strategy. If we can see some empirical evidence of weather patterns changing, that needs to apply not just to ferries but also to ports. Ferries can operate in 50 knots plus winds, so the challenge that we have is birthing. Many ports that we operate in are older ports that have been strengthened and improved but still struggle in adverse weather conditions. That is an area that we would certainly like to see further investment to deliver better resilience over the next 20 to 30 years. That has been lacking up to now, that consideration of resilience. I would not say that it has been lacking. We all recognise that there is a significant amount of investment that is required in ports and vessels. We are now seeing that investment. We are seeing six new large ferries, 10 smaller vessels coming forward, and significant investments in ports. That is something that we are hugely welcome to do, because that will improve our resilience over the future. If you look at the stats that we submitted in cancellations, you will see that there is really not a huge variance over the past 10 years, from 70 being the low to 109 being the highest. That is over the past 10 years. 863 cancellations, on average, are called at 86 a year on a 10-year basis. When it comes to weather patterns, I referred to our earlier submission, we are quite clear that there are no specific trends that are noted. However, we are very firmly of the view that the overall accuracy and availability of meteorological reporting is so much more improved than the algorithms and the options that we have for different weather reporting resources. It enables us to have a far more consistent approach to the decision-making that is attached to whether a ship sails or does not. It is not a case of a ship just not sailing. It is a case of whether you leave earlier or later, whether you weather route, whether you miss out an intermediate call. I firmly believe that that is all for the benefit of the passenger in terms of maintaining the service continuity. Conditions might not be good, but the vessel can sail at a point in time, and we experienced that just over the course of the last weekend. We missed out a Kirkwall call, but we sailed to Lerwick, but we left an hour and a half earlier, arrived at Lerwick, ahead of the front that was coming in and safely. That is what it is about. It is getting the mix right. The days are long gone of a ship going out. We do not really know what the forecast is likely to be, but you can see over the horizon and you set to. Things have changed. What explains the difference between the Northern Isles and the West Coast? Is it a particular type of vulnerability in Atlantic? Different sea conditions. We are heading Lerwick, which is 180 miles north of Edinburgh, so it is a different type of sea conditions. Whether you have the opportunity to weather route between island groupings, it all comes into play. Our masters are very experienced, and not always only. On their own vessels, many of our masters are volunteers with RNI, for instance, and they are very well qualified and experienced in the local sea conditions. It is the thing that we often get. We often get a challenge as to why the ships have not sailed or why it has been delayed. I would never ever let commercial considerations interfere with the masters decision making process. Robbie, do you have any particular vulnerabilities on the West Coast? I think that Stuart described it well. There are very different sea states. You have different sail routes. I think that the big challenge is the size and structure of the ports that we operate. We operate to 33 different ports that are owned by cancels, private ports, seamale and truss ports. In many cases, they have been strengthened over the years, but that is where some of that difficulty lies. We run 540 sailings a day, so we are incurring a whole multiple of different sea states in different ports. However, I would echo Stuart's comments on our masters. We have masters with incredible experience. We have people who have experience in working in the best ferry companies in Europe, and they are incredibly skilled at what they do. It is also a fair point around the quality of weather information that we are receiving. We pay for information that has real live weather forecasters that are much more accurate data, which means that they can make better decisions. That is climate adaptation, but in terms of climate mitigation, how can the vessels be designed to be net zero? You would have heard some of the evidence that we just had from the Norwegians about how they are driving innovation through the tendering process to include electric and hydrogen propulsion systems in an attempt to bring down costs over time and increase the supply chain. What are your thoughts on that? Or is it a future lie? How do we get there? Our Yatland and Rossi—we are talking about probably different tonnage in terms of different contracts because the route operating network is different and the commercial demand is different, but both Yatland and Rossi are shipboard almost completely ready to take shore power, and we are working very closely with Port of Aberdeen and LPA with a view to introducing shore hookup for electric power in Aberdeen and Lerwick. The Hamnavo has since the summer of 2022 been connecting to shore power every evening when it is back in Stromnes. Huge advances are being made in moving towards a reduction in CO2 emissions in the port operating environment. That is not propulsion. No, it is not, but our ships have probably a good 10 years worth of operating life left in them at the moment. The way that ships are constructed, you would not look to change the propulsion system in the vessels that we are operating. When you start to look at what is available in the market and the route network in which we operate, I did not sit in for your Norwegian visitor earlier, but on some of the Norwegian routes, it is a different type of operating environment entirely. Perhaps it is a coastal operating environment where you are operating short hops rather than 14 hours north between Aberdeen and Shetland, for example. The type of power that you will be looking to use, the availability of fuel, is a very early stage in the market. Will you be looking more at a bank of fuel? Potentially in the long term, there will be a range, but we would engage with CML and we would engage very much with our classification society, the DNV that we use at the moment. We would look at what the emergent best practice is, what the proven best practice is and what you do not necessarily often want to be as the builder of a first and class vessel. You want someone else to iron out the issues before you get there. The whole industry is at a rural inflection point as to where the future fuel needs will come from. I sit on the operator policy committee as a top 18 ferry companies in Europe, and this is a topic that is regularly debated. I am pleased that our small ferry fleet is looking at electric solutions, so they will be electric, but that does not exist for bigger vessels on the types of routes that we operate. However, that will be coming down the track in the next 5 to 10 years, whether that is battery-powered or hydrogen-powered or something of that nature. However, that gives us a real opportunity in Scotland, because we have got islands that produce green power. If we could harness that, that would be a huge advantage. To comment on ports, I will give an example. We are burning diesel because we cannot plug in to the port, because it does not have those facilities. Again, investments in ports would allow us to be greener, and future vessels are a real opportunity to use some of that excess green power. Can I ask you about catamarans as well? We have had quite a lot of evidence about using larger numbers of smaller vessels and more fleet of foot catamarans being mentioned by some industry experts to improve capacity service reliability. What thoughts do you have on that? We have been quite clear on that, but we are agnostic on vessel design as what is the best design to meet the needs of the service. I attended a seminar at Strathlide University with my head of marine and head of technical. The professor said that monohalls offer a good solution in certain situations, and catamarans offer a good solution in other situations. That is a view that we are very much subscribed to. It is what is the best vessel to meet those service needs. That is what the long-term strategy needs to look at. I would not do too often the debates about what is the best vessel when the discussion should be what is the island of needs and then start to build the supply from those defined needs. I have been Aberdeen Kirkwall Kirkwall Larrwick. I think that it is a conventional tonnage for me. I would not like to be in the fourth than a catamaran. My final question is just about co-ordinating this with other modes of transport, particularly bus and rail, timetabling through ticketing, how you co-ordinate action during service disruption. What work are you doing on this at the moment? I can answer that. We have a timetable manager who works closely with rail and bus colleagues on our regular timetable and tries to make as many connections as possible. We then publish those connections as part of our timetable publications. We are limited in what we can do because we operate to the extent of the working day. Those timetables are set, whether it is five sailings. There is limited flexibility in how we can move those around. With certain times of disruption, we work closely with bus colleagues, where we may work with certain suppliers to have bus replacements or buses to meet certain services. We will bring in additional services and pay for those who are necessary to try to manage through a disruption process. It is less of an issue given the route network, but we have the ScotRail services into Thurso, providing an ability, first thing in the morning, off the Hamnavo south. We have stagecoach and national express service connections on the A9 and out of Aberdeen. It is less of an issue with us, but we would laze. We would laze, of course, with Zetrans and the regional transport partnerships. However, there are always issues in competing demands where buses come north to Thurso and Scrabster and have different timetable agendas, but in the main it works. If there is service disruption, we would provide an alternative release service. In terms of integrated ticketing, providing an absolutely compelling product for people travelling, how do you improve that offering? There are some with the rail, but it is still touched on there. Aberdeen, in particular, is a walk to the main bus station and the railway station. We are also tied in with stagecoach as far as getting the bus as soon as the ship arrives and getting the bus straight to the airport. There is not so much on the bus side of things, although it can use the smart ticketing on the ferry and on the buses and so on. The other thing is the high-trans project, which is using the app where you can use the bus, train and ferry all on the app. Wherever possible, we are working with them on it. I will bring in the deputy convener. I will fill up on that. I want to take us back to the weather and to you, Robbie, if that is okay. You will not have seen this, but we are happy for you to respond to it once you have got a chance to see it. We have had a submission from the MUL and I own a ferry committee. They looked at FOI information from CalMac in relation to your own data over the past 22 years and also met analysis of wind recordings. They are saying that the number of weather-related cancellations in comparable winters has increased by around a factor of 10. Safety is paramount, as is the decisions of masters, but their reflection on engagement with CalMac is that there is an issue about the tracking and what has been the weather experience and whether there has been the significant decline. The potential of external factors is tight to regulation or more of a litigious environment and a fear of prosecution by masters. There may be other forces that are leading to a perhaps more restrictive view of whether it is safe to travel or not. We did get that also in our visits. I think that anecdotally we are reflecting that perhaps in the past masters would have sailed whereas now they are not. Feel free to come back once you have seen the submission itself, but any reflections on changing behaviour and who is looking at this strategically is to say that this is really happening and to acknowledge that it is happening. Where does that put the masters in terms of their decision making or is there more conservative approaches by themselves because of the changing nature of potential issues around legal challenge or anything like that? Certainly. There are probably two points that I would like to make. The first point is that it is far more challenging for us to cancel a sailing than to operate it. That is a point that we keep making to communities. We do not cancel a sailing lightly, but it is at absolutely the last resort. When we cancel a sailing, we have disruptive passengers to deal with, we have communications to issue, we have a vessel out of sync, so it is incredibly challenging when we cancel a sailing. It is absolutely the last resort for us. Sailings and safety are a matter for the master under law. They have the responsibility to keep passengers, crew and staff safe. They must not be put under any commercial or indeed any pressure to sail, so it is entirely their decision. Reflections on the law is that most industries, the legislation has changed over the past 10 to 20 years and the practices that were not acceptable perhaps 10 years ago are no longer acceptable. That is no different to ferries. Ferries are very heavily regulated by the MCA by class. It is a safety critical industry and we and our masters take safety as our absolute priority. Is there any reficture from Northlink that you are saying that whether it is less of a disruption to you? Do you have the comments about master's judgments and changes of the law over 10 to 20 years? No, I can only comment as per the statistics supplied, deputy convener. On average of 86 over 10 years between 70 and 106 I think was the peak on the trough. I go back to the comment on the availability of more accurate forecasting. I would just make the point again that the two organisations are operating over totally different operating environments. I think that too often people draw a comparison because we are both Government contracts that there are similarities, but that is probably where it ends. Just finally, Robin, would you welcome a more strategic approach as Mark Cross goes indicating that climate change is happening? What does that mean to our seas and the experiences of that? Who takes responsibility for that? Is that something that is just left to you as an operator to do on an operational basis? Or is that an engagement that you have with Transport Scotland as to what the future needs might be? Indeed, if we are going to different types of ferries, electric, battery, hydrogen, who knows, where is that kind of weather analysis coming from? Who is leading that? Who should lead that? On a day-to-day basis, including our masters, we must cope with the weather and try to mitigate that as best we can. We will continue to do that. Long term, it is important that there is a strategy around getting to zero carbon, but to really understand, it is the likely to be different weather patterns. We have evidence for whether it is hotter and that there is more rain, but what is that having on wind conditions and sea-state conditions? We would welcome more investment and better understanding around that, and that should be brought into any future strategy. Just before we leave that, I was impressed when we went over to Marl and had a look on that. We saw the ferry coming back in to our Drossan. It was doing a handbrake turn to the right, having done a very narrow entrance to the harbour in windy conditions because it was about to cancel the next sailing. The skill of the crew is not a doubt. The choice of the captain to do that and cope with those conditions in no doubt is his domain. So, if climate conditions are changing, which you are suggesting they are, is it a good idea to build the superstructure so that it is even higher than the current ferry and more liable to wind push than the current situation we are in? Should we not be looking at the design of the ferries to make sure that they can cope with those conditions instead of making them perhaps more difficult? Do you think that the captain would find it easy getting 801 in those conditions to our Drossan? I do not know. Robbie, what do you think? The important thing for ferries is their manoeuvrability and that is largely a factor of power. Vessels have to be designed with the right power, the right thrusters, so that they can be manoeuvrable. Our Drossan is getting significant amounts of investment to enable 801 and 802 to operate to there, so we are very confident that once that investment is undertaking and the port has been addressed, 801 and 802 will offer a very resilient service. I hope that there will be no more cancellations of wind then if they have the power to beat it although the wind is getting strong. Sorry, the next questions then come from Jackie. I have one for Robbie. There have been suggestions that priority travel is made for islanders for urgent short notice reasons, apart from medical appointments. What are your views on that? Is it feasible? How would you see a system operating so that that was taken into consideration? First of all, our contract requires us to treat all customers on an equal basis. Bookings are made on a first come, first serve basis. That has worked very well in the past. The challenges now are one that the cardiac capacity is becoming constrained. We are seeing different customers competing for that cardiac capacity, whether that is commercial operators who book well in advance, tourists who book in advance or islanders who have much more immediate and short term needs, and small commercial operators who book much more short term needs. Those are becoming much more difficult to manage. The potential could be routes to whether you could prioritise local bookings, but that would be quite complex to operate. You would need to look at the rules quite closely as to how you could best manage that. So what would be the difficulties of managing that then? Sorry, I am just trying to understand. You need to ring fence an area of the cardiac to be booked at a certain point in time for a certain population, so technically that is possible. We could deliver that, but that would then mean that space is then not available to other customers, so you are not making best use of that capacity potentially. I am aware that that is a very sensitive subject. It is one that I have recommended to Chancellor Scotland that we have a further debate about, but it is no means agreement on that. There are many people in the islands who think that, actually, that is not the right way to go, and that you should have a booking service that is open to all on an equal basis and provide the right service. There is a range of views throughout the communities that would need to be addressed, but it is a complex subject. If I was an islander and I had to get on to the mainland quickly due to a reason that was not my medical situation, and I needed to get on to the mainland tomorrow, if I came to you today and said that I need on the mainland, how can you help? Is there a way for you to help me? There are two different methods. We have an advanced wait list, so you are able to put yourself down on the wait list, and that is only accessible for certain types of customers who have immediate travel needs. There is an advanced booking service that is only available to those types of customers. If you have medical needs, then we will always try to accommodate you at the port and try to make that journey accessible for you. I am going to go to Monica next and then come to Liam. Thank you, convener, and I will just remind the committee of my register of interests. I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group, and of the United Kingdom Council that might have some relevance to my questions. I want to start with questions mostly for CalMac. Do you have any views on the possible unbundling of Clyde and Hebrides ferry services? Is there any other way that local communities and authorities could be more involved in the management of Clyde and Hebrides ferry services in the future? I can understand the attraction of unbundling, but running ferries is a complex business. It is very heavily legislative, and if you were to split the current network, which is managed as a network, into smaller bundles, the challenge that you would face is that you would then have duplication of back-offer services. You would have to invest in new software, and you would also potentially have to acquire new vessels, because at the moment, our vessels operate across different networks. They provide cover and event of drydox, and they provide cover and event of disruption. If you were to unbundle, then potentially you would have less resilience unless you invested in further vessels. That is our view on unbundling that we do not think that it would offer value for money for the Scottish taxpayer, but you make a very good point on how you get better community representation. We would encourage that there should be deep community consultation on the best way that services should be designed. We encourage opportunities to involve the community more in some of that decision making. I will come back to community involvement and representation. On unbundling, we have heard views that unbundling would be a negative development for CalMac staff in terms of their working conditions. Are you able to respond to that view and those concerns? The current ferries contract requires certain conditions for our staff and we have made certain commitments. That would very much depend on how the unbundling was done and what conditions were set under the contract. I do not have any particular fears for staff. I do not think that it would offer the best value for money or the most resilient service if you were to unbundle. Is there a northlink view on that unbundling debate? In short, somewhere we know. It is a contractual matter and it is not one that as an operator I would provide a view on. Back to the issue about community involvement. Robbie Drummond has heard calls for direct community representation on the CalMac ferries board. Our board is appointed by ministers and we are currently going through a process of appointing two new non-executive directors through the public appointments process. I know that a key requirement on that was islander experience. I would very much support that. That is a good thing and I would welcome that. Thank you, that is helpful. You will be aware that Scottish rail holdings now has the general secretary of the Scottish trade union congress on the board as a non-exec director. What would be your views on relevant trade unions having similar representation on CalMac's board? We work closely with our unions. We have four different unions that we engage with and we engage with them on a very regular basis. I have regular briefings and we have a good working understanding with them. The question of whether to sit on the board is probably one for the board to consider and not one for me to comment on. Just to ask Northlink your views and approach to better community representation and working with trade unions. Two separate groups. We would engage locally with a range of stakeholders. Some of that is on a pre-diaryed quarterly or set frequency. We have other meetings that are ad hoc. Mr Bevan and Mr Dau both engage with a range of islander groups. They could be of commercial nature or local community interest. When it comes to trade unions, I have all my working life worked very closely with trade unions and indeed in the majority cases with trade union principles, national and secular, GS level. However, we have a very good relationship with both RMT, Nautilus International, both locally and at a regional level. Not only that, when it comes to our staff, when we embarked in the contract in 2012, since then, we have acquired investors and people at a gold standard. Investors and people gold was then increased to investors and people platinum, which is the top rank. For our investors and people, young people, it sits now at gold. We can achieve that by working closely with our representative partners and the staff themselves. We are very proud of that, as well as being investors in diversity and investing in wellbeing. We have a whole range of opportunities in the business on a recognised and voluntary participation basis to have staff involvement, so we welcome it. That is very constructive. Just a final question, convener. I wanted to ask Robbie Drummond. We are asking lots of questions about your views, but do you have views on who should own and operate the ports and harbours used by CalMac ferries? Are there benefits to local authority ownership? Or would you favourite ownership by a single national authority? We operate to over 35 ports, and that is a mix of private, council, community and trust ports. Our biggest challenge is that they are not standardised, that they have different interfaces and different levels of investment. Whatever is the right approach, I would like to see greater standardisation. The funding for changes to those ports is largely through the contract and through Transport Scotland. Ultimately, I would like to see a much greater standardisation of how that investment works and how they invest in their ports. Ownership is a question for the relief of Transport Scotland ministers, but whatever is put in place should deliver that standardisation. Can you expand on what you mean by standardisation? What does that look like in terms of minimum standards? I can give an example from Norway where they have standard interfaces. Any operator can work to any port in Norway because they have the same approach. It is to do with birth sizes, ramp fits, where you tie up the vessel. If you can make those standard, it means that you have a much greater flexibility in the way that you can deploy those vessels. I think that's what Stuart Gadot nodding there. Do you agree with what he said? Yes. From an industry standard, absolutely, you're looking for standardisation. It means that the birth fit, as we would talk about, is the ability for the vessel to come alongside a harbour. You would know what the harbour layout is. You would know that the mating between the vessel, the ship's ramp and the shore berth would be standardised. When that doesn't happen, you can bring vessels into different ports, but a scheme of work has to take place behind the scenes to enable that vessel to fit. It simply makes for an easier run operation when you have standardisation. When we go back to the work that we are doing with SEMAL at the moment, looking at the plans for a 142m row-row plus, the bed plate for that, the standard ship dimensions for that would then form the bed plate for the next suite of vessels that we would like to see operating. It's getting the engagement with the port authorities correct at the early stage, simulator training for masters and the simulator training to come before any of the harbour works are done. No sense in doing the simulator training after the harbour works have been done, do your simulator training first on the likely birth layout, see if it works and then work it on from there. Can I just say to Robbie that thank you for not correcting me? I, of course, made a mistake when I said Ardrossan to Mull. I meant Ardrossan to Aaron. I think it was the fact that at 10 to one this morning we had evidence submitted to us from Mull, which probably meant that they were at the forefront of my mind from the early hours, so I apologise for that. Thank you for not correcting me and I've corrected myself before anyone else does, so Liam, over to you. Thank you, convener. Robbie, I'll stick with you on this. The committee has heard from maritime services management that CalMac's large ferries quote, carry a far larger crew than required, and we've also heard that the MV Loch Fraser operates with 15 or 16 people in Scotland, where it was operating with four in Norway. What is your response to that? If it's a fair point, if CalMac is operating with a larger crew, for what reasons are you operating with a larger crew? It is determined by our passenger certification, so it's the MCA who decides what crew we need to operate at different levels of certification. On many occasions you're not comparing like with like because we carry additional crew, but that's largely because we operate very extended working hours, so we may need to carry additional crew because we're operating at certain working hours and therefore we need different shifts to cover those different crew members. We may also cover crew to provide additional catering facilities, but that generates commercial revenue that we deliver from. It's important to be factual, so the Loch Fraser currently crewed by seven people, not 16. You're right, she operates in Norway with four, and the reason it's seven is because we need additional crew to do birthing because in Norway she operates to automatic terminals, so essentially automated birthing was we require that additional crew for the area that we operate in. That's really interesting. Could you just explain that additional birthing? Is that anything to do with the ports and harbours that we just heard about in the standardisation? Some of the Norwegian ports operate to automatic birthing, where the vessel approaches and essentially is connected directly without any manual intervention. That requires a significant investment, but if you do that investment then clearly it saves in operator numbers. That's not the way we operate in the west coast, we operate in a traditional quota interface where we have to tie up with ropes, and that clearly requires resources to do that. Final question from me, Robbie. Monica Lennon asked earlier on about crew. Can you tell the committee which company, does CalMac, your company, employ the crew, or is it another company? Our crew is employed by CalMac crewing Guernsey, but that is a subsidiary of CalMac. CalMac employs the crew through our wholly owned subsidiary. We can use on occasion agency staff where our leaf pool is short, but that is only used as a last resort. Just so the committee fully understands, Transport Scotland contracts with your CalMac, which then effectively subcontracts to CalMac Guernsey for the provision of crew. If that's right, does CalMac Guernsey have any other clients? No. Final question then, going right back to what we spoke about earlier, you've got your tender, CalMac will retender, one assumes, actually if you can't confirm or deny it, but the tendering process will happen in September, October 24, and the contract will, there may be a new provider, you may stay incumbent. If CalMac were to go for that tender, your CalMac, and to lose it in 24 months such that Guernsey doesn't have another client, what happens to the crew employed from Guernsey? So, as with any contract, 2P regulations would kick in and staff would migrate to a new operator. But not for a Guernsey company, because that would come with it? That's exactly the situation, it's a very common model. Guernsey is just a subsidiary of CalMac, as a wholly owned, 100 per cent owned subsidiary that only supplies staff to CalMac. So, in the event that we didn't operate the contract, all those staff would transfer to a new operator. Sorry, I'm slightly confused. Might you employ them in Guernsey, and not employ them at home? Are there tax advantages from doing that? Yes, so the reason they're employed in Guernsey is because we avoid paying national insurance, so that's a standard British recognised tool. We employ them in Guernsey and avoid paying national insurance, but all those mariners are fully employed by essentially CalMac, they are 100 per cent registered under the MCA as British employed crew members. Okay, that's something for the committee to ponder on, whether it's appropriate for a Government-awaited contract to employ an organisation that dodges paying national insurance. I make no comment, the committee will have to settle that. Jackie, I think that you've got a question, and then I'll open it up to anyone else who wants any follow-up. In some of the evidence that we've been given or taken, some of the key concerns about the Norflink service to Shetland have been capacity cabins and cost, they're saying that's their three main concerns. So can I ask Stuart Garrett what, if anything, can you do to address those issues both in the short and in the medium term? Yup, indeed. I saw those comments from your previous session. So in terms of capacity, you know, the passenger capacity in each of the the Yatland and the Rossies set at 600, so we can carry 600 passengers. Rarely, if ever, would we be at 600, I think we've been at 598 on a couple of occasions, but rarely, however, at 600. However, 117 cabins provide 362 cabin berths. We have three pod lounges providing 102 pod seats. Cabins regularly are sold out. What we have to do, we have to get the mix right between car deck capacity, cabin capacity and the essential freight that we carry, perhaps when we bring Mr Bevan in to talk about how we manage that juxtaposition between freight and car deck capacity and how we are contracted to provide a certain number of spaces in certain days. There has been, certainly, post Covid. We operated throughout Covid. I think we lost eight sailings on a freighter during Covid when the crew were almost 100 per cent out due to the virus, other than that we kept going through Covid. We saw in 2022 a significant rebound of volumes back to the 2019 figures, which were the previous highest year of volumes. There has been a huge demand. At the moment, we are seeing that the demand from visitors on the bookings that we have only recently been allowed to open for 2023 bookings coming in at 77 per cent bookings being made by visitors against the balance being islanders. You can see that real swing there demand for travel to Orkney and Shetland. There has been a lot of suggesting that we should be running day sailings, but it is a lot more complicated than that. The working hour for seafarers is not a 11-hour working day. Our crew live on board, so they are living on board the ship on the passenger ships two weeks on and two weeks off. We could. It has been said that there have been day sailings supplied before in the Northern Isles. Yes, there have been, but not in the circumstances that people are perhaps fully explaining. If a day sailing came into Lerwick at, let's say, after midnight or very hours out in the morning, there is actually no onward transport. There are no buses, there are probably no taxis, there is no likelihood of getting to any of the other islands if you are driving your own car. If an extra sailing was put on during the day that resulted in a later sailing came into Aberdeen, there are no trains and airport connections. We are looking at sailings in isolation from the comment or the question that was raised by Mr Russell earlier about how we interface with other transport operations. The resolution to the issue for capacity is additional tonnage. Working very closely with SEMAL and Transport Scotland supported by Government, we are aware of almost all the tonnage that is available that would be suitable on the market worldwide. We have recently had a member of my team, one of my masters, was down in the southern hemisphere looking at a vessel that we had an interest in procuring. We are active in the market looking to see what is available. Additional tonnage is the answer to capacity. In regards to cabins, what we were hearing was that the ferries were part of a journey for most folk. Some folk were finding it difficult not to get a cabin because they might have had a long journey after it. You were speaking about Covid and the last witness said that the cabin sharing had been stopped. Indeed, that is no longer available. She said that it is still the case. I do not know whether that is correct or not, that you are still not allowing cabin sharing. We have withdrawn cabin sharing from our offer. It is no longer a book. Completely, yes. That will reduce it from 362 to 117 folk having their ability, or am I picking you up wrong? No, not at all. You are not picking me up wrong. You are certainly not picking me up wrong, but there is a bit of a fallacy that suggests that having cabins available to share provided better berth utilisation. Maybe Mr Dowd may wish to come in on that. What I can say is that introducing the three pod lounges, you will have seen from my submission that we have an 80 per cent satisfaction rating for the pods, and in 2022 we sold over 20,000 pods, equivalent to a front-of-the-plane type seating arrangement. We have tried to be as creative as we can be in providing opportunities other than cabin berths available. What we have certainly seen post Covid has been a willingness in the part of passengers to travel more regularly with their car and seek to have a cabin with their car. Very high satisfaction ratings achieve from passengers who can get a cabin, but we have only got 117 cabins to sell, and that is my comment that the only way to address capacity is with tonnage. Jim, do you have a comment? People can still book the cabin. They can get together with another two or three people and book the cabin themselves. It is just that they are not able to go in and book a berth in the cabin. So they can book a cabin together with someone else if they know them, if you are just not putting strangers in together? Yes, correct. We are not putting strangers together. Are there any other questions from any of the committee members? No, okay. Thank you very much to all of you for coming in this morning and informing us about things that are going on in your views on the future. We are going to move into a private session after this, so I would say to committee members that we will take a quick couple of minutes, but I would like you back here at 4.20 past, and we will move into private session now. Thank you.