Chamber and committees

Finally, because I am conscious of time, I ask Russell McCutcheon whether he wants to comment on what he has just heard.

I think that the minister has been helpful in setting out the specific requirements for the order. Fines going to the consolidated fund is not unusual in such circumstances. The explanation about the attachment of the order to legislation that has already gone through Parliament makes sense. With any new scheme or operation, you need to get your powers in place in advance, and that is what the order does, particularly in relation to what the minister helpfully explained were the concerns that industry had about a grey market. The fact is that SEPA will then have civil penalties and, if we do not pass this order, all we have left is the criminal basis. That explanation was very helpful in explaining that the measure is a response to industry.

The points that Monica Lennon raised—the minister no doubt knows this because she has had correspondence from me and others about the wider DRS—are still issues that need to be addressed to give confidence in six months’ time when the scheme goes live. However, where the specifics of the SSI are concerned, they address industry’s needs and are responsive to its needs because the grey market will harm industry.

The other explanation of the applicability of the similar wider scheme to the rest of the UK, in terms of the packaging, was helpfully set out as well. Like Monica Lennon, I had some queries on points of clarification, and the minister, in response to Monica Lennon’s questions, set out those issues very well. Regardless of our views on deposit return more generally, the order is helpful housekeeping legislation that provides powers to SEPA, as the relevant authority, on civil matters, which is very helpful. The fine levels that were described, namely £300, £600 and £1,000, are helpful in terms of the responsiveness and proportionality that we expect from such a scheme. I do not see any problem in supporting the order.

It would be helpful to see what that report says before it is published.

Thank you, convener.

Thank you for your comprehensive written submissions. We should also reflect on the fact that we are trying to inform the islands connectivity plan, which is not the ferries plan. It is about connectivity, so a place-based approach may be something that we can try to influence.

I will ask you both the same question but will come to David Hibbert first. What discussions have you had with Transport Scotland or the Scottish Government about the provision of additional funding to support the vessel replacement programme? In your written submission, I was particularly struck by suggestions to use a similar model to the learning estate investment model, where 90 per cent of revenue funding would, over a long period, enable the council to have prudential borrowing for capital. Can you elaborate on that?

Yes, it would be helpful to know what discussions there have been with Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government.

I put the same question to you, Councillor Lyall: what discussions has the council had with Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government on the vessel replacement programme?

So operational management should be local, but capital investment could be more centralised. Is that what you are saying?

Councillor Robertson, what sight do you have of future funding of ferries for services to the Western Isles? What discussions have you had with Transport Scotland on that?

Obviously, that approach would potentially have an impact on our colleagues in North Ayrshire and Argyll and Bute. What is your view? Does that reflect where you see things in the future?

The challenge is about where the expertise and accountability can lie.

Thank you.