Chamber and committees

The Scottish Government’s preference has always been for greater devolution of rail powers to Scotland.

It would probably be wise, convener, to return to that question when we know the formation of the new UK Government and what will happen to the bill. However, I suspect that, whatever party forms the UK Government, the principle of that bill will advance in some shape or form.

I have reflected on that point previously. There are changes in public transport use for both bus and rail: weekends are becoming more popular for leisure reasons, and we have had a period with lots of storms, which can affect people’s use. We anticipated that spring might have been a better time to assess where things were, which is why we extended the pilot to March.

As you read the report, you will see that the figures are slightly down for the spring period. We are not quite sure whether that is weather related—we do not know and I do not want to assume that—but you will see that in the full report. In the meantime, I ask Fiona Brown to answer the question about when to survey people and why.

I think that there is a case to be made for both.

I have listened to others in the ferry sector, not least the ferries community board. I think that a strategic link, with Transport Scotland ferry officials joining CMAL, as was set out in the ferries community board project Neptune report, has merit. I reiterate that I was not involved in signing off the final report, but I responded as Minister for Transport, before I became cabinet secretary. There are a number of key steps that we have to take in all the ferry process areas. I took the decision to move on the CHFS contract, which affects CalMac in particular.

Over many years prior to this, I have been involved in other portfolios that involved reorganising and bringing together different bodies. That clearly presents a level of disruption, and it is happening here at a time when we are bringing in six new ferries and are about to go into procurement for the small vessel replacement. There is an issue with timing.

With regard to the process, sorting the CHFS contract is a priority. You know that we have had to delay that, convener; I have written to the committee—

You wrote to me, and I took the opportunity, in my reply, to set out where we are with that. That contract in itself presents governance issues, in particular for CalMac.

With regard to the timing, therefore, if we want to take certain steps—such as a merger, for example, although I do not want to set hares running that that is happening overnight or anything like that—there are governance issues that would have to be addressed for legal reasons in order for us to do certain things. The order in which we do things, therefore, is important.

I am conscious of the need for preparation with regard to what things look like as we move forward. In the meantime, we need to ensure that there is far tighter communication in terms of engagement and planning. That has to happen for practical reasons, because of the deployment of the new ferries that are coming on stream between now and 2026, but it is also important from a governance, policy, culture and management point of view. That is why we are seeing far more active involvement, dialogue and engagement with the ferries community board; I know that the committee sets a lot of store by the board’s views and respects the importance of its role.

I cannot give the committee a decision as to what is happening, but I reassure you that those options are there for us to consider. I want to ensure—given that we are talking about people’s jobs and careers—that I do not unnecessarily worry or perturb anybody by my remarks. I just want to ensure that the committee, in holding me to account, knows that I am very much alive to the opportunities that there will be to try to simplify and rationalise the process.

As I know from previous experience, that is not simply about bringing bodies together physically or organisationally; it is about their vision and their culture, and how that helps the delivery and impact. I am very keen that we improve the delivery, impact and service.

I understand the calls for rationalisation and the import of that. As a Government minister, I am also conscious of our responsibilities to ensure that the services are delivered. I reassure the member that I have taken an acute interest in port and harbour development, and the investment and activity in that regard is extensive.

The committee will be aware that work, particularly at Port Askaig, is about to commence in preparation for the Islay ferries. That is very important improvement work, and our harbours and ports deserve that investment and activity. CMAL is organising that preparation work, along with Argyll and Bute Council, with a view that ferries to Islay will be going into Port Ellen over that summer period. If—as I have—you have travelled to Islay, you will also have seen the work at Kennacraig. Investments are taking place in a number of ports to make sure that we have improved the port and harbour structure.

At the same time, if you have an operational focus, particularly on major activity, with the delivery of six new vessels by 2026 and the harbour developments to support them, that might not be the best time to go into mass reorganisation activity. My imperative as a minister is to make sure that there is far more regular and active engagement with Transport Scotland, CMAL and CalMac in those areas.

I know that it can be frustrating and that you want things to happen overnight when you produce a committee report. I also know that that has been a recommendation previously. However, in terms of activity, CMAL is operating very well, for example, with the northern isles ferry services—NIFS—network in relation to the procurement of the four vessels from Turkey, which is going well and to plan.

On the live action that is required, I am barely in office as transport minister; I cannot remember the exact date that I came into office, but I do not think that it has quite been a year yet. It will be a year this month. I have tried to progress a lot of the major issues, of which this was a significant one, but I cannot, unfortunately, give you the answer that you are looking for, as to when that will happen, just now.

We know that car use will continue in a rural country such as Scotland, particularly because of our geography. We are encouraging people to use electric vehicles, and we have ambitions in that regard. There is a lot more to do in the delivery of the public charging network, which we will be improving and increasing. That is part of our climate change policies.

However, we do not just need to encourage more people to use electric vehicles; we need to encourage and support public transport use. We are simplifying rail fare structures and are substantially reducing fares by trialling the removal of peak rail fares.

However, not everywhere is served by rail, so we have to think about other modes of transport. We support our bus system. We have £430 million of investment going into the bus network. That activity is primarily around concessionary travel. The committee has looked closely at different aspects of that. The interesting thing will be what young people’s experiences are and whether they continue to use buses once they are old enough that they no longer get a free bus pass.

The real challenge for us is how we use the substantial amount of public investment that goes into our bus network in a way that makes services more sustainable and reliable not just in our cities but in our rural and semi-rural areas.

In terms of the fair fares review, some of the most interesting aspects were in the international paper about what other countries do. Some countries have entirely municipal systems, which makes them much easier to control. We must use the investment in a smart way to ensure that our bus companies are not only sustainable but can thrive and grow their patronage. How do we get more working-age fare-paying people to get on our buses? What would the subsidies look like for that approach? There would need to be a balance between support for our older people, who rely on our bus systems, and for working-age people. We would need to consider whether we would support the latter, and, if so, whether the balance between the two is right.

The more that you grow the patronage, the more we will rely on bus companies. Given that it is a deregulated sector, it is likely that every part of Scotland will do something that reflects its area, regardless of whether that is through a franchising scheme or a bus service improvement plan. However, we will continue to rely on bus companies, so we need to support them to work in a profitable way so that their services and their availability improves.

The bus issue is a big-ticket item for the Government, the Parliament and all political parties. As we did in the fair fares review debate, we need to consider how, collectively, we work together to ensure that we get more people using buses. We need people not to use their car or to use it less in order to meet our targets. The issue is getting and will continue to get a lot of my attention, and I would like to work with the committee on how we can best deliver that.

I hold the ferries community board in high regard. Indeed, I met it immediately after I gave my statement to the Parliament.

I note that a direct award is a preferred route and is still not a final decision. It is a preferred option, subject to due diligence, which is progressing well. There do not look to be any problems in being able to do it, but we are not at the final decision yet.

As I said, immediately after I made the parliamentary statement, I met the ferries community board in the Parliament. I owed it to the board, because of the reviews that it had undertaken, to explain why I had taken the decision that I had.

There has been a consultation on the direct award, which has just finished. Its publication will be in the coming weeks, so you will see that, as well.

I have regular meetings with the ferries community board, and its main focus is to have a resilient and reliable service. By and large, we have that, but, when it is not resilient or reliable, that has a major impact, as we all know. I am very conscious of that.

The ferries community board is actively involved in identifying its role as a body within the new award. Indeed, just on Friday, there was a working session with the ferries community board to help to establish its role.

I reassure the committee that we do not have to wait until the award is given to see improvements. The interim chief executive of CalMac is progressing the improvement and enhancement plan, which commences regardless of the direct award.

The issue that the ferries community board particularly wants to address is the culture of a management that is not responsive to where the board is. CalMac has been working hard over the past year to ensure that that relationship and engagement is not just one-way traffic, so that it is about not just communicating what problems there are, but how we might resolve and improve them.

For example, there was an issue in the committee’s report about whether ferry spaces could be held for islanders in busy seasons. Tourism is very good in Scotland. We know that; we have a record year, which is looking very positive, but it is about confidence. If the ferries are busy and locals cannot get on for immediate personal issues, such as health and others, that is a challenge. There have always been opportunities to get on for particularly immediate health issues, but there are other personal reasons why islanders might need to get on. A pilot has been running for some islands to identify how reserving places could work—and work well. Should that prove successful, it will be rolled out.

We do not necessarily need to wait for the direct award to make the improvements that we want to see. It will entrench the improvements in the contracts and reliable services that the ferries community board wants. I will be meeting the board again to ensure not only that is it informed about how we have got to now but that it will have a key role in the next contract.

The route map is what I referred to when I discussed the important work that we are doing with COSLA—it is a joint initiative. I am looking forward to working on that and delivering it with Councillor Gail Macgregor, who leads on that for COSLA. COSLA is keen for it to be published and we expect to be able to do that by the autumn, which is what we set out in the climate change plan, as I indicated in my previous answer.

I will unpack some of the points that you made, but you have probably conflated different issues. I have made it clear that Inverness to Nairn, including the Nairn bypass, was always treated as separate from the rest of the A96 review. The A96 review is subject to pre-election guidance, but I am keen for it to be published when we can do so, to inform interests in that area.

On the Inverness to Nairn upgrade, including a Nairn bypass, work on procurement continues, so I can talk about that. As I said in the meeting on Friday night—people there were very engaged; they are quite rightly impassioned about what they want to see—there is not a pause on that; indeed, the made orders that were published on 12 March have not been challenged. We as a Government are therefore in the position now to proceed to the purchase of land to develop that part of the route. I have also said that, in the next few weeks, we should be able to announce the made orders for the Inshes to Smithton road connection, which is complementary to that route.

I went to Nairn as it was important that I heard what locals were saying. The event was well organised by The Inverness Courier and was well attended. It was also extremely well chaired, and we covered a lot of ground.

In relation to suggestions about how the work can progress, it is clear that we are now in the procurement phase; we will be able to develop the purchase of the land, and then the work will move into procurement. The contract is quite large, and it is a challenge in relation to the available finances.

An important point that I took from the meeting was about giving priority to the Nairn bypass part of the Inverness to Nairn route. There was a strong feeling that work on that should start first. There are different reasons as to whether that can and should happen, but it was important to hear what people said.

I am very familiar with Nairn—I have holidayed there frequently. I was meant to be there during storm Babet and, unfortunately, I did not manage to get there then. It is interesting because it has the road going right through it. It was clear from the meeting that, because of the delays and issues there, there was a real strength of feeling that the bypass part of the route, which is a big contract, should be first. The issue is then whether to break up the contract or have one big contract. I hope that that is the next stage of thinking about procurement. It was helpful to hear what people were saying.

I am sorry that you missed the meeting, convener. I am surprised that you waited until I had left before you arrived, but I am sure that there were good reasons why you could not be there.