Chamber and committees

Mr Ruskell is absolutely right. I see my officials nodding beside me, so I am sure that we will be looking at the qualitative feedback. Such feedback is vital in telling the story of the success of the scheme, because it is not just about facts and figures but how the scheme is changing young people’s lives and their approach to engaging with our transport networks. That is really key, so we will certainly take that away as an action point, although it will probably be captured in the planned evaluation.

The other issue is that the scheme has been a huge help in relation to the cost of living crisis. The scheme is not just about free bus travel; it is providing families with a level of protection and support, and it is important that we reflect that. We need to build some of that into our quantitative analysis, as Mr Ruskell has alluded to.

Obviously, as a Scottish Government minister, I support rejoining the EU. Therefore, I would start from a tendency to support alignment to ensure that that process was streamlined.

However, despite the fact that we have left the EU, a lot of the legislation that was previously in place is now covered by the Subsidy Control Act 2022. It is not clear to me from the advice that I have had from officials whether we have the freedom to do things markedly differently from what was previously envisaged. However, some of that is legal advice that sits with the Scottish Government legal directorate. I am more than happy to take further advice on the matter, because the models that are proposed through project Neptune, which Angus Campbell is consulting on at the moment, will depend on Ms Hyslop’s point about the model that was adopted back in 2006.

In terms of the structures, we need to test those principles with island communities, and that consultation is hugely important in that regard.

We are looking at whether the EU subsidy changes allow for more flexibility around the length of contracts. We would have proceeded with that issue even if we were still in the EU. There is potentially an opportunity to do things differently in that area.

In relation to the overall opportunities, I am not yet clear that we will be able to do things radically differently. Officials have been working with SGLD colleagues on that and I expect to get advice on it later this year. That will coincide with Angus Campbell’s consultation work and allow us to see the overall picture of what we are legally able to do.

I am not necessarily sure that it is appropriate. That has been the model historically, and I, as the minister, have not yet had evidence to the contrary to provide me with a range of options. Monica Lennon will accept that I, as the minister, would expect to receive advice on that. I have not yet had that advice, but I am not necessarily convinced that that is the most appropriate model.

In my experience in three different roles in Government, I cannot think of another example. However, I might be wrong about that. Other examples might exist in other ministers’ portfolios.

I am happy for Chris Wilcock to come in.

I do not want them to be in service for 30 years. We want to reduce the average age of the fleet, so that is absolutely not my intention.

Obviously, CMAL will look at mitigation in that regard. There is a solution for the small vessel fleet, which relates to batteries, but it is true that there are more challenges with larger vessels. We now have LNG for vessels 801 and 802. I think that Jim Anderson described that as a transition fuel. We need to think about how we will provide, in the future, cleaner ferries that meet our net zero aspirations. That applies particularly to larger vessels, because the technology for them is just not there yet. We need to keep pace with the technology. That goes back to the point that Ms Lennon made about experts. We need to engage with experts and academics to ensure that we are abreast of all the latest developments and that CMAL has the relevant data to ensure that the design spec keeps pace with those developments.

My officials might want to say more about the specifics.

I very much recognise the challenge to the Government there. The existing arrangements are historical—they have been in place for a number of years, as Ms Lennon will know. The Government will need to look at that, although I have not been presented with any suggestions on how we might change that arrangement at the current time. However, that is something that we will need to consider.

I have recently heard from other members on that point. That is a convention that has existed historically, but we will need to look at that in the longer term.

It is important that we have trade union representation. Having Roz Foyer on the SRH board brings a strength to our relationship with trade unions but also to the delivery of the service model. Therefore, absolutely, it is a model that we should look to roll out across more of our public bodies, because direct engagement and representation are really important.

Absolutely. The committee’s inquiry is really important and I am keen that we use it and the recommendations that you will provide us with to inform the draft ICP, CHFS3 and where we get to on project Neptune. I very much welcome it.