³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I think that the 12-month extension is a pragmatic move. It is a wise thing to do for a number of reasons. However, I am less convinced that the engagement with churches has been what it needs to be, particularly bearing in mind the points that have been made about companies and the original legislation, and the fact that there were other means by which the information in question could be sought. It has also been brought to our attention that the Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Bill, which is currently going through the Parliament, has a requirement on transparency, whereby trustee information must be included.

It was interesting that the minister set out the four kinds of information that are required. If use could be made of the 12-month period to look at the practicalities involved in those four areas, perhaps something sensible could be arrived at. I think that the worst thing that we could do is not approve the instrument, because we need the time for such consideration to take place. However, we need to take close cognisance of the points that have been made.

The minister is absolutely right to say that we must have standards for everybody and that, if we have exemptions for one group, that can lead to inequities elsewhere. That has obviously been the judgment that has been taken so far, in deciding not to look at policy reform. I think that there might be an intelligent way to address the issue, because many churches are very vulnerable at the moment, and they are helping vulnerable people. In some areas, the proposed requirement might deter people from taking on responsibilities, which is the last thing that we want to do. If anything, land reform is about getting people to take more responsibility and to be transparent, but our churches probably need a bit more support and engagement.

I propose that we support the instrument, but we must keep a close eye on the situation. I will be interested to see how engagement proceeds with the Church of Scotland in the forthcoming year.

Good morning. We are very grateful to the witnesses for joining us today. I am interested in the experience of ferry operators and how they prefer to provide capacity. Does the model that is used involve larger vessels that provide fewer sailings, or do two or more smaller vessels that operate on the same route provide more frequent services? What are the advantages and disadvantages of that?

Dag Hole, on slide 10 of the submission that you sent us, you talk about pilots, time in the market and innovations. I am interested in whether things have evolved over time and what the timeframe has been to get to the stage that you are at now.

It was about the choice by ferry operators to operate either one large vessel that can provide fewer sailings but take more passengers or freight, or smaller vessels that can sail more frequently. Is there any preference? Is there a specific system that they operate?

We all agree that communities need to be front and centre—that is part of our inquiry—but obviously we want to draw on the experience of everybody who can help shape that future.

I put the same question about the islands connectivity plan to Robbie Drummond. What are the opportunities and potential of that plan to help to improve reliability and serve rural communities?

We are conducting this inquiry in advance of the islands connectivity plan and we plan to inform it, and Transport Scotland is currently consulting on that long-term plan for vessels and ports. What input have you had into the development of that document? Does it have the opportunity to deliver a ferry fleet that fit for future needs of our rural communities, particularly with regard to net zero and other areas? Do you think it can be flexible enough to make sure that we have a lower-emission ferry fleet? Obviously reliability is a huge part of that. What are your ambitions for and expectations of the islands connectivity plan?

Surely you have something that you can say about what you think it might look like in the future.

You talk about an all-Government approach and you will be aware that the Government is planning to introduce a learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill that will also include a proposal for a national commissioner, which the National Autistic Society in Scotland is very keen on. What engagement have you had with the relevant minister on development of that bill? Do you see it as an opportunity and vehicle to improve legislation on employability of people with disabilities?

I will move on to cross-cutting work. You said that there is an all-Government approach and that your role in ensuring that all ministers are actively looking at employability is important. The developing the young workforce initiative is very effective in bringing different groups together, led by the private sector. What progress has been made to ensure that employability for young people with disabilities is embedded in activity in developing the young workforce? Are there good examples of, or feedback on, how that is improving?

Finally, like the convener, I was struck by comments that the public sector is perhaps falling behind the private sector in how prepared organisations are to support people into employment. The default assumption might be that things would be the other way round, but that is the steer that we are getting. You referred to the permanent secretary. Clearly, as the leader of the civil service, he is in a strong position to ensure that the issue is addressed. Will you take that up with him? Will you have that discussion with him, not just about his leadership of the civil service but about the fact that there is a leadership role for the permanent secretary across the public sector?

Thank you.