Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does that outweigh any potential confusion from consumers when, for example, they go to Wales and say, “I didn’t realise that this wasn’t on sale, because it has been banned”?

It would certainly be interesting to see what the research throws up, given that, as you have said, things have moved on. That is not only because of the pandemic, but because there is now a different narrative about how we use our water resources and the impact of sewage.

I have a question for Alan Sutherland about the role of WICS. Are you having to evolve your regulatory approach because of the challenges of climate change? I am mindful of Audit Scotland’s approach, which involves much more carbon counting and looking at how the public sector is delivering the long-term change that is needed. What does that look like for WICS? You were set up with a very specific remit under the Water Services etc (Scotland) Act 2005 as a predominantly economic regulator, but we are now in a world that is quite different to the one of 2005. How are you adjusting your regulatory approach to meet the challenges that we now face?

Do you still see opportunities for municipal ownership of heat networks? Is that a model that could flourish?

I very much welcome a target being set for 2035. I think that it was on the back of one of my amendments that the provision to set a 2035 target was put into the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021—James Hemphill is nodding. At the time, it was difficult to put a figure on that and there was a lot of discussion with the minister about it. Therefore, it is good to see a figure being set and the work that is being done to construct it.

How does that work relate to the LHEES? It appears that those are on track. A lot of granular work has been done in local authorities to work out exactly where district heating schemes can be put in place. Do we have enough of a picture now through the work that has been done by the 32 local authorities to build the certainty that industry wants and enable us to peg a target to 2035, which is obviously still some way off?

I start by thanking all the ferry-dependent communities, as their evidence has been absolutely central to our inquiry. I also thank the workers, who operate in what are often incredibly difficult conditions to connect our island communities to each other and to the rest of Scotland.

For me, the central conclusion of the inquiry is that the experiences of those ferry-dependent communities need to be at the heart of how services are designed, delivered and monitored in future. I very much welcome the comments made earlier in the debate by the Minister for Transport, and I acknowledge her early work to engage intensively with those communities. Indeed, I recognise that now is a time for intensive engagement with them. It is clear that there has been an erosion of trust over a number of years, and that communities themselves should be involved in the co-production of services, which includes their ability to propose new services and alterations as appropriate.

Ferries, unlike trains and buses, do not have a regulator or a customer champion who can ensure that services stick to agreed standards. If bus services do not stick to timetables, the traffic commissioner for Scotland can, and sometimes does, step in. There is no such regulator for ferry services, however. For years, ferry-dependent communities have relied on ad hoc parliamentary scrutiny or consultation exercises in order to be heard. That has led to a situation where people’s expectations have often risen, only for them then to be let down. There was a strong sense of consultation fatigue throughout our inquiry.

In the absence of ferry services that communities can shape to meet their own needs, some communities have even gone as far as proposing their own services, and they have made the case that the CHFS bundle should be unpicked.

It is welcome that the Government has resisted calls for unbundling, but I can understand where some communities are coming from in making them. The view of many people who gave evidence was that the tripartite arrangement between CalMac, CMAL and Transport Scotland was not working and had led to a pass-the-parcel approach of transferring responsibility. As we have heard from the committee’s convener, it had no consensus view on the exact model that it would recommend for the future. If it were to emerge that there will be a new ferries Scotland body that would link CMAL with Transport Scotland’s functions, I am sure that many people would welcome that, but only if it resulted in more accountability, transparency, competency and responsiveness. If a 10-year direct award for CalMac were to emerge, it will be critical that a change in culture based on the principles of good service takes hold. The involvement of unions and community members at board level will be important to effect such culture change.

I note that the Government has rejected the option of a ferries commissioner as being overly bureaucratic. I recognise the intense parliamentary scrutiny on budgets for commissioners that exists at the moment. However, the decision puts the emphasis back on any new structure that emerges to show that a commissioner function is unnecessary. The Scottish Parliament is not set up to scrutinise the minutiae of timetable changes and individual reliability issues. From time to time, such issues will arise in parliamentary questions and through committee work, but they should be dealt with first through customer operator forums. With that in mind, I welcome the Government’s commitment to continue the ferries community board and to ensure that the next CHFS contract comes with clear key performance indicators.

I also warmly welcome the fact that there will be a renewed focus on accessibility, with a role for the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland in the on-going development of services. Recording the reliability of services will help to rebuild trust, but that data should reflect the real experience of ferry users. Understanding and communicating the reasons behind cancellations will also be important, especially when cancellations come from problems with other services that have cascaded down the system.

The committee also considered ferry ticket prices, and I was pleased to hear the recent announcement of the extension of the free ferries scheme to all under-22s. I look forward to the Minister for Transport’s concluding the wider fair fares review. I recognise that the Government has the most ambitious scheme of concessionary public transport fares anywhere in the UK and that, in these financially difficult times, the minister will be wrestling with difficult choices. However, offering help to young people to continue living on our islands is a shared priority for the SNP and the Greens.

The principle of road equivalent tariff remains important, but the model of implementation and any possible extension need to take account of unintended consequences, while remaining firmly focused on supporting island residents first.

The procurement of new ferries is a highly charged issue, but it is important to note that vessels being built in Turkey are on track for launch next year and in 2025. As we move forward, the climate emergency must feature strongly through our choosing all sustainable transport options. That will mean looking carefully at whether fixed links make sense in terms of both lifetime cost and lifetime carbon emissions. Like Beatrice Wishart, I hope that the small electric vessels that will come through the replacement programme will be far easier to design and build than hulls 801 and 802, and that the low-carbon ferries plan will strongly drive our future options.

Our ageing ferry fleet and the difficulty of procuring boats on the international market have dominated the performance issues for island communities. However, as the light appears at the end of the tunnel and new ferries are on their way, we now have an opportunity to put communities first and to redesign service delivery in a way that is accountable and responsive. That is what communities deserve, after years of waiting.

I have a final question. I think that it was Ivan McKee who, in 2021, restated Government guidance at that time in relation to public procurement. That followed on from a report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which identified about 100 companies with activities relating to illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine, and the implications of that for seeking peace. Can you confirm the current status of that guidance?

Thank you.

I return to the issue of escalation. The First Minister’s letter of last week rightly focused on the situation in Gaza, but we are also aware from an increasing number of news reports of the illegal displacement of Palestinians in the west bank, and there could be an unfolding humanitarian crisis there in time. What is your assessment of that? How does that impact on the Scottish Government’s response, whether through a forthcoming resettlement scheme or other humanitarian efforts? Are you factoring in the potential for a crisis that goes much beyond what we are seeing in Gaza at the moment?

A number of communities across Scotland have formal civic links with communities in Palestine. I have noted that Dundee is twinned with Nablus and that Glasgow is twinned with Bethlehem, while Stirling has had an informal twinning with a refugee community in Jerusalem. To what extent can those informal and more civic links be used to address the humanitarian crisis that could unfold?

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is making public transport more affordable. (S6F-02494)