 Good morning, good morning to everyone and welcome to the 20th meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for 2022 The first item on the agenda is a decision on taking business in private We agenda item 1 is consideration of taking items 9 and 10 in private 9 is consideration of evidence we will hear today And item 10 is consideration of our draft letter to the Scottish Government on our pre-budget scrutiny Felly guddfa'r cwmifennol yn ei wneud pan fuddiatad sy'n gyfrif y dwybr chi. Diolch yn fawr. Mae'r ffordd yma, rydw i'r nhw'n gwygon i'r cyfnodau. Diolch yn bwysig hynny, mae'r gweithio amglwg honno'n ei sefydliadau gan bethau gwirgyn noll ynghylch yn ymgyrch o'r llawer o'u Cynllunau Gwyrddiaethau. Rydw i'n gwneud ar hyn, Genild Ryth y Minister, Welcome, Jenny Gilruth, the Minister for Transport. Thank you for making yourself available today. I'd also like to welcome your officials who are joining us. Elsie McIntire, who's a principal legal officer of the Scottish Government legal directorate, and Donald Morrison, the head of asset management and procurement transport Scotland. The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve. That's very dangerous when somebody else can mute the convener. Let's try that bit again. It's that's not something I want to continue into the future. So the instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means the Parliament must approve it before it comes into force. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider a motion to approve the instrument. I remind everyone that officials can speak under this item, but will not in the debate that follows. I would now like to invite the minister to make a short opening statement. I can mute your microphone if you can't do long, but of course I wouldn't. Minister. Thank you for inviting me today to provide evidence on the pavement parking prohibition exemption orders procedure Scotland regulations 2022. As you are aware, the Transport Scotland Act 2019 already gives local authorities the relevant powers to exempt areas of footway from the pavement parking prohibitions. The act also confers powers on Scottish ministers to make detailed provision for the process that local authorities should follow when making, amending or revoking such exemption orders. In line with the commitments made when Parliament approved the act, the regulations were laid in Parliament last month. The SSI is technical in nature, and it sets out the framework that local authorities must follow. Putting those regulations in place will support local authorities' decision making by providing a consistent, fair and transparent process for all to follow when making exemption orders. The regulations are needed to give local authorities a detailed procedure to allow them to put in place exemption orders where they deem it appropriate and in line with the powers provided by the 2019 act. My officials have consulted with the parking standards stakeholder working group that consists of all 32 local authorities and other interested parties while setting out those procedures. The input received from that group was really vital in shaping the regulations that are now under discussion. As well as the views of the working group, some 626 responses were received to the public consultation, the findings of which were published in June. Those comments have also shaped the regulations. It is important to stress that inconsistent, obstructive or dangerous parking can and it does cause serious problems for everyone. It puts safety of pedestrians and often other motorists at risk, too. The parking prohibitions are aimed at promoting, supporting and advancing the rights of pedestrians to ensure that our pavements and roads are accessible for all. Local authorities are best placed to make informed decisions on the management of their local road network. The implementation of those regulations will allow them to complete their road assessment process and also allow them to determine appropriate exemptions to the ban to suit the needs of pedestrians and road users alike. There will be a period of around 12 months before the enforcement regulations are commenced. That gives local authorities time to review any initial exemptions that they wish to put in place before they can undertake any enforcement action. £2.4 million of funding has already been issued to local authorities over the past two years to allow those assessments to take place. My officials will, of course, keep in touch with local authorities to gather information on how many of those exemption orders are likely to be promoted before they can start issuing penalty charge notices in late 2023. It is worth saying that Transport Scotland will also be undertaking a significant awareness raising campaign in the lead-up to the implementation of the new prohibitions and potential exemptions. The initial market research and design work for that has already started and will go live in late 2023. That will ensure that the public are aware that they are permitted to park in areas where the local council has made an exemption order and that those areas will be clearly signed and lined. I am happy to answer any questions that the committee may have on the content of the regulations. Thank you very much minister. I wonder if you could just clarify me for me. Sorry, I sat on the committee that looked at the transport bill and we never quite bottomed out, I know that this is procedural, but we never quite bottomed out the definition of pavement parking. We will give the council the right to exempt it. Are you satisfied that there is a good enough definition of pavement parking? I am satisfied. I might bring our officials on the history of the act as you will appreciate that predates my time in office, but the act itself, as you will know, already introduced the national ban. What we are discussing today is essentially the technical exemptions or the technical procedure that local authorities need to follow. I will bring in my officials just in relation to the historic background on the definition per se that you have alluded to. Before you bring them in, can I just give you two specific examples, if I may, so in parking bays that are marked on pavements, which allow more than 1.5 metres between the car bay and the edge of the walkway, although they are parked on a pavement, was not defined in my understanding of pavement parking and where cars reverse into a pavement parking slot, whether the rear of the car or the front of the car protrudes over the pavement, whether that is defined as something that will require an exemption. I am very happy to hear from Donald if that is who it is going to be on the definition and the clarity on that. I take that. The definition of a pavement would normally be set out in design guidance and obviously physically delineated. That would be the normal convention of identifying what a pavement is defined as separate from the carriageway, usually by kerbs and obviously a paved or rough surface. There are complications where you have defined parking bays on pavements and that may require an exemption order. I would need to check that, but in any case, if that was the case, the remainder of the footway would need to be a minimum of 1.5 metres so that that remained passable for pedestrians. It would be helpful to clarify that for councils. The other issue that I have is on dropped kerbs. There are various types of dropped kerbs, some that are specifically designed for pedestrian access, some that are dropped because of their close to parking bays to allow people to access, maybe from the back of a lorry, in some cases, I can think of. There are private dropped kerbs to allow access to carriageways. Are all of those requiring exemptions? I am trying to seek some clarity for councils because I am unconfused even having done the main research into the transport bill to understand if those are being clarified. I think that that is fair, and I think that Elise is going to come in on the specifics. I might come in just in relation to the ministerial directions after. Just in terms of the dropped kerb, the exception does not apply to kerbs that have been moored for the purpose of access to a driveway or a garage, so that private access to someone's house would not be covered by the dropped kerb prohibition, but all other instances of a dropped kerb would be covered by the prohibition. Any other exemptions would need to be covered in an exemption order. A dropped kerb in a parking bay, which has been put there to allow lorries to unload in a loading bay, which has a dropped kerb could never be blocked without an exemption order being put into place, is that right? Not unless it is covered by one of the exemptions that is already set out in the act. The delivery goods vehicles are set out in the act in terms of their exemption, so in relation to, I think, the delivery of goods is a 20-minute limit on that and emergency vehicles, and I think that there is maybe one other that fall into that category. That is right, that is for the pavement parking exemption. So, you are satisfied, minister, that all of these points that are covered? I am satisfied, yes. The proof will be in the pudding, as it says. Mark, you have some questions, I think. Yeah, thanks. Good to see this being presented in front of the committee this morning and progress is being made, but I just wanted to ask about the hearings process for the exemptions and how this might work in practice, so could it be the case that a council would bring together all its exemptions or all of the issues associated with that into one hearing or would there be multiple hearings in connection with different towns or different parts of a council area? I am just trying to understand how that process might work. I do not envision there being multiple hearings per se, but it is a right that the local authority has through the regulations. Local authorities also have to consult in relation to any exemptions that they put forward. I did discuss that with officials prior to today's committee meeting, because there is no statutory rate or level set, for example, in relation to objections that might be received. However, there is a power that the Scottish ministers can appoint a reporter and conduct, obviously, essentially a hearings process. That would be a matter for the local authority to judge, because those are local roads, ultimately, and I think that local authority should be trusted to do that and measure, for example, where they see greatest, perhaps, the amount of objections to a certain suggestion of an exemption. If there are limited numbers of objections, you might not expect them to go down that route, so it is not to dictate to local authorities in relation to the process per se. However, it is an option open to local authorities, and I think that that is quite important that they get it right for local communities, because we do not want to see vast ways of exemptions happening in relation to the legislation. The other question is about associated work that councils might be thinking of doing as they start to implement that. One area might be around the designation of loading bays, where there might have been calls from communities to have a long period of time to put in place a loading bay. That brings it to a head, because the adversity to payment part will be taken away quite rightly. Is there a need to push through a lot of TROs and loading bays at the moment, or are there associated work that councils are having to think through when they think about how to make communities work? Some local authorities are further ahead on that than others. Some are waiting for regulations to come into force, which is what we are discussing today. That is why we have built in that 12-month period to allow them to get it right. The second thing to point to is that we have already provided some funding to £2.4 million to local authorities in relation to signing and lining. That will hopefully help in regard to the specifics of your point, but that is ultimately a matter for local authorities to determine, recognising that they will be the best people to decide what is right for their local communities. However, none of me want to say more, so he has indicated that. I am sorry to say exactly the same thing about the fact that they are currently assessing their streets for this purpose and will be for the next 12 months as well. In terms of exemption orders, I am sure that they will take the opportunity to look at what other advantages they can take in terms of defining their streets. We will be running a national campaign, but local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that their local communities know those changes are coming into force. There will have to be a sea change in terms of behaviour change in relation to parking, so local authorities and Government need to be part of driving that. The market research behind our publicity campaign at national level is already under way and we hope to bring that forward further into 2023 to get the public ready for those changes. That is a good and important entry point to have that discussion within community. I will push slightly on that. Are you thinking that councils will if there are need-to-be hearings that they will be done locally? I mean, I am just thinking about the Highland Council area that they could put in the whole area, for example under an exemption order to cover the whole thing, which covers Wick to Skye to Inverness to Avymor. I mean, I take on board your point, convener, that is a vast area of Scotland, so I think within the regulations there is the power for local authorities to decide themselves how to administer any hearings process. It is not for government to dictate, but... I think I am in. Yeah, it is not a mandatory hearing, obviously. It is one that the council or local authority could choose to have to hold a hearing if they felt there was enough objections and things like that. It would depend, I suppose, on how many... It is unlikely, I think, that the council would make one exemption order covering the whole of that area. That would obviously be a huge hearing. It would be a vast administrative burden. It might be more likely to be parceled up into smaller areas. I do not know that that would be a matter for the local authority. The local authority would have to judge if they had, you know, obviously a certain number of objections in a certain area, and they identified that that was a real challenge, then you would expect the local authority to respond accordingly. I do think that it is very dependent on the level of interest at local level in those exemptions, but we do not want to see, as I mentioned in response to Mr Ruskell, vast ways of exemptions ultimately in terms of driving the behaviour change that we need to see. That does give local authorities a power, but nonetheless there is still a national paper parking ban. Okay, there is guidance in there somewhere, I am sure, minister. Thank you, Monica. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. My question was to pick up on behaviour change, which you have mentioned now a couple of times. I think that we all recognise that that will be really key to the success of the legislation. I just wanted to ask for a bit more information about the national information campaign. What is the budget for that campaign? What will be its duration? You also talked about the importance of local messaging. Will there be assistance for local authorities to do that sort of hyper-local messaging to make sure that we can get people on board as much as possible? In relation to the national marketing campaign, I had discussed it with officials yesterday. As I mentioned, they are going to market research behind that already underway. I do not have the budget line in front of me, but I am more than happy to write to the committee if the committee would like evidence on that budget line associated with specifically that campaign. However, it is under way, so there will be an associated budget line. Secondly, in relation to local messaging, local authorities have a responsibility to consult locally with their local community to carry out an equality impact assessment additionally. They can also use social media to promote that through a variety of different forums. There is no budget associated per se with that, but there is the £2.4 million worth of funding that I mentioned in response to Mark Ruskell in terms of supporting local authorities with the assessment and implementation of the changes. I think that it would be helpful if the minister kept us up to date about the national information campaign. Happy to do so. As we are saying, there are a further number of regulations that will be coming forward in relation to the parking ban, so this is the first part of the jigsaw. We will see you soon. Indeed. Thank you, Liam. Yes, thanks, convener. Just a quick question, minister, arising from Monica Lennon's questions. Obviously, it is very concerning or it will be concerning to local authorities in the current financial situation any further costs that are incurred. Can you help the committee to understand, therefore, given that we are talking about this process coming in, what does the Scottish Government believe to be the additional costs to local authorities of bringing in this process if, let's say, it runs as fully as Elise was talking about earlier? I think that it is quite difficult for us to say at this moment in time what that future cost will look like. As Donald and I mentioned in response to maybe Ms Lennon's question, some local authorities are further on than others, some are holding back in terms of their consultation and assessment processes before those regulations come into force, their waiting, so we do not yet know where they are in terms of their planning and the associated costs that would sit with that summer further down the road. We would certainly want to continue to work with local authority partners. They have been part of the working group in relation to developing the parking guidance, for example, and that has been really pivotal because they have helped to shape that and to change that as officials have worked with them over the course of the last year and a bit. There is a recognition there that we will need to, as a Government, listen to and respond to changes accordingly. I take Mr Kerr's point seriously, because I recognise some of the financial challenges that local authorities, and it should be said that Scottish Government faces at this moment in time. We have already provided that funding of £2.4 million, but we will continue to work with local authority partners on those costs. At this moment in time, it is not possible to give a quantifiable amount for each local authority, because summer further down the road in relation to their assessments, some, as I mentioned, have not yet started the process and therefore will not yet have a cost associated with the work itself. I am very grateful. I do understand the answer, but the question that puts in my mind, and just incidentally on the £2.4 million, I am not quite clear whether that is for the publicity and the awareness raising, as well as the actual process, but one would have thought that the Scottish Government would be able to project what is the cost associated with publication of proposals and consultation, handling of representations, appointing a reporter and then a process to hold a hearing and come up with some at least ballpark figure that local authorities would be able to say, okay, when this comes in, when this process happens, this is roughly what we would be looking at if we have to run a full process. Am I missing something, minister? No, I understand Mr Kerr's point. I think it is differential though, because certain local authorities are further down the line, as I say, and therefore they haven't yet started the process. We don't expect there to be vast waves of exemptions happening right across the country. This is not something that we would expect in relation to the national parking ban per se. Officials will continue to work with local authorities through, as I mentioned, the working group to monitor those costs. Now, minister Kerr asked a question in relation to the £2.4 million worth of funding, as to whether or not it was for marketing. Well, I think it's for local authorities in relation to signing, lining and in relation to local changes with regard to the procedure at local level. There are vast ways in which that funding is helping to support local authorities. Some will need it more so than others because some may look at exemptions or may have streets in which there may need more exemptions than others. Therefore, it gives us a pretty mixed picture nationally in terms of the implementation of policy. I am more than happy to continue to monitor the implementation of the procedure in relation to the assessment that local authorities will now be undertaking in the next 12 months and perhaps give the committee interim updates as we progress towards the full ban coming into force at the end of 2023, if that would be helpful. I think that that might be helpful, but, convener. Thank you. Are there any other questions? We are going to move on to the next agenda item, which is agenda item 3, which is the formal consideration of motion S6M-06081, calling for the committee to recommend the approval of the draft payment parking prohibition exemption orders procedures Scotland regulations 2022. I will remind people that it will only be the minister and the members that can speak in this debate and minister I am going to ask you to speak to and move this motion. I have probably already said enough this morning, so I will move the motion in my name. Thank you very much. Are there any contributions from members? No. There have been various commitments made, Minister, prior to this, which I hope you therefore will agree. So, the question is that motion S6M-06081 in the name of Jenny Gilruth Minister for Transport be approved. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you, Minister, for your time and for the time of your officials. I would now like to briefly suspend the meeting for the setup of our next session. Thank you. I suspend the meeting. Welcome back. Just before we move on to agenda item 4, I should have asked the committee if, as we will be reporting on the outcome of the last instrument that we discuss, I would like authority from the committee to delegate to me the authority as convener to approve the draft and report on its publication to the Parliament. If you are all content with that, I would be perfect. Thank you. So, the next item on the agenda item 4 is consideration of another draft statutory instrument, the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme amendment number 3, order 2022. I would like to welcome Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy and Transport, to the meeting this morning. I would also like to welcome your officials. Is it Marianna Cover, Senior Policy Advisor for Carbon Markets and ETS? Lucy Geoghan, I hope I've got that right. I've practised beforehand to make sure I did. The head of carbon pricing and the ETS unit. The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means the Parliament must approve it before it comes into force. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider a motion to approve this instrument. Again, I remind everyone that the officials can speak under this item but not during the debate that follows. I would now invite the Cabinet Secretary to make a short opening statement. Good morning, convener. I'm pleased to give evidence today to the committee in support of the draft affirmative instrument to amend the greenhouse gas emissions trading order 2020. The UK ETS authority, which is formed of the four UK Administrations, consulted this spring on proposals to further develop the UK ETS, aligning the scheme with their ambitious net zero targets. The authority is still considering the consultation responses regarding proposals around tightening the cap and expanding the scope and will publish a joint government response in due course. However, some of the operational and technical changes to the UK ETS need to commit to force by 2023. Therefore, the authority published an early joint government response covering those amendments to the scheme. Together, those amendments will support the proper function of the ETS. Those amendments are the proposed today affirmative instrument and the negative instrument to be laid in November later this month. Today, affirmative instrument will allow flights from Great Britain to Switzerland to be within scope of the UK ETS. The scope expansion will be extended to include Northern Ireland at a later date. Switzerland has already amended the ETS to include flights from Switzerland to the UK. With the affirmative instrument, we will now have a fully reciprocal arrangement that supports our climate objectives. The instrument also makes minor amendments to the allocation of free allowances in the ETS to reflect the inclusion of those flights within the scheme. The other members of the authority are also going through a simos scrutiny process in the respective parliaments to ensure that the legislation is consistent across all administrations. Ahead of publishing, the final government response to the consultation, we expect that the UK ETS authority will publish the common framework agreement setting out how the four administrations work together to deliver the UK ETS. Of course, I'm happy to provide more details to that issue once it has been published by the authority, and I'm also happy to respond to any questions that the committee may have. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Are there any questions from the committee on this subject? Yeah, thanks, convener. I just wanted to ask what the practical impact of exclusion of these flights has been up to this point. Is it possible to describe what the practical implications of that have been in terms of the functioning of the ETS or its effectiveness or revenue raising? It's very small, so to some extent it's not a significant difference. It's worth keeping in mind that when we were covered by the EU ETS, these flights were included, so it's simply covering a gap that was left when the UK ETS was introduced. Given that there are very small number of flights that operate, for example, between Scotland and Switzerland, and across the UK as a whole, the overall impact is very small, but I can't give you the specific data around it, I'm afraid. Okay, that's fine. Thanks very much, Mark. Are there any other questions? No other questions. Thank you. We'll move on to the next agenda item, which is item 5, which is the formal consideration of motion S6M-06005, calling on the committee to recommend the approval of the draft greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme amendment number three, order 2022. Cabinet Secretary, I'd like you to invite you to speak and move the motion. Moved. Thank you for keeping it brief. Are there any contributions from members that haven't? Nope. Therefore, the question that I want to put to the committee is that motion S6M-06005, in the name of Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy and Transport, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The committee will report on the outcome of this instrument in due course, and I would like to invite the committee to delegate authority to me as convener to approve the draft of the report for publication. Are we all happy with that? We are happy with that. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for probably the shortest meeting you've had at a committee for a long time, with as few questions as you could probably hope for. On that basis, I'm now going to spend the meeting for the set-up of our next session. The meeting is suspended. Thank you very much, and welcome back. Our next item is an evidence session in relation to our inquiry into a modern and sustainable ferry service in Scotland. I'd like to refer members to the Clerks and Spice briefing papers on this item. This is the second day of evidence taken on our inquiry into Scotland's ferry service. The inquiry aims to find out how best to secure ferry services that are future-proof and able to meet the needs of service users across our island communities. On 28 June, the committee discussed those issues with representatives from island communities. The committee also launched a call for views, which closed on 26 August. Today, we're very pleased to be joined by two of Scotland's independent ferry operators to hear their experience of operating a commercially viable service without public subsidy. I'd like to welcome our panellists who join us today. Helen Inkster, managing director of pendant ferries, and Gordon Ross, the managing director of western ferries. Thank you both for attending. We have a series of questions, and I guess mine is the easy question to set you at ease to start with. In each of your views, what do you think ferries users want from a well-run ferry service? Helen, do you want to start off with that one? Yes, good morning. I believe that ferry users look for reliability, flexibility and capacity to meet the needs of each of the communities. All of those are combined with efficiency and safety in my view deliver an effective ferry service. Gordon, do you want to add to that? I agree completely with what was just said. I would just add that a ferry service has to be flexible. It has to meet the changing needs of the island communities. Do you both believe that private sector ferry operators will play a role in the future of Scotland's provision of ferry services? I mean, do you think that you've both got—obviously, you wouldn't be here, but do you want to explain whether it could be expanded or whether you think what your views to the future are, Gordon? Sorry. I'm giving you a rest, Helen, because you asked the first one last time. I'd certainly like to think that going forward that western ferries and patlin ferries would continue to operate, so, yes, there's very much a place on our existing routes. I personally believe that there are other routes that services could be provided on a commercial basis. However, Scottish ministers transport Scotland to have maintained the tender and the specification of a bundle. That's not saying that there aren't additional services that could be placed on top of the CalMac bundle. Western ferries looked at providing a freight service to Islay to meet the growing needs of the whisky industry. That was not back into touch when the recent announcement that there would be two new boats being constructed and built in Turkey for Islay. If the whisky industry continues to grow in Islay and the tourist numbers continue to increase to Islay, the provision with two new ferries might not be sufficient whether we can come in on a commercial basis or under a separate contract with Transport Scotland, Scottish ministers. That's something that I'd like to explore. Thank you. That's interesting, Helen. Yes. I think that there is a place for private operators going forward to pincant meferries that has been in operation now for over 20 years on the route between Caithness and the pincant mefer to Orkney. In my view, what Gordon has said is that I believe that there are routes throughout Scotland that are commercially viable. There are some that are not, just because of the size of the community and the needs. However, I think that there is an agreement with what he said that there is potential for privatisation on some of these routes but also to offer services above the subsidised routes that are already there as well. Thank you. I move round to other committee members to ask questions. Liam, yours and the next lot of questions. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. Helen Inkster, you just said talk about privatisation of the possible routes. Specifically in relation to the contracts that are offered at the moment, given the current Clyde and Hebrides contracts structure and the Northern Isles structure, is it your belief that services in future tenders should be unbundled into more individual lots? Do you think that that would give better value to the taxpayer and the end-user? Yes, I absolutely agree with unbundled enough routes. I think that it would dramatically improve the service provision, looking at smaller pockets and smaller areas. As I said, I believe that some of those routes could be commercially viable and therefore be achievable by a private operator, so to speak, to come in and run those routes alongside some other ones. I think that the routes should be unbundled. I think that Transport Scotland and the Scottish Minister have been absolutely clear that they are going to continue with the bundle. Unbundling would provide opportunities, and there are some communities out there that would even want to run their own services. Unbundling has been ruled out. I think that it should be considered. There are merits, and there are advantages and disadvantages when it comes to looking at that. To date, the answer has been no. The clear steer from the authorities is that the CalMac bundle will remain in place. However, going forward, the community input and the communities should have some say into how best they want their communities served. Sticking with the current tendering system, the current contract system, it is my understanding that, under the current system, there is a requirement to use vessels owned by CMAL. If that is right, should that continue if the current tendering process continues? Pintland-Ferry is our owner and an operator. Therefore, we operate the vessels in which we have built for the routes. Operating vessels that are built to a certain specification and a new operator is to operate those vessels can be very difficult if that is not to an efficient spec that a private operator, so to speak, that I can speak for, could provide on the route. I think that it is quite difficult for somebody who is not CalMac as a new operator to come in and operate vessels that have been designed for that route. I think that it is difficult for somebody to come in and operate vessels that have been designed years before and not be allowed to operate their own vessels in the route. I think that the other issue to look at is the length of the tender. The current tenders are limited to six years and I think with a two-year extension. That is a very short payback time for another operator to bring in new vessels. The vessels that CalMac operator bespoke designed the route, etc. The resale of a vessel that is only used for five or six years, specifically designed to operate on the west coast of Scotland, could be limited. Final question from me at this stage. In your experience of the contracts that are being put out to consider, do you think that there is scope within those for innovation or sufficient scope for innovation such that to drive both commercial imperatives but also the product for the end-user? In respect of vessels or in respect of the package? Again, there is an issue of time to develop services outwith the current services specification. I reiterate my point about the vessels that are supplied by CMAL. Western Affairs are always looking at other opportunities and have been looking for many years. This is our next year's 50th year of service in the Gurdun and Root. We have looked at other opportunities on the west coast, but given the special nature of the subsidised competition, to do things commercially and against a subsidised operator is very difficult. That is true. To look at a commercial operation against a subsidised operation is very difficult. For a commercial operation, we always have to look forward. We always have to think about what the user needs and meet those needs and be very flexible in that approach. We operate catamarans on the Pyrlun 1 route, which has proven to be very successful for us. That is now our second vessel on the route. We look to do a rebuild programme every 10 years in order to maintain that. Flexibility is key in forward thinking about how you meet your users' needs. That is very important. Can I ask if either of your businesses have a bid for Scottish Government-supported ferry routes? We looked at one of the previous CalMac tenders. I do not know if it was 2006 or 2007, but we were kicked out at a very early stage. Can you explain a bit more about what your experience was of being involved in that tender process? I think that the issue has always been that the service specification is very prescriptive with regard to the vessels to be used, the timetables, the level of service, etc. For good reason. That is such that the ability to bring additional services or innovation is limited both with regard to the service level, the vessels and the time period of the tender. Helen, is there a reason why your business did not have a bid so far? I am not aware of the reasons, to be honest. I think that if I can only speak for my term with Pintland ferries but I think that, as Gordon has explained, that would be similar. That is some of the information that I can give back to you as I have checked. Is that why your experience is useful to understand the reasons? I thank the deputy convener, Fiona Hyslop. Good morning, and thank you for joining us. Can I just ask a very basic question about the Scottish ferry services? Obviously, there are lifeline services in there. Do you both agree that there is indeed for subsidy of ferry services in Scotland? Yes, I do believe that there is a need for subsidy for ferry services in Scotland. I do not believe that all routes are necessary to qualify for that, because some of them could be commercially viable. The route that we operate in Torcney is a commercially viable route, so I do believe that there is a place for subsidy throughout the system. Some routes will always need to be subsidised. The question is whether the quantum going forward has to be what it is just now and is anticipated to be going forward. That feeds into vessel designs and whether or not the existing fleet and the proposed new vessels deliver value for money. The through-life costs of the two 801, 802 and the four new boats will probably be more expensive than the boats that they are going to replace, although they should be more fuel-efficient. The subsidy is also a factor of revenue. The usage would never generate a commercial return, but, of course, the RET that was introduced previously had a massive shift in farebox revenue into taxpayer subsidy. Absolutely, there is a need for subsidised services. There is also that balance between cross-subsidy, because you may then want to use the commercial profits from one service to subsidise other services. That is obviously the issue around the bundling aspect, but I am keen to understand a bit more about those routes that you think could be commercially operated. In Gordon, you talked about the Islay route, particularly if you have a bundled cross-subsidised system, but you then have a very profitable whisky industry that is obviously benefiting from that subsidy, but they also do not have the capacity that they need or the frequency. Is that an example of where you can see addition? Instead of unbundling something like additionality, where there are additional services that could be provided on a more commercial basis? It is an all-encompassing question. What is the community's needs? It is first and foremost. The second step is the current service meeting those needs. That is where, if there is a gap between demand and supply opportunity for additional services, it is there. As far as I believe, all calm acts routes are subsidised. The line that you see in their annual accounts is just one large amount. It would be interesting to see that broken down on a route-by-route basis. The value of money understanding is whether that would identify on a route-by-route basis the value of taxpayers' money that goes into supporting those routes. That was my next question. Are you aware of any routes that you think are currently subsidised and supported by the Scottish Government that could operate at a profit commission? Again, it is not a very simple question given that the contract specifies the requirement of CalMac's vessels. There is a huge cost driver with regard to SAF, fuel, maintenance insurance, etc. Helen and I's vessels are very simple vessels that minimise those operational costs. However, if you are using CalMac vessels, they will need to be supported. West and Ferry's commercial service isle was based on a very simple operation with a very simple vessel design with the right number of staff operating at the right speed. If it is whisky, you're looking to transport. It's already sat in a warehouse for a number of years. If it takes a couple of hours to get from Isla to the mainland, that's not a huge issue. That's completely different if it supplies for the co-op. It's a just-in-time delivery. There are opportunities for additional services over and above the bundle. I think that the book is closed on whether or not the routes will be debundled. However, I still think that it should be investigated. Certainly, if you were given the flexibility on a debundled basis to look at a different tonnage, smaller boats and larger boats, West and Ferry's provides 32,000 sailings a year. We provide capacity through frequency, calm act of lower capacity through size of vessel. That's what we're looking at as a committee. We're looking at the needs from communities, from businesses, etc. We are looking at it fairly fresh. We know that the Government is being quite clear about its view, but it doesn't stop the committee having an investigation. Helen, do you want to reflect on those points that I was putting to Gordon Ross? Absolutely. Gordon Ross said that if an operator was to use the seamal vessels that are on the route at the moment, yes, they would most likely need to be subsidised because of the costs involved in operating those vessels, both with crewing and fuel efficiency. Whereas if you look to change a strategy with smaller, more frequent vessels to deliver your capacity, flexibility and reliability, but also to increase your frequency to and from communities, you can then start to make changes with less crew on each vessel and provide more efficiency as far as fuel as well from new modern vessels. That is where the difference lies about the vessels that we're operating. In my opinion, there is a real call for Lylender to want frequency, and that can assist with your commercial businesses on Lylins as well and with your flexibility and approach to that. The other thing about operating two vessels is that, when you've got your peak season, you're obviously very busy through the summer months with tourism. That tends to drop back in the winter, and you can then reduce your running costs over the winter if you're not operating so many sailings a day. It also provides redundancy for dry docking and refit periods. If you've got vessels that are interchangeable over a number of routes, that gives you that huge reliability and capacity of where you need it. Both of you operate routes in competition with the Scottish Government's supportive services. That obviously has an impact on your own businesses, and I'd be interested if you could share with the committee what impact that has on your own businesses and possible future expansion. You've already touched on the length of tenders for investment in vessels, etc. Let's maybe start with Helen, and then I'll ask Gordon, and then I'll come back to the convener. Operating in direct competition with the subsidised route to Orkney has an impact on how our business operates. We have to ensure that our fares are within the region of both the islanders and visitors are willing to pay, so we're not grossly overpriced, but we're not grossly underpriced. That is a real challenge. Obviously, our operating costs have significantly risen over the past year with the fuel cost rise, and that's something that we have to bear in mind now as well. In order to be competitive, we need to look at how we operate our service as far as fares are concerned. Our timetables, operating day and our crane arrangements are not necessarily a bad thing. I think that that's a really positive thing for businesses to try and remain competitive, because that's what we strive to be better. It gives us that encouragement to look for opportunities. Unlike the Pentland Firth, the CalMac service is a passenger only between Girurg and Denoun. I always believe that that is very important for those people who want to travel through passengers from Denoun Townsend at the railhead in Girurg. I remember that my position has always been that that service has to be again suitable to the needs. We are waiting from Transport Scotland. I need space assessment on the Girurg Denoun route. As I see it, a worse situation is slightly different, is the fact that there is a need for a passenger on the service and reiterate the points about fares, and the fact that we don't have that subsidy to protect the level of fares beyond an RPI, so that we are exposed to the same cost base. Can I go back a little bit and talk about the frequency? We have the four boats that operate in Girurg and Denoun. During the day, the timetable starts with one boat, two boats, three boats, then goes up to four boats. We have the ability of having the four boats operating, the ability to accelerate the service, so that we can deliver 12 sailings an hour in peak-peak demands. That is the benefit of having a fleet of four vessels. If there is for scene events or unforeseen events, there is a great deal of flexibility in that, whereas if you are to look at other routes that CalMac operate that have one large vessel, if there is an issue with that, that causes problems on that route, as well as the other routes in the west coast of Scotland that, as the vessels are cascaded to keep something going. I know that, when they were looking at the replacement vessel for Stornoway and the Stornoway Ellipoll service, the community very much wanted two vessels as opposed to the one large vessel. Those are the issues that need to resolve going forward with regard to what role the communities have in determining what ferry services they get. How is that again flexed over the period of contract? The vessels that CalMac are building now have a useful economic life of 25 to 30 years, but the demands on the island can change within five years. So how does the subsidised service and the state provision flex to meet the community's needs? Liam, you want to come in and then I'd like to come back to you on that, Gordon, in a minute, at Liam's first. Very briefly, I'll just pose this straight to Gordon Ross. You both talked about the frequency and the reliability of the services being important for the communities. In Gordon earlier on, you talked about a decision to use what you called very simple vessels. You've just talked about what I understand to be an almost direct competitor route next to where you are. Can you help the committee understand in terms of ability to sail in particular conditions and things like breakdowns, how does Western's offering compare with the direct competitor? I'd like to point out that my technical director would say that our vessels are not simple but have an optimised design. Reliability is a factor of wind speed, wind direction, waves, fetch and visibility. On top of that, it's how the weather impacts on sailing and birthing. All those factors all come together in periods of inclement weather. Wistnerferries has two links bans at McEnroy's Point in Gwrig and two links bans under Skeendon. That enables us to better manage and have alternatives in periods of bad weather. Our vessel design is different from Calmax's vessel design. Our route characteristics are slightly different. The Calmax service goes right up the middle of the Clyde. We can skirt the coastlines and use the lee. Our route characteristics are different. When it comes to cancelling services, it's done on the grounds of passenger safety and passenger comfort. I have no doubt that that discipline is applied by Calmax across their fleet. Our reliability is better for a number of reasons, but all operators don't take chances with regard to weather conditions and passenger safety. Are you able to help the committee to understand? Is there a substantive difference in terms of the figures on numbers of sailings, number of cancellations or is it not material? I think that it was last year that one of Calmax's Skeendon vessels was out for almost a year, which cut their service down by 50 per cent. I don't generally worry about Calmax's reliability figures. It's not my company. I do know that Western Freys' reliability figure is up to about 99.6 per cent, which on 32,000 sailings is—we're very proud of that—but at the same time, we don't take risks with customer safety and we don't sail when it's in clementon and safety do so. I don't doubt that. I just remembered what Monica wanted to ask you, so I'm going to defer my question so that I don't tread on her toes till I see whether she's asked it. I'm going to bring Monica in and I may come in afterwards. I may have changed my mind, but we'll see what happens. Thank you, convener. I wanted to initially ask about procurement, so if each of you could maybe tell us how your organisations go about specifying and procuring new vessels. If you can tell us how you think that differs from the approach adopted by CMAL, which, as we know, procures vessels for Scottish Government-supported ferry services, maybe Gordon and then Helen. Okay. We delivered two new boats in 2013 and part of that design brief was again to optimise the design to minimise our fuel use in our carbon footprint, but more importantly, to ensure that they fitted the shoreside infrastructure. Is it simple as that? Is it simple as that? You can't make that comment without explaining why that's different to what CMAL design. Is it such a throwaway line that I'm going to ask you to push on that? I believe that CalMac is trying to future-proof their service for the vessel's operational life, and some of their shoreside infrastructure needs to be renewed anyway. It is age-limited. I'm not speaking for CalMac here, and I may be wrong, but once you've understood what the needs are of the community that derives a vessel size, and if that vessel size is greater than the existing shore infrastructure, then they have to reinvest in that as well, but they're looking at bringing a new boat and a new infrastructure, and there's nothing wrong with that except that it costs a fortune. No, thank you for elaborating, and, obviously, I think why he's looking at, you know, what a modern sustainable ferry service looks like in the future, but, you know, we can't detach from the shoreside infrastructure that you mentioned, so is there anything you want to add before I move to Helen in terms of that wider infrastructure? I fully appreciate that CMAL and CalMac have a different mindset to western ferries. You know, we are a commercial company, you know, we have to pay for our new boats, we have to pay for our own shoreside infrastructure, you know, which is a very strong discipline when it comes to costs. CMAL and CalMac look at it differently, and that's absolutely fine, but there is a cost associated with it, but I would say that all CalMac and CMAL transports Scotland and the transport minister, they just want to deliver a ferry service that meets the needs of the community. And I suppose, before I do move to Helen, you've also got to think about the interest of shareholders, would that be correct? I think the company does make a decent profit. Yes, western ferries is a commercial, you know, unsubsidised company, you know. Our profits, you know, over the last, you know, I've been managing director for 18 years and it's since 2001, so that's about 21 years. I think we've invested over £20 million in new vessels, shoreside infrastructure and link spans. You know, that is tiny in comparison to the amounts that CMAL has to spend, but yes, we don't get subsidy for our vessels. But in terms of viability and profit, when I just look back to 2011-2012, western ferries had made over 17 million profits after tax and paid out over £5 million in dividends to shareholders, is that correct? I'll take you on, yes. Oh, you can let us know after if I've got that wrong. Thank you. Helen. Excuse me, the vessel procurement from Pentland ferries perspective is very much driven by our statistics and what we're carrying. And also, you know, where improvements can be made, we built the Pentland now in 2008 and then the Alfred came on in 2019. So in that time, you get to know your vessel, you get to know where you need to make improvements, you see where your business is growing and the clientele that you're attracting or would like to attract, you're looking at your carbon emissions and your fuel economy is a huge factor involved. But again, as Gordon said, you also look at your shoreside infrastructure. When the Alfred came into service in 2019, it fitted on the same shoreside infrastructure that the Pentland did, and that was not a mistake that was deliberately built for that reason. But I think you always have to look at your statistics, you always have to look at your numbers and see, you know, where you can expand and where you need that capacity to expand, not just to meet the current needs but, you know, for in our businesses the next 10 years is what you're looking for as well. To second what Gordon said as well about shoreside infrastructure, I think you do have to be very careful when you make amendments to shoreside infrastructure and have considerable spend on that. You're meeting the needs for now, but you also need to meet the needs for the long term as well. It's not, you don't make significant changes for the next five to 10 years, you're looking further ahead than that in order to be efficient and viable. So making changes to shoreside infrastructure to accommodate larger ferries, for example, may work just now, but is that something that you're looking for, the next ferry replacement as well? You're adding on spend at the next ferry replacement to you to change your thought process significantly. So it's about future proofing and looking forward, not just for short term but medium term and long term. That's helpful thanks, Helen. You've both mentioned safety this morning a number of times. I just want to ask you, Helen, about what happened last summer, not to get into it too much, but it's probably fair to say there was a bit of a safety scandal. You've mentioned procurement in terms of getting to know the vessel and understanding the vessel, so could you maybe explain briefly what happened with the Pentalina and what lessons have been learned from that? I think this relates back to an attempt to perhaps sell that vessel on to CMAL, so I don't want to get that wrong, but if you can maybe give us your understanding of that. Yeah, just so I'm clear on what you're asking, you're asking about the safety scandal on the Pentalina. Yeah, at the start, I think in response to colleagues, you said that safety is paramount. You're here today, there was a bit of a safety scandal last year, I'm just wondering what lessons were learned from that. Did the company learn any lessons from that game? Yeah, absolutely, we always are, we're always learning lessons from things. What happened in that event with the Pentalina was also overemphasised, shall we say, in the media as well, if what I would say was the case. We take safety very seriously, as all ferry operators do, not just because it's mandatory, but because it is our responsibility to ensure that our passengers and crew are kept in the safest manner at all times. In short, we're always learning from these experiences. Okay, thank you. One of the reasons why I'm asking, and I will declare my member of the RMT parliamentary group and I'm proud to be a trade unionist, my understanding is that it is because of information that the RMT brought to light to the maritime and coastguard agency that these safety deficiencies were detected, so I'm just wanting to understand what is your company's culture and attitude towards trade unions? We talked about procurement, clearly the fair work agenda is important in Scotland. What is your relationship with the RMT? Again, I'm fairly new in the role of management directors, I know I only came into role in June, so what went on in the past and from that perspective I can't really discuss, but I'm not, you know, no disrespect, but I'm not sure what the relevance of the question is in respect to this committee. Just to clarify, if I can't very, very briefly, it's just because we're talking about safety and the future provision of ferry services, so clearly issues around engagement with trade unions, workforce and the wider community are important, but I think that Ms Inkster is giving her answer. I think that Monica is difficult, we're talking about designing construction of ferries, and I think that if that's a question you want to ask pendant ferries, I would suggest it might not be in this particular session. I think that Helen has been clear that safety and Gordon has been clear, will be designed into their boats as a prerequisite because their passengers are important. I'm very happy to let you develop it out with this, but I think you're pushing on an area that I'm not sure is relevant to this part of it. Just for the record, I do disagree with the convener, which happens from time to time, but in the interests of time, I won't pursue it further just now, but I think issues around procurement design involving the workforce and the trade unions, I think that's crucial to that. We might have different views around this table, but I'm glad to have the chance to put that on the record. Thank you, convener. Thank you, Monica, and I hope our disagreements will be limited and shortened duration. I'd just go back to some of the points that I made just on design. When you identify, and this is going to be to Gordon, the requirement for a new boat is you identified new boats, what's the process for doing it? Do you work out what the passenger needs are and then get a simple spec? How does that work within your company? We had two boats built at Ferguson's in 2001 and 2003, and that really represented a sort of step change back then with regards to the layout of our vessels, the passenger accommodation, the engine room, et cetera, et cetera. When we looked at the boats in 2013, it was really updating that design for changes in regulations. It's always been the western ferry's methodology of providing additional capacity through frequency, so we can just now meet up, as I say, an increase in demand. We're not, as I say, the four vessels aren't used as much as they could, so we have that ability going forward to increase our delivery with the existing vessels. If we were to look at vessels again, you're looking at the design of the vessel, the engines, the fuel efficiency, the safety requirements are all fed into a design. In 2013, when we last looked at the boats, we had an existing design that, faithfully, just had to be updated within the confines of, this is our shoreside infrastructure, and the boats must obviously be able to use the existing infrastructure from day one. Allyn, do you want to explain, because your designs are different to other standard designs? No comment about their suitability, because you've chosen them, but how did you go about choosing that process? Obviously, when the pintlinger was designed, her fuel efficiency was one of the biggest driving factors for that, but also our stability is a catamaran for the route. That initiated the catamaran process, so to speak, for pintling ferries. When we moved on to the Alfred, it was quite clear that the vessel type worked for the route and provided the fuel efficiency and crew efficiency, so to speak, that assisted with operating an efficient service. The real change from the pintlinger to the Alfred was just that it was a bigger and improved version to meet the needs of our passengers and of the crew, providing more space, better catering facilities, better crew accommodation and aspects like that. Having identified the passenger need and the demand for it, both of you then went ahead and designed about it. I mean, why I'm slightly pushing at this, I watch the design of 801 and 802, which has been done by CalMac, then it's gone up to CML, then it's gone to Transport Scotland, they've all had a measure in it and they've all changed slightly the demands and we've ended up with a ferry that has got more capacity for passengers than have ever been used on that route before and a demand for vehicles on one particular service, which is probably only used for about 10 per cent of the year, whereas you've gone for smaller, more flexible designs, which can be ramped up and ramped down as required. Do you think that the Government procurement process for ferries is cumbersome and do you think that's a way future ferries for Scotland should be built, Gordon? I honestly can't express an opinion on that, convener. It's very much for Transport Scotland, CML and CalMac to look after their routes and do the best by their customers and the taxpayer. Helen, are you going to plead the fifth on that one as well? Maybe just a question here. You talked about, I don't think the word was simple vessels, it was complex vessels that are made simple to operate. Do you like the process of having more vessels, which gives you incredible flexibility to ramp up and down? Do you think that that's the way forward that we should be looking at providing services across Scotland, Gordon? I think that very much works for our route. I wouldn't imagine three ferries going back and forward to Barrow or Southview is from open. The benefit of having the four boats is that it deals with unforeseen and unforeseen events, planned maintenance and unplanned maintenance. Having the four link spans is exactly the same. It gives us an alternative birthing options, depending on the weather. It means that we can do our maintenance and link span and it doesn't affect the service. The ability to ramp up, you'll all be aware of the issues with the rest and be thankful. When there's an issue there, there's an influx of people coming down to use the ferry service as opposed to the road alternative. We can very quickly respond, because our crews are shore-based, they all live and don't. We can call an extra men to provide additional services. The last closure was in 2001 and we were still coming. We had just come out of one of the Covid lockdowns and we were providing 32 sailings a day. There was a problem with the rest and we were thankful. The next day we provided 131 sailings and that is the benefit of the smaller vessels. The second one depends on the routes that you're looking at for vessel size and type. If there are two smaller ones, they are more of a benefit than a one larger one. To go back a little bit to reliability, because it all comes under this question. I think that Liam asked earlier on about reliability as well. The Pentland and the Alfred both have four engines, so we can operate. We could potentially have two engines out of service and still provide a service on board. That's an aspect that's important as well. If you build a vessel that you have that redundancy already built in, you're not necessarily pulling it out of service for technical reasons. You can maintain the service and either go into your technical teams overnight or they can actually work on board at the time, depending on the faults. That's quite an important point and that's worked really, really well for Pentland ferries, is to have that redundancy built into each vessel at the time. Gordon Newell also asked to make comments about freight, which I think will be quite interesting. In the summer, getting lorries on and off at the required time to meet deadlines is quite difficult when there's an influx of passengers. Do you think there's the scope to look at a freight service within the existing service to provide relief at peak times on key rates? On Isle, the peak season for whiskeys is during the winter. On Isle service, during the summer, you have the visitors and you have the community that is moving back and forward. It's the winter when the distilleries are really on full production. On Isle, there's a new distillery under completion. The Port Elwyn is being demothballed, is that correct? Is that the right terminology? And there's plans for two more distilleries on Isle. I personally don't think that even with the two new boats going in, there will be a sufficient capacity for those. I haven't seen the feelings, but that's certainly the feedback that I'm getting from the hauliers. Despite the fact that there are two new boats coming in, I still think that there's going to be an issue of deck space for freight, hence why a freight service to Isle would be attractive to the distilleries and the hauliers. Will or not it be done on a purely commercial basis? I'm quite happy to look at that again. CalMac has the winter dry dock programme, so even with the two new boats, there's going to be two to three months every year in the winter when these new boats won't be available because of the dry docking. Therefore, the additional freight boats take that away, which then opens the deck space, or the deck space is there for the communities. The tourist season in Isle is growing all the time, so that on top of the two new boats service, I think, would meet everybody's needs and the industry's needs on Isle. Helen, do you want to add anything to that? I don't know each of the routes on CalMac's Inhabities, but I don't know what to answer it fully, but freight services should be looked at if there are already pinch points for passenger capacity. It certainly could be a benefit of the statistics. Gordon, I just wanted to push you on one comment that you made about crewing and the fact that the crews live locally. A lot of the seamal boats have crews living on board, which I remember hearing some good reasons for it and some bad reasons for it. You suggested that there was more flexibility to call crews in if they weren't tied to a specific boat. Is that your opinion across those smaller boats? Is there a stage when the boat gets big enough that living on crewing is justified? Do you have a view on that? One of the benefits of the bundle was the ability of the CalMac vessels to cascade onto other routes for foreseen and unseen events. If the crew is based on the boat, then that cascading is so much easier. On the smaller routes, there's no need for the shorter crossing, there's no need for crew accommodation. Given the lifeline nature of CalMac services and the cascadability of the vessels, which will come back in 2026, when the shoreside infrastructure then crewing on the vessels is going to be the way forward, the bigger question is do they have to be crewed to the levels that they currently are? The crewing and the muster list is very much dependent on the design and a safe evacuation and the timetable. There may be possibilities to reduce the number of crew who live on boards if the vessel design is different. If a vessel is limited to the harbour and the infrastructure that the harbour goes into, it can't be cascaded down onto other routes. Therefore, you would question crewing on those who are limited by infrastructure to certain ports. Is that what you're saying or is that a step too far? I don't think that I'm saying that at all. One of the reasons that the bundle is the bundle is the lifeline nature. That means that vessels break down, that a mechanical item. To keep the service going, the boats have to be able to move from one route to another route. By 2026, it is hoped that, with the four new vessels, the 801, 802 and the four new vessels that are ordered, that cascadibility is back to the shore infrastructure across the network. As such, those vessels can relieve for each other. Helen, do you want to add anything to that? The topic of crew accommodation on board, it very much depends on, for me, the vessel size and the certification requirement of the crew. With best intention, it would be local employment in the islands or local to the ferry ports, etc., with incommutable distance. However, from my experience, both the pitliferies and outwith, it was a benefit to have crew accommodation during the periods of Covid. Therefore, your continued operating and your crew lived, so to speak, as a family on board without going home at night and ensuring that we could maintain a service for free at that point. On the larger vessels, your certification needs are more, and you are looking for bigger tickets for your crew. Ideally, again, that would be local. However, if that is not the case, and you are then starting to have to look for accommodation shore side, it can complicate how it is done. For your smaller ferries, where you can source your crew locally, it is a great benefit and therefore not necessarily required. To rule it out entirely, from my perspective and my operation, I would be reluctant to do that. We actually increased the crew accommodation from the Pentland out on to the Alfred just to ensure that we could keep all the crew on board regardless of where they were from. We do employ a huge number of local crew, but there is not always the availability there. You need to be open minded to that as well. From my perspective, crew accommodation is important, but it depends on your vessel's size and your application requirements. Natalie, I will come to you next. We have touched on passengers' needs quite a lot this morning in terms of reliability, frequency of service and size of vessels. Think about the service as a whole in general. Do you think that commercial ferry operators are better attuned to passenger needs than state-supported services? If so, can you explain why? Can you give any relevant examples of a time when your companies have reacted to changing circumstances in a way that a state-supported service either could or would not? I will go to Helen first. I would not go as far as saying that we are more attuned to the passengers' needs. I am not aware of how the public fund operators monitor those needs. From a commercial perspective, we have to be on the ball because we have to ensure that we are not seeing those passenger numbers drop and if they are, what are the reasons for that? I will not go as far as saying that we are more, but we have to be very switched on to it. We have the benefit of providing flexibility as well. We can change our timetables without huge amounts of notice or any other aspects on board as far as passenger services are required. I cannot give you an example of when there was a difference between a subsidised unit and ourselves as far as passenger needs were made. I agree. I do not think that we are any more or less attuned to passenger needs than CalMac and Northlink. We are more dependent on passengers because we are a commercial firm and we are not subsidised. I think that the best person to ask that question was the passengers. I am not being in any way at all facetious, but as an example, when I went to 2011, the Dyn residence had the choice of Western Affairs vehicle service and CalMac's vehicle service that was withdrawn in 2001. Even then, we had roughly 90 per cent of the market because we would do things like your tickets were not assigned to a vehicle. It could be used on any vehicle. Our tickets never ran out of date. Whereas CalMac did have restrictions on using vehicle-identified and timelines. It is things like that. We did differentiate ourselves from CalMac. I think that over the course of the inquiry, we will be speaking to all relevant parties, so we will be seeking that information. It is important to get a view from your side of how you would perhaps go about understanding customers' needs and how you would act on that. Your answers have been helpful, so unless you get anything to add. I live in Dynun. I shop in Dynun and I walk around in Dynun. That is the reg feedback. I live in Dynun, so I am as dependent on Western Affairs services as everybody else is in the community. That is a very valuable lesson. I am invisible. People know who I am. People in Dynun are not shy of what it means coming forward and raising their concerns or thanking us, which is another good part of living in the community. We provide in hours ambulance service free to the NHS. Our timetable is quite extensive. It is half past 10, Monday through Thursday and half past 12, but the local hospital will phone us up and say, can you come and do a sailing for us? We have a standby crew and they will take the ambulance across out of hours. That is greatly appreciated by the community and, again, it is free of charge. I have another question, but I have had a lot of questions, so I do not want to... Does anyone else? Jackie, I will let you go now. Thank you. The convener probably asked half of the question that I was going to ask, so if you can forgive me. It is in regards to when the committee put out the calls for views on the ferry services in regards to the private sector ferry operators like yourselves. Some folk came back raising concerns about the crew arrangements. Do you employ folk locally? Helen, you have already said that local employability is desirable. From what I was getting earlier, I think that I know the answer to you both, but it is your chance to tell us, do you employ folk locally? Are the work conditions as good, or, if not better? Do you guys pay the living wage? Do you think that the concerns that have been raised are misplaced? Helen, I will go to you first. Yes, we do employ locally and we strive to, if we can. Our current messle of Alfred is equipped with enough cabins on board. This is for sea-going staff and enough cabins on board to house the full crew complement, if it needs to. However, we have many crew members who are walking distance from the vessel, who it ties up at night. We still employ a few officers from Europe who have been very long standing members of our crew for over 15 years. We have a variety, but local employment is what we are looking for. We are living wage employers as well. Thank you. Just everything that Helen said, but 90 per cent of our employees, we employ some to people, and 90 per cent of those live in Dynun, and another 10 per cent live in Inverclyde, so I would say that 100 per cent of our crew are local. Just finally, I will give you your chance to have your say. Is there anything else that you think that the committee should be thinking about in regard to this inquiry? How do we consider the best way that the Scottish Government can support a modern and sustainable network of ferry services for Scotland? If you had a magic wand, what would you like us to consider? From my perspective, I would like to see consideration for each route individually. I mean, I have already mentioned unbundling. I think that that would be a good step forward for each of the communities, because that is what we are striving to achieve, is to create good, effective links to the remote communities. With that, looking at reliability and frequency, I feel that this is looking forward to our modern ferry service. Thank you, Gordon. Do you have anything to add? A bit like the peddling first, the Gurd Dynun routes, both of us, are exempt or not yet in part of the ANET scheme. I would like to bring that forward, especially given the cost of living situation that we find ourselves in just now. I have mentioned the additionality in looking at services beyond the bundle that the freight service to Islay has won. Going forward, it is how the consultation process with the islanders is developed to give them a say in the ferry service. I know that SeaMall in Transport Scotland has come back to a lot of consultation around the fares, the services, the frequencies, but I think that they always lose out if there is a disagreement with what they see, how they want their ferry service to be and what has been said that it has been dictated to them. The lifeline ferry services are critical to the economic wellbeing, and so they have to flex. It is something that the peddling ferries and the western ferries say that we can flex our services. We have continually added additional sailings as people want to get to Glasgow Airport earlier or get into Central Glasgow earlier. We have done that flexing. The communities are becoming more and more vocal about the limitations of their ferry service. You know that it is good news. There is 81, 82 and 2 will come on. There are four new boats going into the CalMac fleet, which I think will do a lot for the resilience to the west coast of Scotland. That is a positive, but there has to be flexibility and that the islanders have to have the ability to make changes to their ferry services. I agree that the islanders and the communities in the islands have to have that input, but it is also really important that the operator has significant input. By operator, I mean the crew and the shoreside staff and the managers who look after those aspects, because it is very much the boots on the ground that see what works and what does not. I think that that is an invaluable asset to have in the decision-making, because they are local to it and they see it. That is incredibly important. Not only the customer, but their oxygen. Thank you. I will put it on record that I took part of your question, for which I apologise profusely. I will try to improve at the next meeting. I will come to Liam and then go to Monica. One of the things that the committee is looking at is future ferry provision in Scotland. The deputy convener asked a good question earlier about if you have any plans to expand your routes. I may be wrong, but I am not sure if I heard an answer. First of all, Helen Inkster, do you have any plans in place to expand the current routes that you are doing? We are always looking for opportunities to expand on the routes that we are carrying out at the moment and elsewhere. That is active all the time. Gordon MacDonald, thank you. Just to pick up the issue of affordability, you will be aware that the Scottish Government's fair fairs review is currently on-going looking at the prospects of travel discounts, including public funded free travel for transport services, including ferries. Currently, I understand that a limited number of islanders are entitled to free ferry travel, so I am keen to hear your views on that. If you would welcome the expansion of such a scheme, Helen, and then Gordon MacDonald. I think that with the fairs as rising, what is our nevel that we are going to do now because of fuel costs, etc., for private operators, there is probably a look at that, of where we can expand fairs for island residents. Speaking from a minority perspective, we do not have arity on the Pitland First route, as we are all aware, but on the end of island routes, I know that they are providing now free ferry travel for up to 22s. It is helpful to look at that, and yes, we are welcome for further investigation into that. We are happy to talk to anybody, but the issue with bus services and rail services, with free travel, is what comes back to the operator. I know that that is a big issue, but since you asked the question, I would like to raise the issue of the SPT concession records, where the funding is being cut. The discounted fare was, I think, going to treble for those who have reached that special age that qualifies for the concession record. That is an SPT issue, but the funding for that is drying up. If you are looking at fairs and affordability fairs and free fairs, can you have a look at the way that the SPT concessionary fair scheme is running and, hopefully, continue that and have that funded going forward? Thank you for raising that. Obviously, our theme is looking at the sustainability of services, so we have to think about funding and what things look like, not just in the short term, but in the longer term as well. Thank you for putting that on the record. I am not going to cut anyone else off. Gordon, a quick question. You talked about unrestricted tickets and ambulance services and laying on additional travel, sorry, additional ferries for that. How do you cover that financially? Is that just a beneficial service you provide? We have always provided the out-of-hours service, and it is something that our crews are delighted to provide. Yes, there is a cost of it, but we are part of the community, and we have to reflect that. We are very involved with local sponsorship and local events, et cetera, et cetera, so the out-of-hours ambulance service is just part of that connection with the community. I am interested because you mentioned it, and I know that CalMac is looking to charge islanders for delivering parcels on to island's low-inhabited islands from Amazon and third parties such as that, and they are suggesting to take them over to Rassie every year, which would cost a quarter of a million pounds to islanders to provide that service rather than to make the lorry go across with one package. You would view that as part of being in the community. The Rassie is slightly different to Denin Gurg. The Royal Mail deliveries come as part of their existing business. I am just interested in the fact that you are saying that there are some responsibilities about being part of the community, and I welcome your comments on that. If there are no other questions, I think that we have got to the end of that part of the committee, so I would like to thank you both for coming to this committee and sharing your views and your expertise, and the committee will continue this look at ferries over the next few months. I will briefly suspend the meeting to allow change over for the witnesses to leave anyway. Welcome back. Our next item of consideration is a negative instrument, the financial assistance for environmental purposes Scotland number two order. The instrument is laid under the negative procedure, which means that its provisions will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul them. No motions to annul have been laid. Do any member have any comments on the instruments? Just a very brief comment, convener, which is that I do think to make progress in this area. We are going to need community approaches and certainly seeing funding mechanisms that are available for registered social landlords, for the public sector and to establish heat networks are going to be really important because a lot of the focus at the moment is understandably on individual households getting assistance and applying for finance, but it is perhaps some of these more broader community-wide approaches that I think are going to crack the nut in terms of getting retrofitting and decarbonisation. I do not have any specific comments on the SI beyond the need to accelerate this work. Mark, just to clarify, the need to accelerate and to look globally across the whole sector is the point that you are making. You are not wishing to object or make criticisms of that. Those are just observations. Yes, this is a particular area where community-wide approaches are needed and the ability of RSLs and councils and others to drive this is important to get that scale of roll out within our communities. I think that those mechanisms will enable that funding to come in and achieve that scale. We can make those comments when we are on this. Can we make those comments on this, looking at the glass? Yes, they have been made. The comment is on the record, I think, therefore, is the point that we do not need to take any further than that if everyone is happy with that. That concludes that item unless anyone has any other comments. The next item is a gender item. Sorry. I have to formally invite you to agree that the committee does not wish to make any further recommendations in relation to these instruments. Apparently that is the procedural way to do it. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Therefore, I will now move on to a gender item, which is a consideration of a petition PE1866 to introduce legislation to improve bus travel for wheelchairs users. I refer members to paper 6, which provides some background information and outlines possible options. The petition was laid by Daryl Cooper in May 2021. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation so that wheelchairs users are able to face frontwards when travelling on a bus. I would now invite any views of the committee on this and including the options that were set out in paragraph 13 of the paper. Does anyone want to make a comment on this at all? I do think that we should look at this. It was quite an issue that I was necessarily familiar with, but it is quite clear in terms of the petition that this would impact on a number of people. There may be explanations and understandable explanations of the situation, but I do not think that it is entirely clear. The background paper was very helpful that we have received on this, but I would not want this petition to be readily dismissed just because we do not understand the full issues around why the requirements are currently the case. I do recognise the reserve nature of some of this, but I do not think that that should stop us having a closer look at this. I have a couple of suggestions when we have heard all the things say. Monica, do you want to make a comment? I agree with the deputy convener. There are some things that we do not know the answer to that might be more technical in nature around design. We should definitely ask questions around that. I just wanted to pay tribute to Daryl Cooper for bringing the petition to Parliament. It was really good that the citizens participation and public petitions committee, I hope that I have the title correct now, reached out to our MSP colleague Pam Duncan Glancy, who is a wheelchair user and was able to share her lived experience both in terms of the issue about front facing but also when wheelchair users are being limited to any given service. Pam Duncan gave the example of her and her husband not being able to travel together. It got me thinking about people with care and responsibilities and people with children who cannot travel together. I think that the idea of writing to COSLA to understand how local authorities intend to use the powers available to them in the transport act. There are things that we can pursue. I am patient of disability equality Scotland, so I am keen to see what we can to get some answers and to get some progress for people. I struggle when I was reading this paper, I think that all committee members did to understand if there was an industry norm about the way buses were laid out for wheelchair users, whether it allowed them to be forward facing or they had to be rear facing or sideways facing. I want to know in my mind if that was a safety implication and whether there was safety involved with that. I think that it would be useful if we could find out some more information on whether there is a safety implication on the way that is laid out. I think that it would also be helpful, as Monica has suggested, to write to COSLA to find out how local authorities might wish to use their new powers under the transport act Scotland regarding bus service improvement partnerships and see if they have any plans on it. I also think that, because the UK Government has confirmed it will complete a review of public sector vehicles accessibility regulations by 2023, we could write to the Department of Transport to highlight the concerns raised by the petitioner in relation to the rules and ask them to bear that in mind and also ask the Government to be clear about if there are regulations relating to this. Once we have that information, we could come back and consider the petition in a bit more depth, with a bit more knowledge and understanding than we have at the moment. Would the committee be content for the clerks and I to work through that and come back to the committee in due course? I think that that is useful and I thank the petitioner to bring that forward to us. The stage concludes our public part of the meeting, so we will now move into private session.