Seòmar agus comataidhean

So can we make those comments on the order? I am looking at the clerks. [Interruption.] The clerks have told me that the comments have already been made.

Our next item is evidence as part of our inquiry into a modern and sustainable ferry service for Scotland. I refer members to the papers for this item from the clerk and the Scottish Parliament information centre.???

This is the second day of taking evidence in our inquiry into Scotland’s ferry services. The inquiry aims to find out how best to secure ferry services that are future proofed and able to meet the needs of service users across our island communities. On 28 June, the committee discussed the issues with representatives from island communities. The committee also launched a call for views, which closed on 26 August.

Today we are joined by two of Scotland’s independent ferry operators, to hear their experiences of operating a commercially viable service without public subsidy. I welcome our witnesses: Helen Inkster, managing director, Pentland Ferries; and Gordon Ross, managing director, Western Ferries. Thank you both for accepting our invitation to attend the committee.

We have a series of questions for you. I will ask the easy question to put you at ease and to start us off.? What do you think that ferry users want from a well-run ferry service?

It would be helpful to clarify that for councils.

There is also an issue with dropped kerbs. There are various types of dropped kerb: some are specifically designed for pedestrian access, and some are dropped to allow access to parking bays, perhaps from the back of a lorry. There are also private dropped kerbs to allow access to garages. Do all of those require exemptions? I am seeking some clarity for councils because I am confused, despite having done research into the Transport (Scotland) Bill to understand whether those aspects have been clarified.

That is interesting.

The point is that that is on the record. We do not need to take things any further than that, if everyone is happy.

Okay. That concludes that item, unless anyone has any other comments.

The next agenda item—[Interruption.] I have to formally invite members to agree that the committee does not wish to make any further recommendations on the order. Apparently, that is the procedure. Does the committee agree on that?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay. Gordon, I want to push you on a comment that you made about crewing and the fact that the crews live locally. A lot of the CMAL boats have crews that live on board. I remember hearing some good reasons and some bad reasons for that. You suggested that there is more flexibility to call crews in if they are not tied to a specific boat. Is that your opinion in respect of the smaller boats? Is there a stage at which a boat is big enough for living-on crewing to be justified?

The term “simple vessels” has been mentioned, but I think that we are talking about complex vessels that have been made simple to operate.

Gordon Ross, do you like having more vessels, which gives you incredible flexibility to ramp services up and down? Is that the way forward? Should we be looking to provide services in that way across Scotland?

If vessels are limited to the harbour and the infrastructure that the harbour goes into, they cannot be cascaded down on to other routes, so you would question crewing on those vessels, which are limited by infrastructure to certain ports. Is that what you are saying, or is that a step too far?

Helen, do you want to explain how your designs are different from other standard designs and comment on their suitability? How did you go about the process of choosing a design?

Thank you very much, minister. Can you clarify something for me? I know that this is a bit procedural, but I sat on the committee that looked at the Transport (Scotland) Bill and we never quite bottomed out the definition of “pavement parking”. We are giving councils the right to make exemptions, but are you satisfied that the definition of “pavement parking” is good enough?