Seòmar agus comataidhean

I may bring in officials on whether the ferries plan should have been reviewed earlier. It is worth pointing out that the plan, which ran until this year, has already delivered a number of improvements. For example, we have got new routes running. As the committee heard earlier from Mr Hobbs, we have got the Campbeltown route and the new Mallaig to Lochboisdale route.

We have also had the roll-out of road equivalent tariff for passengers and cars on the CHFS network, which has saved passengers a significant amount of money—bluntly, £25 million a year. We have also had big upgrades in relation to port infrastructure, for example at Brodick pier, Tarbert and Wemyss Bay.

On the islands connectivity plan, the timescale was agreed previously with the ferries plan. Learning has been taken from the ferries plan. My understanding is that the timescale was agreed to—I think that it works well. We need to have that long-term forecast for where we are going next.

The plan is in draft. That is quite important. It is key that we engage with communities on what happens next. I do not want to do something to island communities that they are not content with, and it is really important to islander confidence that we mark out a clear way forward.

Chris Wilcock or Laurence Kenney may want to say more about the review period in the ferries plan that ran for the past decade.

I understand Mr Kerr’s concern. I think that it is not unhelpful that the two things are happening simultaneously. As I said in my opening statement, we are going out to consult on project Neptune. Angus Campbell is leading that work, part of which involves asking communities about what they want to see as part of CHFS3, for example how we can change the future contract to deliver a service that works better for island communities. Committee members have gone out and spoken to island communities and know, as we do, where the real challenges are.

I assure members that service delivery will continue, irrespective of the model that we use in future. Transport Scotland is looking at the most appropriate way to continue services. We will engage with key stakeholders. I hope to be able to update the committee more fully in the coming weeks about what those arrangements will look like. Whatever we do with the next CHFS contract, it is really important that that is something that island communities want. I am very aware that some parts of the current contract do not work for island communities and we do not want to replicate that with what comes next. It is important that we hear from communities. The officials may want to say more about how that approach has been developed within Transport Scotland, where the work is on-going.

To the best of my knowledge, they have not, because the work on CHFS 3 is on-going. I will bring in an official to speak on that and I am happy for Transport Scotland to correct me if I am wrong.

I will let Transport Scotland answer that.

Transport Scotland will consult and engage with a range of different experts, and officials might want to say more about that. The ferry expert group was disbanded before I became transport minister, but I have met a number of individuals who used to sit on it. I know a little about its history, and I understand—officials can correct me if I am wrong, because they will know more about the history—that the group had evolved into something away from its original aim.

Ms Lennon’s overall question, though, is important, because although Angus Campbell can provide me with the views of communities, I also need a view from experts on what we are developing and delivering. I have therefore asked Transport Scotland for advice on pulling together a round table of experts at international level. Of course, project Neptune looked at lots of different countries’ delivery models, because it is hugely important that we do not lose out on that expertise.

At the tail end of the previous evidence session, I heard Morag McNeill talk about the importance of academic expertise. Such expertise is hugely important, and I know that CMAL uses it in its own work. We therefore need to cast the net wide, and I am sure—indeed, I know—that Transport Scotland engages regularly with experts. The board was just one way in which that was done historically; I do not think that it is not an on-going process.

No, I am not comfortable with it. In my statement to the Parliament back in September last year, I provided an update on project Neptune, which is looking at that issue in much more detail and at the tripartite arrangements between the three organisations.

I think that you heard from Mr Hobbs in the previous session that there has been good collaborative working between Transport Scotland, CMAL and CalMac in recent times. I think that that has improved, certainly in the time during which I have been the transport minister. However, we need to do more.

The convener has pretty succinctly outlined some of the challenges that passengers experience in relation to services. Project Neptune is looking at a range of options—for example, whether to amalgamate organisations or bring things in-house, as Ms Hyslop alluded to—but we need to move forward now.

Obviously, the REC Committee inquiry was last session, and we have had a number of different reports since then. However, a common theme relates to governance. Therefore, while my mind as the transport minister is fixed on improving resilience and capacity in the current fleet, I also need to make sure that the structures that are in place deliver what passengers need, and I am not yet sure that that is where we are. That is exactly why project Neptune is vital. Angus Campbell’s work in that regard will be key in delivering the improvements that are needed.

That is one of the recommendations from project Neptune. There are a number of other recommendations about how the tripartite process might look in future. I am not wedded to any one concept. As the minister, my view, informed by my experience, is that something will have to change pretty radically.

If CMAL were to be absorbed into CalMac—you alluded to that—that would create a challenge in relation to Serco NorthLink Ferries. We would need to be mindful of that. A number of other factors would play into that, too.

As the minister, my view is that there is no point in my changing the governance structures unless that is what island communities want. I go back to my original point in answer to Mr Ruskell’s question. I will not foist something on island communities that they do not want.

If I ask island communities tomorrow what they would like to see, they will not talk to me about governance structures; rather, they will to talk to me about better reliability, more boats and more sailings. Fixing the here and now is vital.

I accept that there is also a governance challenge, but the more pressing issues that island communities face relate to the delivery of services. That is why it is really important that the current arrangements work for island communities. Work is on-going, and I am clear that things will need to change in the future if we are to listen to island communities and reach an optimal solution.

As you have outlined, convener, the current structure is not dynamic at times, and it is not as reflective and responsive as it needs to be. We need to reach that point in order to better serve our island communities.

Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to discuss the draft order.

The order sets the reimbursement rate and the capped level of funding for the national bus concession scheme for older and disabled persons in 2023-24. It also sets the reimbursement rate for the national bus travel concession scheme for young persons in the coming financial year. In doing so, the order gives effect to an agreement that we reached back in December with the Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland, which represents Scottish bus operators.

The objective of the order is to enable operators to continue to be reimbursed for journeys that are made under the older and disabled persons and the young persons schemes after the expiry of the current reimbursement provisions on 31 March. It specifies the reimbursement rates for both schemes and the capped level of funding for the older and disabled persons scheme for the next financial year, from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024.

The order is limited to the coming year and is undertaken on an annual basis to support both schemes. Because of the on-going impact of Covid-19 on bus passenger numbers and the continuing uncertainty for the coming year, it has not been possible to undertake the analysis and forecasting that usually underpins the annual revision of the reimbursement rates for the older and disabled persons scheme. In addition, only a limited amount of data is available for the young persons scheme, which became operational in January last year. Accordingly, the reimbursement models for both schemes could not be used with confidence for 2023-24.

I have agreed with CPT that the reimbursement rate for the older and disabled persons and the young persons schemes for 2023-24 will be retained for the current year. For the older and disabled persons scheme, it is set at 55.9 per cent of the adult single fare and the capped level of funding will be £216.2 million. That is set at a realistic level that takes into account patronage levels in the scheme since Covid-19. For the young persons scheme, the proposed reimbursement rates are 43.6 per cent of the adult fare for journeys made by passengers aged five to 15, and 81.2 per cent for journeys made by those aged 16 to 21. As for the past year, a budget cap is not being set for the young persons scheme in 2023-24.

I believe that the rates are consistent with the aim that was set out in the legislation establishing both schemes, that bus operators should be no better and no worse off as a result of participating in the schemes. Nonetheless, the rates will provide a welcome degree of stability for bus operators.

Free bus travel enables people to access local services and gain from the health benefits of a more active lifestyle. It also helps to strengthen our response to the climate emergency. The order provides for those benefits to continue for a further year on a basis that is fair to operators and affordable for taxpayers.

I commend the order to the committee and am happy to answer any questions.

The deputy convener makes a really good point. As I mentioned in the first response that I gave to Mark Ruskell, I get regular updates in relation to regional differences in different constituencies in Scotland. The pattern is that we do not necessarily look only at rural areas, because there are challenges in different parts of the country for different reasons. It is important that we take an intuitive approach to the implementation of the policy. I take on board the deputy convener’s point and will ensure that that is fed into the evaluation that Transport Scotland will conduct in April.

That was considered in a review that we carried out for under-26s. There is a piece of work that looked at that very issue on the Transport Scotland website. I think that we might have worked with the Scottish Youth Parliament on it, too, but that pre-dates my time in office.

It was considered, but I will be honest with Ms Lennon that, as a Government, we would not currently be in a financial position to fund it. The scheme is extremely costly—according to some news reports, more so than it actually is. I think that the scheme’s costs are worth it, but the financials that would be involved in extending it to people under 25 would be excessive under the current budget pressures that the Scottish Government faces.