Chamber and committees

I understand.

Thanks, convener. Good morning, panel. I will ask my questions in reverse order this time. The Corran ferry lends itself to the end of my line. The first question that I want to put is to Scott Reid, after which I will ask Russell McCutcheon to answer.

Scott, some people have suggested to the committee that it may be a better idea for CalMac to deploy smaller vessels, potentially even catamarans, on its routes, and that that could improve the reliability of the service as well as address capacity issues. Do you take a view on whether smaller vessels should be deployed and/or the appropriateness of using catamarans?

I am grateful. I will throw the same question about the ownership and operation of the ports and harbours to Murray Bain. I was interested in your discussion with Monica Lennon about the cost of the Corran ferry and infrastructure, which the convener referred to earlier. You said that the cost to Highland Council would be around £62 million. Now, I looked up the crossing on Google Maps. It is about a kilometre—you will confirm the distance exactly—which begs the question: given the conversations that the committee has had about fixed links, how much would it cost to build a bridge? Having established that cost, who should pay for it, if it is feasible? What is being done to explore that possibility—if, indeed, it is feasible to build it?

Who—Highland Council or somebody else—should own the ports and harbours?

Minister, forgive me. You talked about labelling, for example. My understanding is that there is still some ambiguity over what labels might have to look like. My question, therefore, is this: is it not better to deal with things such as those ambiguities, rather than address the fines that will be levied when you have not even done the up-front basics of sorting out ambiguities such as labelling?

Minister, you mentioned labelling. I am simply pointing out that there are ambiguities about the scheme, yet you are giving time to dealing with enforcement and fines. Are you going to respond to that point, or shall I move on to another question?

Thank you.

I find myself pretty uncomfortable with the idea that we might put this forward to Parliament for approval today. I have heard this morning that we seem to have a DRS—I am talking about the order specifically—that has, for whatever reason, been beset with challenges, yet here we are dealing with what happens in a breach before working out the details of the scheme. I am troubled that—I think that I heard this earlier—the minister does not know what specifically the civil penalty attaches to, has not projected how many will be caught by the measure, has not projected how much might be raised by it and, so, does not know the impact of the scheme. I appreciate that this is subject to clarification, but I think that the fines will go to the Scottish Government pot rather than specifically to help improve and amend the scheme to make it better. For all those reasons, I will struggle, subject to the rest of the debate, to vote for the approval of the SSI.

Thank you for that very useful answer. I will stay with you, Moraig, if I may. You just said that you do not see much wrong with how the service is being delivered, yet you talked earlier about the capacity for cars, the cabins and the cost. Do you take a view on whether you would like, and whether it would be practical for, NorthLink to provide an Aberdeen to Lerwick service that was separate to the Aberdeen to Kirkwall service? Would that be desirable? If so, although that presumably could address the cabins and the capacity issue, it would have a negative effect on the cost issue. What is your view?

That is a very interesting answer. Russell McCutcheon, do you have anything to add to that?