Official Report 196KB pdf
Argyll and Bute Council (Pilotage Powers) Order 2007 (SSI 2007/3)
The Minister for Transport, who will give evidence to the committee under agenda item 2, is still on his way to the committee. I believe that he is in the building, so he should be with us shortly.
Members indicated agreement.
Road Works (Inspection Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/4)
The same applies to these regulations. Can we agree that we have nothing to report?
Members indicated agreement.
I will suspend the meeting for about five minutes, until the minister and his team arrive.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003 (Amendment of Specified Authorities) Order 2007
For the final agenda item, we have been joined by the Minister for Transport, Tavish Scott, and his Scottish Executive officials. David Todd is assistant policy manager in the ferries division, Alan McPherson is branch head in the ferries division, Graham McGlashan is a principal legal officer in the solicitors division, and David Hart is head of the ferries division.
The order gives effect to the restructuring of Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd, which was restructured on 1 October 2006 into an operating company named CalMac Ferries Ltd and a vessel and infrastructure owning company named Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd.
Do members have any questions for the minister or his officials? They should be questions rather than points of debate, which can be made later, if necessary.
Is there a current price tag on the restructuring exercise? What is the overall cost?
As I have said on numerous occasions, the process will indeed cost taxpayers' money. We do not know at this stage how much it will be, but there will certainly be a bill to you and me as taxpayers.
Can you give us any detail about when we will know how much that bill will be?
No.
The draft order is a technical instrument that ensures that both successor organisations come under the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003. That is separate from the broader debate about the tendering of Caledonian MacBrayne ferries, which is obviously a matter of considerable debate on which many people hold strong views. That, however, is a broader issue than the scope of the technical matter before us now.
I have to say in my own defence that I thought it was reasonable to ask about the cost. I was not trying to be difficult.
Okay.
And I gave him an answer.
There is something that I think we must pose as a technical question. Paragraph 5 of the Executive note says:
That is correct.
What are the ownership characteristics of a nationalised body that is required to be included in the list under schedule 2 to the 2003 act? Is a nationalised body one whose shares are wholly owned by the Scottish Executive or the Government? Would a body be a nationalised body if its shares were owned by local authorities? How does the definition of "Nationalised bodies" bring Caledonian Maritime Assets and David MacBrayne under the ambit of the 2003 act?
My understanding is that Mr McLetchie's first observation is correct: it is that the body is owned by the Scottish ministers. Exactly the same procedure applies to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, and all appointments to its board are subject to the same scrutiny, through the same legislation that the committee is considering today.
The Executive note mentions that the matter has been discussed with the commissioner for public appointments in Scotland. Will the two bodies have different sets of board members?
Yes.
With no overlap?
Correct.
There are no more questions, so we proceed to the debate. I invite the minister to move the motion in his name. You may make a further contribution at this stage, minister. Even if you choose not to exercise that right, you may still wind up following any contributions made by other members.
Motion moved,
That the Local Government and Transport Committee recommends that the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 (Amendment of Specified Authorities) Order 2007 be approved.—[Tavish Scott.]
I think that the restructuring of Caledonian MacBrayne and the separation of asset ownership from the management and running of services is entirely correct and is a step in the right direction, which might lead to a more equitable management of tendering processes in the future. However, that is a debate for another occasion. I understand that it is that separation that gave rise to the requirement to have two companies, with separate directors, listed in schedule 2 to the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003.
Mr McLetchie is being a bit mischievous. We are not being asked to consider whether we are in favour of the tendering process in relation to Caledonian MacBrayne services: the order is about whether the two bodies that are being created as a result of the process that the European Union has required the Executive to follow are within the ambit of the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003. If the two bodies were not within the ambit of the act, the level of transparency and accountability around the appointment of people to them would be lower than it is around the appointment of people to other public bodies. If the Executive had not introduced the order it would have been criticised for watering down transparency and accountability in relation to the 2003 act. Irrespective of committee members' various views on the costs of tendering and whether it is right in principle to go down that route, it is appropriate for us to approve the order, which will ensure accountability and transparency around appointments to these public bodies.
It is right to approve the order, because it is a technical order. In the course of doing so, it is also right to highlight the deeply wasteful process that the European Union has forced us to endure. I have made clear my view, as have many other members, that the Executive was wrong to accept the advice that it received, because there was contrary advice that would have allowed it to refuse to tender for Caledonian MacBrayne services. There is a lot of insecurity among the workforce, not only about jobs but about conditions of employment, many of which have been developed over decades. The taxpayer will bear the costs, but that is money that would be better invested in expansion and improvement of the service. The convener is right to say that the measure is technical and should be approved, to try to retain some form of transparency. However, by the same token, we have continually to point out that we have entered into a wasteful exercise and that the Executive was wrong not to stand up to Europe.
I agree with Mr Sheridan that the process has been wasteful. I share that concern. Believe me, I have a few views on this myself, and there will come a moment when I will be allowed to express them. The European Union does not have a consistent transport policy. Let me be clear that it made us tender—would that I had been able to say no—in relation to lifeline ferry services in the Clyde and Hebrides, but it does not say that Paris metro services have to be tendered. There is an enormous disconnect in European transport policy as laid down by the French transport commissioner. I have deep concerns about the entire process.
The question is, that motion S2M-5493, in the name of Tavish Scott, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Oui.
You continental, you.
Motion agreed to.
That the Local Government and Transport Committee recommends that the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 (Amendment of Specified Authorities) Order 2007 be approved.
I thank all members, the minister and his officials for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 15:29.