Transport and the Environment Committee, 02 Oct 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 2, 2002

Official Report 100KB pdf

---

Highlands and Islands Ferry Services

Agenda item 2 is consideration of a reporters' paper on the draft service specification for Highlands and Islands ferry services. Consideration of the item was postponed last week. The committee must consider the reporters' paper with a view to endorsing it as a whole. We would then forward the paper to the Executive for a response and submit it to the Executive's current consultation on the draft service specification. Does either reporter want to comment on the paper?

I do not propose to go through the paper in detail. We have picked up on all the issues that concern people in Argyll and the Western Isles and on the Clyde. It would be better if members asked questions about or commented on the paper and we responded.

When I read the paper for the second time, one thing that occurred to me was that we received a petition a few months ago that asked us to consider a road equivalent tariff for ferries. To deal with that petition, I think that we agreed that the reporters should consider RET as part of the general reporting requirements. I think that we also said that we would expect the Scottish Executive to consider RET in its consultation. The paper does not mention RET and I understand that RET does not appear in the Scottish Executive's consultation.

We pursued the issue of RET with a number of consultees, particularly on our visit to the Western Isles. The general view among people to whom we spoke was that fares were the most relevant issue. We sought to put in the paper what the people to whom we spoke thought were the most relevant issues. From our discussions, there was nothing in particular to say about RET. The idea is theoretical, but it does not seem to have gained much currency in the Highland communities.

Do you want to add a sentence to the paper to that effect?

I think that one person in the Western Isles mentioned RET, but apart from that, the issue did not come up.

Given that we decided to deal with the petition in the way that I mentioned, it would be appropriate to mention RET in our report.

If the reporters are happy with that, it would tidy up a loose end.

This might open up a can of worms, but I would like to know what proposals there are to deal with the situation relating to Caledonian MacBrayne's Dunoon to Gourock route. The problems are clearly outlined but possible solutions are not.

Paragraphs 41 and 42 propose that we adopt a twin-track strategy. One approach is to continue the negotiations and discussions with the European Commission in order to communicate the fact that that route is only one of many in a comprehensive tender, the overall objectives of which are to ensure continuity of services and to avoid private-sector monopoly provision. We are seeking some kind of derogation of the competition rules in this particular context. The other approach, which we would take at the same time, is to carry on further investigations in consultation with the local authority, as the minister suggested when he talked to us, to see whether a vehicle ferry could be operated profitably, as Deloitte & Touche suggested.

Both those approaches are better than the one that the minister flagged up, which was to go for the passenger-only service.

There should be a better accountancy system as well. That would allow clearer decision making.

Yes, that is the other dimension.

I think that that issue is raised later in the document. All we can do is provide pointers to directions that might be taken rather than evaluate what option is the best, as we are not competent to do that. If we were to get that competence, it would take a lot longer to get the report done.

As I said to Des McNulty and Maureen Macmillan privately, I think that the report is comprehensive and very good.

We record our thanks to Rosalind Wheeler, who has put an awful lot of effort into the document. Much of the core drafting was her work.

It was above and beyond the call of duty.

As ever.

I enjoyed doing the report and spent a lovely summer travelling about in the Western Isles and Argyll.

You are allowed to enjoy your work. We should encourage plenty of other people to follow in your footsteps to boost tourism in the Highlands.

I got Gourock and Glasgow.

Do we agree to approve the contents of the report with a sentence added to tidy up the loose end about the road equivalent tariff?

Members indicated agreement.

The document might need a wee bit of work to ensure that it has recommendations for the Executive. The recommendation at present is for the Transport and the Environment Committee to consider and comment on the paper. Taking into account Fiona McLeod's point, we will try to shift slightly the burden of the paper so that it contains recommendations along the lines suggested, if that is agreeable to members of the committee.

Do we want to see the document again after those changes have been made or are we happy to delegate the responsibility entirely?

We should not bring it back to the committee. If we do, it will not get into the consultation process.

That sounds fine. Some parts of it should be in heavy print as well.

Do we agree to the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Des McNulty, Maureen Macmillan and Rosalind Wheeler for producing a very good report.