Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are advertising on the vessels, too, are we not?

I am prepared to be wrong about this, but my reading of the petition is that HIAL is being used as an example of lifeline services to island communities and that the petition is not focused only on HIAL.

I think that, in relation to lifeline services to island communities, we are really talking about three boards: CMAL, David MacBrayne and HIAL. HIAL’s board has six members, I think—not eight. If we were to add three members to it, its composition would alter significantly. I am not saying that I am against the proposal—I am sympathetic to it—but Fergus Ewing is right to say that I would like to speak directly to HIAL about it. It is a relatively small board. In fact, the membership of all the boards is relatively small. Some of the challenge therefore relates to how we can recruit people with the skills and expertise that Alexander Stewart was asking about while, at the same time, assuring islander representation.

I am happy to write to HIAL on the point that Fergus Ewing has addressed. I am not sure that I agree with the petitioners that three members of that board should come from island communities, given that it currently has only six members. However, we can do more to formalise islanders’ voices on the boards, to ensure that they are properly heard and that their views are taken account of.

Fran Pacitti may want to say more about that, as she met HIAL last week.

I am happy to allow Fran Pacitti to talk you through the process. As the minister, I will need to sign off some of those appointments, but it might be best if Fran talks you through the technical detail of the requirements of the application process itself—for example, how candidates are sifted.

That is a fair observation from David Torrance. As he highlighted, there are a range of different ways in which islanders can get involved in some of the board activity more generally, without necessarily sitting on the boards of the public bodies themselves. A good example of that is the CalMac ferries community board, which is chaired by Angus Campbell, who is one of the petitioners. Since January, I have worked closely with Angus on a number of issues with the Clyde and Hebrides ferries network. That board is a good example of how islanders’ views can be taken into account, and there is not just the communities board for ferry services; a plethora of different boards exist in our island communities, particularly in relation to ferry services.

The committee might be aware that, in my update to Parliament on 8 September in relation to project Neptune, I outlined an alternative approach to resilience in relation to ferry breakdowns on the network, which looks to engage with a wide range of organisations as and when there are prolonged periods of disruption on the Clyde and Hebrides network. Members will be aware of some of the challenges that have occurred in recent months.

For example, over the recess, I convened a resilience meeting. That considered engaging a number of different representative boards on the relevant island communities—not just people who work in CalMac and CMAL, but people who live in our island communities. As the minister, I hold a responsibility to engage with island communities when there are sustained periods of disruption.

There are other forums in which islanders can have their views taken into account. One is the ferries community board, which I mentioned, but other boards and mechanisms exist in island communities.

There is a requirement for us to consider what more can be done. There are upcoming appointments to the David MacBrayne board—I discussed that with Fran Pacitti prior to the committee—and the process for those appointments will be shared with me later today. I am keen to safeguard the capacity to make progress in the future. I have given examples of two recent appointments that have evidenced progress in the past year, but it is important that we continue to drive that progress as a Government. I look forward to receiving further information on those new appointments later today, and I would be more than happy to share with the committee further detail of what that process looks like.

No. I am content to move on.

The issue of a cross-Government approach does not sit with me, as the Minister for Transport. I am not sure which minister it sits with. I will take that idea away and speak to officials about how we can better deliver that, because I recognise the tension that Paul Sweeney has identified.

There tend to be demographic and gender elements to board appointments, and, if we do not get the right people into those posts, it skews the representation of the public. There is an ask of Government around public appointments and how we can upskill the population and empower people to apply for those positions. I will take the matter away and speak to officials about taking a whole-Government approach. The responsibility does not sit with me, but I recognise the tension between getting the necessary skills and experience and taking cognisance of, in this instance, islanders’ views on the delivery of lifeline services.

Thank you.

Absolutely. I recognise that we can do more in this space in relation to training and supporting the development of the skills and expertise that are required for such appointments. Fran Pacitti might want to say more on why that is so important, but I recognise that there are challenges in that respect.

Before I came to give evidence, I was not aware that the committee was all male. I look at it and wonder whether there might be more that all parties could do on female representation in the Parliament. There is a challenge for the Government in delivering that, and there is always a challenge for political parties in matters of representation. Fran may wish to say more about skills and expertise and about the current expectation of how the bodies would engage with and support the development of skills in the future.

I might bring in Kevin Gibson on the specifics of the legalities that are involved in that. However, it would of course be for the Scottish ministers to consider and scrutinise the publication of any material from the Auditor General to ensure that we have trains that are running at best value for money and meeting passengers’ demands. It will be incumbent on ministers to scrutinise the detail of that accountability through the reporting process, as happens across a number of different organisations in Government. I do not think that there is any difference in the way in which ScotRail Trains Ltd and Scottish Rail Holdings will be held to account via that process, if that answers the question.

I will bring in Kevin Gibson on the specifics of how it operates elsewhere.

I hope that there will not be a delay, but it is for the UK Government to state its position directly to the committee. The position that it has taken in discussions with the Scottish Government and its officials is that, because the additional clauses relate directly to the authorisation of a high-speed rail project—a reserved matter—legislative consent is not needed. The UK Government has quite a pure interpretation of that. It considers that any impact on devolved matters will be entirely incidental. Our view is that that is too narrow an interpretation of legislative consent, given the potentially significant impact on devolved matters.

I do not want us to get into conflict. There are months, if not years, to resolve the issues, because it is a hybrid bill. Ahead of the meeting, I discussed that with Kevin Gibson. We are not yet clear from the UK Government what the associated final timescales will be, because it is a hybrid bill, which is quite an unusual legislative feature. Kevin Gibson can say more about that, because he is a lawyer.

I do not want to get us into conflict. The associated timescales are in the UK Government’s gift, but Scottish Government officials will work very closely with UK Government officials to get to a resolution, because we all want this to work.