Official Report 379KB pdf
Item 4 continues our inquiry into ferry services. The first of three panels from which we will take evidence comprises Professor Neil Kay and Professor Alf Baird. I welcome both witnesses and apologise for the slight delay in starting, which I hope does not inconvenience you. Would you introduce yourselves briefly before we begin questioning?
Thank you for inviting me; it is a privilege to be here. Since I was invited, some events have occurred to change the agenda of what we might discuss, but I do not intend to say much about that. However, if we are to discuss the solutions, it is important to identify the problems.
I would like to make a few comments about myself before giving a brief summary of my submission to the committee.
Members have a number of questions to ask about specific points. My opening question is about the general issue of the appropriateness of state-owned companies providing ferry services. Given that Professor Baird has already made a few remarks along those lines, I ask Professor Kay to answer first, concentrating on the general question rather than the specifics of the Scottish situation.
I can give a clear answer, but it is not necessarily an answer to the question whether ferry services should be state owned or privately owned. That might be described as a second-tier or second-level question, as might the questions whether the routes should be bundled and whether the services should be tendered. The tier 1 question is whether we comply with European Community law. After that, we can talk about other matters, such as the form of ownership, bundling or tendering.
Part of the confusion in Scotland rests on the fact that previous Governments—if not the current Government—have preferred state operation of shipping services. We must also remember that, in the past 10 years, state involvement in Scotland has expanded with, for example, the advent of NorthLink Ferries. Previously, that service was run by a private company. That expansion goes against trends in the rest of the EU, where the definite, certain shift is towards more private sector operations. In my view, the confusion is largely one of the Scottish Government's own making in that a preference for public sector operations confuses the market and gets into difficulties with EU rules.
I will add a footnote to that. If we were to state that we have a preference for private ownership, that itself would run counter to the basic principles with which we are trying to comply—EC law. The Commission has made it clear that it has no preference for private or state ownership, which is a matter for individual Governments. Therefore, it is back to front to set a basic set of policies to encourage one form of ownership rather than, to begin with, working out what the framework should be for compliance with that set of rules, guidelines and law. We should establish the principles and then work out how best to comply with them.
I have an observation for Professor Baird rather than a question. I take his point about the P&O service in the past. However, if I remember correctly, P&O received considerable state subsidy to run that service, did it not?
Yes.
I will explore public service obligations and relate them to the potential for an independent regulator. What are the witnesses' views on the designation of Scottish lifeline ferry routes as public service obligations? What impact would such designation have on our lifeline ferry service provision?
Originally, the Commission said that island routes could be designated as public service obligations but, in 2003, it recognised that there were certain estuary or peninsula routes—such as the Tarbert to Portavadie and Gourock to Dunoon routes—that could also be eligible for such designation.
On 13 June 2006, the Minister for Transport at that time answered a parliamentary question by saying:
That was a fusion of two different things. A public service contract is a device provided by the Commission that is intended to provide for security, certainty and reliability of service, for up to a maximum of six years. A public service obligation is a device that a Government would deploy if it wished to subsidise an activity. That is the main purpose of PSOs.
Why did the minister in the previous Administration not take that route?
You would have to ask that former minister.
Does Professor Baird have any views?
I agree with Professor Kay that public service obligations are a matter for each member state to define, with regard to each route. If subsidy is required for a given route, that then leads to the public service contract.
In 2001, I said to this committee's predecessor but one that the NorthLink contract was untested, and I would say to this committee today that the new Pentland Ferries vessel—although it looks very innovative—is also still untested. We should be careful about using that example as a precedent.
It seems to be impossible to achieve variability under the current form of tenders, which leads me on to my next question. The designation of lifeline ferry routes as PSOs is likely to require the establishment of a regulator and an operator of last resort. How would that system work in practice, and how much might it cost to establish and operate such organisations?
Also in 2001, I raised a point with the committee's predecessor but one concerning the operator of last resort, and the point had not been satisfactorily resolved. The Executive minister at the time replied that the vesco—which is now called Caledonian Maritime Assets—would deal with the issue, either from its own hand or by finding an alternative operator of last resort. Together with my colleague Captain Sandy Ferguson, a former marine superintendent with CalMac, I made the point that the vesco would not be qualified to act as operator of last resort, because it would not have the proper documentation or certificates. I said that, if we had to wait until something happened before an operator of last resort was found, we could be in very dangerous waters.
Commissioner Barrot made it clear in his statements to us that the need for an independent regulator was a natural part of the EU structures and that, in the meantime, there was no threat, despite scaremongering to the contrary, to the lifeline services. We have talked about the operator of last resort aspect. How would the regulator be set up and what would it cost?
In part, setting up a regulator would not be so costly because, as I have argued from the outset, it would be a simple transfer of responsibility from Victoria Quay. I would desire it to be cost neutral but, in practice, additional responsibilities and work might be required. The regulator's main function would be to act as a buffer to protect politicians from the lobbying of businessmen and to protect businessmen from the interference of politicians. I do not mean that in a personal way about any past, present or future politicians or businessmen—the use of a regulator is a common device in such circumstances.
That is interesting, because it raises a number of questions. For example, given that that is the framework within which EU law is built, as your submission states, why has legal advice to the contrary been given within the Scottish Executive and potentially the Scottish Government?
I have come to a firm conclusion as far as that is concerned. I am concerned to see that fingers have recently been pointed at the Commission for being responsible for that situation. I have to say, without qualification, that it is clear and well documented that the Commission has been signalling for years what is required to be done. I have said in my submissions that those who made the decisions in Scotland did so in good faith and I do not retract that. However, for years, the internal advice that ministers were receiving was heavily flawed and was shown to be so, yet there was no way of persuading ministers that that was the case. If anything is to be taken from the Commission decision at this point, it is not just that the problems should be addressed urgently but that current and past advice to ministers has been deeply flawed. Serious consideration should now be given to revising the current situation in the timeframe that is available to us—within the next year or so—in a manner that is finally compliant with EC law.
One of the easiest ways of avoiding this stushie is for us to do what other member states do and to assume that, given the opportunity, the private sector will provide the vessels for routes, even lifeline routes. As Professor Kay said, the state should be the operator of last resort.
I did not say that.
Nowadays we do not expect the state to provide buses, train services and aircraft, so it is bizarre for us to expect it to provide vessels and to employ everyone who works and lives on board, in some cases on very short routes. The fundamental problem that the committee should seek to address is how we can create a level playing field that allows the private sector to bid to operate services, through innovation, and to provide vessels, through its own investment.
I did not say that the state should be the operator of last resort. It is a responsibility of the state to ensure that such an operator is in place, should it be needed, but I did not say that the state should be that operator.
Some of us would be quite comfortable with the state running trains and buses once again.
Aye, but not all of us.
That is a discussion for another time. I point out for the record that the discussions that members of the committee had last week with the commissioner were informal and should not be construed as relating to firm proposals.
I offer an observation to Professor Baird. Recently we visited NorthLink. I understand that its vessels are leased from a corporate bank and are not owned by NorthLink. In a sense, the private sector already has a role, because it is under contract to NorthLink for a period of six years. Ownership on the routes in question is mixed.
I am aware of that, but in the current buoyant shipping market there is a negative side to leasing vessels. If the operator had owned the vessels, it would have achieved a substantial capital gain on them. Because of the leasing strategy, that capital gain has been lost to the operator.
Concerns have been expressed that the designation of lifeline ferry routes as PSOs could lead to cherry picking of certain routes by private operators, leaving the least attractive routes behind. You have both touched on that point, but I would like to hear your thoughts on the issue in more depth. Do you think that tendering will prevent the problem from occurring?
As I have emphasised for some years, the danger lies not in cherry picking of routes but in cherry picking of parts of routes, such as freight, vehicle carrying, short crossings and summer-only or peak-period services. The parts of routes that are likely to be left for the state to pick up are the expensive bits—the rump that no one else wants. Those are likely to be foot passenger services, longer services and city centre to city centre services. It is not the case that the private sector does not have a role to play. The trick is to redesign the current system to ensure that we marry public service and enterprise, private or state. A vacuum has been created by what has not been done. The result is that there will be a great deal of ad hocery, as there has been in the past, and that bits and pieces of routes that may be profitable will be picked away. It would be a disincentive for an operator to enter into a contract if they saw that there was danger of profitable parts of the route being chipped away after the contract was agreed. That is the real problem with cherry picking.
How do we guard against that?
I give the example of the Gourock to Dunoon route, on which there is a private sector operator and a public sector operator, CalMac. The CalMac route is intended to provide a service for foot passengers only; indeed, objectively, the route largely makes sense only in respect of providing for foot passengers, and the subsidy is intentionally designed for them. That is the public service obligation part. The solution on the Gourock to Dunoon route is not to disrupt the private sector operator, but to apply a PSO on it for public service operators and then provide a means whereby a subsidy can be provided for the public service. After that, vehicles must be run on a purely commercial basis if a service is not to be covered by the PSO. The ability to provide a public service and a private service can exist on one route.
The evidence from other countries is that socially desirable routes that do not quite cover their costs can be tendered and quite easily run by the private sector. It is also better if the private sector can innovate and provide its own types of vessels and different cost structures—perhaps operating hours can be extended and services can become more frequent. The inflexibility of the current arrangements limits services and underlies the subsidy increases that continually have to be pumped into the system. The suppression of innovation is the reason behind such things.
Do we need a separate Scottish Government ferries strategy? Some people have argued that ferries are a Cinderella service and that we need a distinct strategy that would involve perhaps one body taking responsibility for them. Some have argued, for example, that responsibility for road, rail and ferries matters should move from Victoria Quay to Transport Scotland, although it could be argued that doing that would simply move that responsibility from one set of bureaucrats to another—I would not be so rude as to suggest that. What are your views on having an overall strategy and one body that is responsible for ferries, road and rail matters, in particular for integration?
Transport Scotland has a potentially useful role to play, although it is an executive agency and therefore may not constitute what the European Commission would regard as an independent authority. That is the regulatory aspect.
There is a definite need for a maritime directorate, as one finds in most countries with a coastline. Scotland does not have such a directorate. A directorate would be a good opportunity to bring together the various organisations that have a role in maritime transport but which act individually and do not necessarily talk to one another on a daily basis. I refer, for example, to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Northern Lighthouse Board and other nautical organisations.
I move on to the issue of fares. In the past, we have had various policies on fares, such as having a straight 40 per cent discount across the board for passengers throughout Scotland. The current model, with which the witnesses will be familiar, is the road equivalent tariff, a pilot of which will be run in October. What are your views on the best method of setting ferry fares?
Ultimately, it should be a matter of Government policy. In principle, there is no reason why, if it is deemed appropriate, there should not be a zero ferry fare in some contexts; what you want to encourage and what you can justify are matters of public policy.
Fares are an immensely complex area. Government has a number of mechanisms at its disposal, one of which is price ceilings; another, as the minister mentioned in speaking about ScotRail, is interception of profits over a certain level. On the road equivalent tariff, as Professor Kay said, you can make ferry fares free, but I am not so sure that that would have the effect of improving the quality of the ferries. The quality of ferries is fundamentally about the management system and the investment in the technology used, as well as the working practices onboard and the operating hours.
One of the puzzles—there is anecdotal evidence for why it might have happened—is that the Executive, or at least members of the Parliament, originally pushed the idea of PSOs in both ferries and air. In the case of air services, that turned into aid of a social character, or residents' discounts on air fares. From the point of view of aiding peripheral regions, economists would regard the aid of a social character device as inferior to a PSO. Although the aid of a social character residents' discount would help residents to go to the mainland, it would also increase leakages because people would be more likely to spend on the mainland than on the island. Air fares should be lower for everyone, particularly for those who want to go to the islands and spend their money there. There is not much point in having a lower air fare to enable someone who works in a shop in Stornoway to go to the mainland and spend money there if, as a consequence of the higher air fare for people coming to the islands, the shop goes bankrupt because it is doing no business and cannot afford to employ.
My final question is about the European Commission and the investigation into the subsidies that are being paid to CalMac and NorthLink. How do you feel about that? Has there been overcompensation or have the tendering exercises been unfair or unnecessary? My other question is for Professor Baird, because Professor Kay has already answered it. Do you accept the EU view that it is perfectly competent for nation states to provide subsidies for socially necessary routes as long as they meet the requirements of the European Court of Justice's decision in the Altmark case?
As I said, the situation would be much less complex if the private sector was given a level playing field on which to bid. That includes the opportunity to provide its own tonnage. The private sector ferry companies that we have worked with in the past, and the companies that tried to bid for the current routes, had their own ideas on tonnage, the different types of vessels that they could employ, and their operational aspects. They can offer something different from the state and that is at the core of what they can offer.
Professor Kay mentioned the subsidy paradox. Obviously the MCA tends to lay down staffing requirements. What is your view, Professor Kay?
I made the point about the rapid increase of subsidies in my written submission. Safety requirements have been increasing, and I understand that some of the increase in subsidy was due to that.
Concerns have been raised that the current northern isles and Clyde and Hebrides ferry service contracts do not allow sufficient operational flexibility. Is there any way in which such contracts can be framed to allow for flexibility—for example, for the holding of a ferry until a train comes in?
They should have that flexibility. Passengers should not come into a port by ferry only to see their train leaving, although I know that that happens quite often. Obviously, that should be avoided. The tenders require to be a bit more flexible, not just for the ferry companies, but for the railway companies, which are also under the threat of severe penalties.
When we have taken evidence around the country, people have told us that that is an important issue for a number of ferry users. Professor Kay, do you have a view on it?
In an ideal world, it would be in the operators' interests for them to adjust their schedules to integrate, as integration should increase the usage of the routes. One presumes that the operators have the incentive, but in practice it is difficult for them to do that. For example, it would be in the interest of the train operator to link with the ferries on the Gourock to Dunoon route, but there will always be delays. What would happen if the First ScotRail train departed three minutes before the ferry arrived? First ScotRail already faces penalties and has objectives to fulfil; therefore, on a day-to-day basis, integration may be difficult to achieve.
How should the Scottish Government ensure the on-going provision of lifeline ferry services following the end of the current northern isles and Clyde and Hebrides ferry service contracts?
You will have anticipated my response to that question. We must not start from where we are; we must start by building what we should have built seven or perhaps eight years ago. At that time, we received very clear signals about what needed to be done. We need to create an independent regulator and develop a system for public service obligations and adherence to the Altmark guideline.
I have a small point on integration. I am just back from a trip to Norway, where for the past six or seven years I have been doing a lot of work on research projects in the ferry sector. I took a ferry from Kristiansand to Trondheim, from one excellent, covered terminal with bus and rail integration—Trondheim has rail integration—to another. The trip was on a lovely catamaran and the route was partly on the open sea. It was not far different from the Firth of Clyde in the Dunoon to Gourock area. A couple of months ago, I took the train from Glasgow central to Gourock. The rolling stock was old, and pretty shabby and dirty. I got out in the railway station at Gourock—an obsolete-looking thing with no roof—and on to the CalMac ferry, with its 1960s design and 1970s construction. That is my example to the committee of state provision. In comparison with Norway, Scotland is like a less-developed country. To get over that, we have to refine tenders to ask the private sector to provide us with tonnage, with modern, sophisticated vessels, and with managerial, operational practices that are common in many other European countries and in other economies worldwide.
Perhaps Professor Baird was looking in the wrong place. I am a regular user of the Gourock to Dunoon ferry—indeed, I came over on it today. The Gourock transport interchange is on the back burner. The place is derelict. We have 35-year-old streakers, as they are called, and the Ali Cat, which is only allowed to sail in 18in of wave. A private sector operator runs 80 per cent of the market. Had Professor Baird been to Wemyss Bay, he would have found two magnificent vessels—MV Bute and MV Coruisk—run by the state-owned operator, and superb facilities, of which we can only dream in Dunoon.
I would like your views on the debate that took place in 2005 about the accessibility of the model that Professor Kay suggested, including the Altmark case. It was suggested by the minister at the time that that approach was not viable. The Altmark judgment was about whether a subsidy could confer on the company that received it an advantage over others that had not. The European Court of Justice's decision makes it clear that the judgment did not seek to overturn sectoral rules relating to subsidy where those exist. Does that mean that the Altmark judgment—which I think was about buses—would not be related to the decisions that we are interested in to do with ferries?
In 2006, Commissioner Barrot, in response to a letter—I think that it was from Alyn Smith MEP—said that the Altmark guidelines have to be complied with if we are going to subsidise and impose PSOs on ferry routes in Scotland. The best way to think of the guidelines is as a set of traffic signals. I think of the PSO as being rather like a driving licence. It enables us to subsidise. The guidelines provided by Altmark are indications of how we achieve and justify the subsidies that we are imposing on a route. Norway is subject to the same rules and regulations as Scotland, even though it is not in the European Union. Indeed, since 2001 Norway has been investigated by the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority for allegedly failing to comply with the rules. For many years, the relevance of Altmark has not been a mystery. It has been clear since 2006 that it has to be complied with.
In today's evidence and at previous meetings, much mention has been made of the lack of innovation and the historical decisions on which the current system is based. You have already touched on this, but is there scope for a root-and-branch review of the ferry network? If such a review is necessary, who should carry it out, how should it be done and what should the timescale be? Let us start with Professor Kay.
The timescale is one year. The Commission has 18 months to fulfil its investigation. It could finish it more quickly, but a one-year horizon is sufficient. If we thought that we did not have the time before, it is clear that we must make the time now. It is quite possible to produce in a year a set of options and policy decisions on what should be done with the Scottish ferry network so that it complies with EC law. It can be done, because other countries have done it with their ferry networks. There are different ways of so doing.
Fundamentally—certainly in the case of the Western Isles—we must get away from the single bundle concept. A key problem for private sector bidders is having to bid for the entire system of 30 ships and 1,000 people or whatever; it is just too massive and inflexible. A private sector operator who bids successfully for that system must take everything that is there.
That rather assumes that the present routes are those that we would want to put out to tender. Should we go a stage further back and review whether the ferry service that we have is fit for the 21st century?
With respect, I do not think that civil servants or their advisers can do that. The solution lies partly in private sector innovation on route decisions. We should not throw routes at people on the basis of historical precedent or even some consultation process—in my experience, deciding routes by consultation or ship design is quite a flawed process, as the subsidy requirements show. We could innovate by asking operators about their preferences for routes and examining the effect that that would have on their cost structure.
Perhaps we could also ask passengers and users, rather than just the operators.
Yes, although the market has a perception formed from experience. In the European ferry industry, the companies that bid for many of the public sector concessions have a great deal of common learning, which they could bring to Scotland from countries such as Denmark or Spain. The state-owned operator in Scotland cannot do that because it does not have that common learning that brings international or transnational benefits.
We have heard complaints about the vessels that are used on certain routes and the fact that they are incompatible with the port infrastructure—the issue was touched on in reply to some of Dave Stewart's questions. How could that situation be addressed in future? I think that Professor Baird has already answered that.
One part of the problem is the inheritance problem. Some linkspans and piers are in the hands of Caledonian Maritime Assets and some are in the hands of councils. If we were starting from scratch, we would not design that kind of inheritance. It tends to be a bit patchy and ad hoc.
I disagree. Caledonian Maritime Assets is still a state-owned entity that owns ships. It might well be its role to provide port infrastructure on a common-user basis to competing operators, as airports, bus stations or railway terminals do. Providing common assets is fine, but ship-owning is an art as well as a science and it is not something that governments do well. The CMAL model is not obligatory. CalMac has been split into two entities, but I have not seen any evidence for the model anywhere else. It is a unique example that has not been tested. It has not got around the Commission's concerns and I do not think that it will do so.
We have a little time in hand, so if either of the witnesses would like to raise any issues on which members have not asked questions, now is the time to do so.
I finish with a simple point. It is easy to consider the problems in isolation—the regulator, the operator of last resort, PSOs, or the Altmark judgment—but the problems are systemic, and the solutions must be systemic. That takes me back to a point that I argued in 2001, when I urged the then Executive to consult the people who had competence in the problem issues. The Executive should have had no sense of failure in consulting the Department of Trade and Industry and other bodies in England that were responsible for the introduction of competitive tendering to essential services. That was the issue with which we were faced and those bodies would have provided insights. At the time, however, there was insularity and a bunker mentality in relation to taking advice from outside individuals, bodies or institutions.
On competition, it should not be the role of the state to squeeze out private operators and private investment, but that is largely what is happening. I provided some evidence that there is precedent for that. Private sector shipping routes have been closed down in the past due to subsidised competition.
Thank you both for your direct evidence. No doubt you will be interested to read the conclusions in our report.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We continue item 4, which is evidence for our ferry services inquiry, with panel 2. I welcome from VisitScotland Ben Carter, who is the head of strategic relations; Andy Steven, who is the island manager for Shetland; and Chris Maguire, who is the strategic relations manager. I ask Mr Carter whether he wishes to introduce himself and his colleagues further and to make opening remarks.
Tourism is very important to the islands' economy, almost in disproportion to its importance in the rest of Scotland. About 15 per cent of the island groups' gross domestic product relies on tourism. Ferries are a key enabler of tourism's success on the islands, so we support the ferry services inquiry. We are keen for ferries to continue to support tourism on the islands.
Mr Carter has touched on the subject of my first question. Has VisitScotland researched visitor experiences of Scotland's ferry services, either as a stand-alone project or as part of a wider research exercise? If so, what were the findings?
To the best of my knowledge, a study of the visitor experience on ferries has not been done, although studies have been undertaken on passenger volumes and other matters on routes to the islands. However, we can look at what else we might have on record and tell the committee if we find anything.
In a roundabout way, we have findings. We have not done direct research on the ferry experience, but we have research on island hopping that shows that 96 per cent of people had a very good experience or were likely to return, and the ferries are part of that experience.
It sounds as if some qualitative questions could easily be produced.
That question does not have an easy answer. At times, reaching an island is more complex than travelling somewhere on the mainland. Short breaks are a growing trend in tourism and timetabling issues are more important when a break is shorter. In some places, the last train at night does not coincide with a ferry, for example. However, we recognise the complexity of timetabling. For example, someone who tries to get to an island such as Tiree on a same-day trip, first by train to Oban and then by ferry, will have a difficult experience, although the difficulty factor will depend on where they start out from. That of itself might rule out a short break to the islands. Timetabling is important, but the answers are not straightforward, given the range of places that people start out from to get to the islands.
The current timetabling to Shetland is adequate because the journey is long—12 or 14 hours. The visitor boards the vessel in the late evening, has something to eat, sleeps and wakes up at their destination. Whereas there may be issues in other areas, the Shetland ferry timetable has been tweaked over a number of years to allow it to work for as many people as possible. In saying that, I am bearing it in mind that everyone—whether their interest is in freight or tourism—has an input to make.
I recently experienced what you describe, Mr Steven, as I travelled to Shetland for the committee's inquiry. The experience was thoroughly enjoyable.
It can work both ways. In many respects, the first thing that we have to do is to create a desire to visit the islands. Indeed, the islands and the imagery of the islands are often used to promote and market Scotland further afield. Creating that interest is often what it takes to get people to look around and delve further into the information by way of websites and so on. That is when they start to look into the practicalities of timetabling and accommodation.
At that point there is presumably some fall off in interest; people are perhaps daunted by the travel logistics.
I do not have the facts and figures on that, but without question, ease of travel is a factor. There is research—not specific to the islands—that shows the journey-time radius that makes travel appealing. The longer that journey time, the bigger the barrier it presents.
But you cannot tell us a bit more about that. As you said in your introductory remarks, if people see the part of their journey that is by ferry as part of their holiday, perhaps their perception will change. With the best will in the world, when we talk about journeys to the islands, we are by definition talking about long distances. We are talking about island communities that some people south of the border do not even see on their television weather map.
I believe that that has been the case.
It is certainly the case in your case.
At that level of detail, there is.
Visitors do a lot more research themselves these days. If they are going to a remote destination, they are pretty aware of the logistical issues. Most people now seem to ask the right questions at the right time. Companies such as NorthLink Ferries have worked harder to make the journey part of the holiday. NorthLink has done that by raising its profile and the level of customer service.
As I said, I recently experienced that. I wonder whether CalMac could do something similar, but I had better keep the thought to myself.
We will perhaps taste its menu at some point.
Leaving aside issues such as timetables and the ferry service frequencies, do current ferry routes meet the needs of tourists? If not, what new routes should be introduced?
Most of the main tourism destinations are serviced. There has been some discussion about new routes. One that has come up in particular involves a change in the current service from Lochboisdale in South Uist. The current ferry link requires a seven-hour journey to Oban, and it has been suggested that an alternative route could go from Lochboisdale to Mallaig, on a similar timetable to the Ullapool to Stornoway ferry service. That would cut the journey time to three hours.
Staying on connections, are you satisfied that tourists are aware of and able to access integrated public transport information and services through timetables and tickets for journeys involving ferries, buses and trains? How might those elements be better integrated? Andy Steven talked about people researching things prior to going somewhere, but do you think that the services are as good as they could be in that regard?
It is difficult to speak for all areas in that level of detail, but we do not tend to find members of the public having major problems doing what you are talking about. We are keen to publicise support mechanisms across the country to help people. We encourage people to talk directly to the visitor and walk them through the process—the personal touch is important, as it can enhance their experience from the first point of contact.
The committee has heard concerns about capacity on certain ferry routes during the summer season. What is your experience of the problem, and how best could it be resolved?
In some respects, that is a million dollar question. In the Western Isles, trying to find accommodation in July and August is a challenge. Were we simply to add capacity in the summer months, we would also need to do something on the infrastructure side in the islands, to enable us to respond to that.
But do you not need the ferries to respond as well? In his paper on options for the northern isles ferry services, Professor Baird suggested that the provision of larger vessels, running to an improved timetable and with improved accommodation in Aberdeen harbour, needs more effort than has been put in so far.
That issue has been looked into. Despite the improvement in onboard experience, the vessels that serve the northern isles are, unfortunately, not as good as we might want them to be. Their design is based on that of older vessels and they have to cope with the limitations of Aberdeen harbour. Currently, the service that is being provided is as good as it can be. As you know, if the ferries go faster, they burn more fuel, which raises issues.
There are two points here. One is that the Visentini-type ferries that have been talked about would enable a lot more people to get a cabin. The fact that it is difficult to get a cabin was a complaint that we heard about the present system.
Cabins might be a luxury on some Scottish routes, but they are essential for the longer routes. Anything that adds cabin capacity is a good thing. The vessels are based on an elderly design. These days people tend not to want to share cabins with others. A four-berth cabin may be booked by one person so that they can have some privacy, which is understandable. Anything that adds some cabin capacity—and, therefore, some comfort capacity—will be welcome.
The ferry terminal must also be fit for purpose. To make NorthLink, in particular, provide a better experience for passengers, it must be proven that Aberdeen harbour can work using a quay that can accommodate bigger vessels or alternatives must be sought, as has been suggested. The issue must be balanced with the need to provide services for people who are using hospitals in Aberdeen or taking public transport from there. Does VisitScotland not have an interest in ensuring that serious thought is given to developing a vessel strategy?
Absolutely. Andy Steven mentioned that there are different travel groups and travel patterns; more singles are travelling, for example. Given our knowledge of visitor demographics, we could make an input into the kind of strategic development that you suggest.
Good. Do you think that CalMac and NorthLink exploit fully the opportunities to provide tourism-related services such as mini-cruises to the northern isles?
There was probably more flexibility for such services in the past; I expect that previous witnesses have touched on the issue. Operator flexibility is essential.
You think that flexibility is essential, but NorthLink put on a service for the island games that was not subsidised, because it was not included in the tender. Is that not a ridiculous situation? The aim of the mini-cruise was to bring a unique group of people to the Shetland Islands.
Flexibility is the key. Operators should be able to identify, to seize and to run with opportunities, as commercial operators anywhere do.
I turn to the issue of public spending priorities. With any Government, there is a limit to the amount of public money that can be spent in an area. Is your priority expenditure on internal air services or on ferry services? What is the tourism impact of air services as compared with ferry services?
The best numbers that we have come from research relating to the Outer Hebrides that was carried out in 2006. The number of passengers arriving by sea in 2006 was 191,000, whereas 71,000 came by air. The majority of those passengers—77 per cent of total traffic—were visitors. Sea is by far the dominant mode of transport. However, a comparison with 2002 shows that, although sea traffic grew by 4.4 per cent between 2002 and 2006, air traffic grew by 23 per cent. There are two different messages: first, sea traffic is and will remain for the foreseeable future the tourism industry's bread and butter; and secondly, the trend is towards an increase in air traffic. It is hard to determine what people's behaviour will be much further down the line, but for the immediate future ferries are far more important than air services for the immediate sustainability of the tourism industry in the Western Isles.
I can add some figures for Shetland, which carried out a visitor survey in 2006. Probably because the journey to Shetland is slightly longer than the journey to the Western Isles, roughly 50 per cent of visitors came by air and 50 per cent came by sea. One mode of transport was as important to us as the other. It will be interesting to see what the figures are when we carry out our next survey in a couple of years, given that since 2006 we have seen the introduction of discount air fares, increased air capacity and direct flights to London.
Were the surveys that you mentioned specifically of tourist journeys?
The figures that I gave were for total traffic to the Western Isles, of which about 78 per cent was visitor traffic—so visitors are the lifeblood of services. It is unfortunate that visitor journeys were not broken down into air and sea journeys.
We have heard conflicting views on the matter from witnesses. Some people argue that one form of public subsidy is competing with another without anything being achieved; other people seem to say, "Hey, it's all good." How do we strike a balance between priorities? The answer to my question might be different for different parts of Scotland. Do you want Government to take a particular direction?
We need to have a proper look at the issue, so that we can give you a sensible, worked-up answer rather than a gut feeling.
What are your views on the pilot road equivalent tariff scheme? Some routes to the Western Isles will be included in the pilot; other routes are not included. We have heard a range of views about whether there will be a noticeable or measurable impact on businesses and tourism in the areas that are not included.
We welcome the pilot, which might provide answers that we do not currently have. The pilot will be interesting in that it will tell us to what extent price is a factor in people's decisions to visit the islands. I talked about the study on the Western Isles, which produced qualitative evidence that transport costs are a negative factor in people's holiday experience. However, we do not know whether a change in price would affect demand. It is one thing for people to say that they would like to pay less; it is another for more people to travel as a result of a reduction in fares.
We support the idea of additionality; displacement is a negative concept and we should not regard RET in such terms. I represent our most remote islands and I am interested in the pilot. The air discount scheme meant that more people travelled, so let us see what happens when ferry fares are reduced. As Ben Carter said, we probably have more questions than answers. We will watch the pilot with great interest.
Given Ben Carter's point about the impact of RET during the summer months, would it make more sense to consider specific seasonal initiatives to try to boost the tourism market—whether through short breaks or anything else—outside those peak times?
A combination of things is needed, but a key issue for successfully growing tourism in the islands—and in almost all rural parts of Scotland—is extending the season as far as possible beyond the traditional months. One of the first places to start is with the spare capacity that normally exists outside peak times. Price packages could be used to entice people at different times of the year. We will watch with great interest whether the different price that is provided by the RET pilot makes the islands a more attractive off-season offering.
How much input, if any, did VisitScotland have into the design of the pilot?
I am not aware that we had any direct input into the design of the pilot, but I am sure that officials in the tourism team in the Scottish Government had discussions with their colleagues in the transport division.
The RET pilot will run over quite an extended period. Does VisitScotland have any views on how the pilot should be evaluated? What results should we look for to determine the success of RET and its applicability to other parts of Scotland after the pilot period?
A key test will be whether RET leads to additionality. That must be a fundamental test. A second issue will be whether RET has helped to drive tourism at the end of each season, as Ben Carter said. We are increasingly changing resources from our autumn campaigns into winter campaigns such as our winter white campaign. We need to consider whether RET can be used to drive additional traffic outwith the summer season. If the RET pilot achieves those two things, it will be successful from our point of view.
It is hard to analyse the ones that got away. By that I mean that it is hard to know how many other people would have travelled if we had not been at full capacity. That is difficult to capture. If we could measure factors such as inquiry levels during those key summer months, they might provide an indicator of how much more supply would be needed to make that possible.
It is worth pointing out that VisitScotland and ZetTrans are working together to try to get some of those data by finding out from people who expressed an interest in visiting the Shetlands whether they came and whether the decision of those who did not come was influenced by price or availability. In any pilot, it is fairly key that we gather as much evidence as possible on which we can look back.
There are no further questions but, as we are a little ahead of schedule, the witnesses might want to raise any points that have not come up in questioning. I am aware that some of our earlier questions on capacity, timetabling and integration focused more on the northern isles and less on the rest of Scotland. Do members of the panel want to make any other points in closing?
No, thank you.
I thank all three witnesses. We will suspend the meeting briefly to allow the panels to change over.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our final panel of witnesses: Captain Ron Bailey, the harbourmaster of Clydeport Ltd; Guy Platten, the managing director of Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd; and Iain MacLeod, the chairman of Stornoway Port Authority, who is representing the British Ports Association. I thank the witnesses for joining us to answer questions. I invite you to introduce yourselves in more detail and to make any introductory remarks that you wish to make.
Good afternoon. My name is Ron Bailey and I am the harbourmaster for Clydeport. I have been in post for 12 years. I was previously with the Manchester ship canal for 12 years, and prior to that I had a merchant navy career. In case members do not know, Clydeport Ltd's jurisdiction covers 450 square miles on the west coast.
My name is Iain MacLeod, and I am a businessman in Stornoway. I have been the chairman of Stornoway Port Authority for the past seven years, although I am not here in that capacity; I am here representing the British Ports Association. I hope to avoid talking about Stornoway and the Western Isles in detail because I am here to represent all the lifeline ports.
Thank you for that clarification.
Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation to give evidence to the committee. My name is Guy Platten and I am managing director of Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd, a post I have been in since August of last year. I have 25 years' experience in the marine industry at sea and ashore. Prior to taking up my present post, I was director of marine operations for the Northern Lighthouse Board.
Thank you all very much. Rob Gibson will open the questioning.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. Concerns have been raised in our ferry inquiry about deteriorating infrastructure at Scotland's ferry ports and harbours. How big a problem is that and which ports or harbours are worst affected?
When we took over in CMAL, we did a full condition survey of all our harbours. Without being too specific, I can say that quite a few of the harbours need investment to ensure that they stay safe and to improve them for the future. Ensuring that we get the money to make the necessary improvements will be a challenge.
Will you elaborate on the number of ports?
We have 21 harbours, and in at least 50 per cent of them there is a requirement to spend more money than was first envisaged.
Are any particularly seriously affected?
Not in the short term, because they are safe. I make it clear that all the harbours are safe. However, we know from the full condition survey that there will be problems in the future and that we must start taking action now before the problems become urgent and threaten safety.
CMAL owns some harbours, but other organisations own other points of landing for our ferries. Do Clydeport and the British Ports Association have experience of problems that are similar to those experienced by CMAL?
The only harbour that Clydeport owns is Ardrossan, and the ferry terminal there has had several improvements over the years. As Ardrossan develops, we will need to consider the potential for delays. You will be aware that, with the gales that we get, the service into Ardrossan sometimes has to divert to Gourock, so we will consider that in the future.
We took evidence on the Ardrossan service and the number of times that the ferry on the route to the isle of Arran has to stop running. Is it acceptable for people to have such interruptions on a lifeline ferry service or, indeed, for them to have to go Gourock for inadequate services?
That is due to a combination of many factors. My understanding is that it happened about 50 times last year. Would that be correct?
Well, you tell me.
We understand that it happened approximately 50 times. If the weather was severe, the port of Ardrossan would have to be closed, but it could be a combination of that and a vessel's ability to handle severe weather. There are many factors, but we intend to do a study to determine whether we can put in any facilities at Ardrossan that would help to reduce that number.
I have been a regular user of the service over many years. I am surprised at you talking about a study now when the issue has been known about for years.
As I said, there is a combination of factors. The issue is not only the port, but the fact that vessels vary in their ability to overcome more difficult conditions.
Have previous vessels overcome them better than the present one?
I would have to ask CalMac about that.
That is fair enough.
I really would be taking a stab in the dark on it.
Yes, but the question followed on from what you said about some vessels being better than others.
Obviously, if one is carrying passengers, one has to be more careful than if one is carrying only freight. We used to have a Pandoro service out of there and the weather did not seem to interrupt its passage quite so often.
That is helpful. Does CMAL have any views on the service?
We have plans to modernise and improve Brodick, which is the port that we own on that route. Unfortunately, it will be 2012 before those come to fruition, because we have a number of other projects into which we also must put time and money. However, we certainly have ambitions for the route.
I have raised the subject of accelerated low-water corrosion. Evidence in Arran suggests that people feel that the linkspan, which is perhaps more than 30 years old, is in need of urgent attention.
As part of our condition check, we examined all the linkspans. CMAL's original budget for harbour maintenance was about £1.5 million a year. From our investigations, we would say that it requires about £3 million a year, because we recognise that some of the linkspans need attention, perhaps not this week or month but certainly within the next two or three years.
Is the Brodick pier one of those that need the most urgent attention?
I would have to access the condition reports to see the exact condition of that linkspan.
Could you tell the committee in writing?
Yes, we could do that no problem.
Will you explain why the infrastructure at Scotland's ferry ports and harbours has been allowed to deteriorate? Has routine preventive maintenance not been carried out or is it because of underinvestment? Do any of you have a view?
My opinion is that there has been underinvestment over the years. Piers and harbours are not as obvious—not as sexy, if you like—as a new ship but, nevertheless, are really important if the ships are to berth safely. The underinvestment needs to be addressed.
Does Iain MacLeod think that there are problems of deterioration in some of the ports that he represents, because there has been no preventive maintenance?
There is a problem with maintenance. It is not that the problem has not been addressed, but finding revenue to address marine repairs is always difficult because they are extortionately expensive. Many problems lie below the high-water mark. Accelerated low-water corrosion and the funding of repairs continue to be a big problem for ports in Scotland.
Should we comment specifically on the need to deal with accelerated low-water corrosion? It cannot be a problem only in Scotland; the seawater and the metal are the same all over Europe.
The problem has arisen over the past 10 years. It first raised its head in Aberdeen, and the engineer there is something of an expert on the subject. It is a relatively new problem.
Clydeport has spent quite a bit of money, and we have had problems at Hunterston and with the concrete at Greenock. The port marine safety code came out in March 2000. It talks about the diversity of ports and the ownership of ports around the United Kingdom, and it points out to the boards of ports that they should set their tolls and dues to take account of the need for revenue to undertake repairs. In the UK, there is a great mix of private ports, council ports, trust ports and so on.
Mr Platten spoke about linkspans. You will be well aware of the situation on the Gourock to Dunoon service, for which the council—using European funding and other sources of funding—provided a £10 million linkspan. However, the linkspan is not compatible with the CalMac vessel; reasons to do with stern loading and bow loading mean that the linkspan cannot be used. It seems daft, but a fantastic linkspan cannot be used.
Until the problem on the Gourock to Dunoon service is resolved, investment in vessels cannot be made. As you know, the vessels are more than 30 years old and are due for replacement.
Your organisation would own the vessels, and it would be for you to decide on the appropriate type of vessel for the future.
It depends on which model is chosen. Earlier, we heard evidence from Professor Baird and Professor Kay on which model would be best. Such decisions are for others to make. We own the two streakers on the route at the moment—the Juno and the Jupiter—and we are well aware of their condition. As I say, they are more than 30 years old and we will have to consider their replacement.
Will you be unable to make decisions on investment in that route until certain legal and political situations about its future are sorted out?
Absolutely, because we will have to get access to funds or loans to buy a new ship. We will have to determine whether the vessel would be vehicle only, vehicle and passenger, or passenger only. Only then can we make investment decisions.
Would you consider the lease market as well as the purchase market?
Absolutely. Unfortunately, not that many vessels are around on the second-hand market or the charter market at the moment, because there is a huge surge in demand for world shipping.
You have said that at least 50 per cent of your harbours need additional money. Can you estimate how much it might cost to bring all Scotland's ferry ports and harbours up to a good standard of repair within a reasonable time?
I can speak only for the CMAL ports. Part of our mission is to consider the long-term future, so we have drawn up a 10-year maintenance strategy for all our ports. We would like about £3 million a year to bring our ports up to a good, safe standard, and to maintain them at that standard over the next 10 years. Major improvements, such as new terminal buildings, would require investment over and above the investment required just to maintain the status quo, for which, as I said, we estimate that we would need about £3 million a year.
Our main ferry port is Ardrossan, and we talk to CalMac Ferries and CMAL about it whenever we need to. There has been extensive development with the new terminal and the linkspans; two linkspans have been refurbished, and there is additional capacity. Looking ahead—I am perhaps jumping forward to further questions—we are still interested in looking at the Ballycastle link to Ardrossan. We have long-term plans for Greenock's Great harbour. We believe that there is still potential for a link to Ireland in future.
I will come back to Mr Platten's comments on his requirements for funding for maintenance over the next 10 years. I know that he is very concerned about funding; not only must he find funding for the piers and jetties that he owns, but he must somehow find funding for the piers and facilities that the trust ports own. That is of great concern to CMAL and the trust ports.
Can you quantify how much would be needed? I take it that that is additional.
Yes, those are additional works that are required. The £3 million is just to maintain our own ports; improvements and bigger maintenance schedules have to be carried out, such as berth improvements and rebuildings, which cost a lot of money. Iain MacLeod is quite right—we have been charged with administering the grant in aid for both CMAL and the trust ports, and we have to work together to prioritise how that money should be spent. The truth is that money will be tight.
Do you think that we have in Scotland a sufficient strategic overview of our port infrastructure?
Now that CMAL exists, at least half of my team are focused entirely on ports and harbours. We have found that we need to consider the long term, because ports and harbours need long-term investment, and a long-term strategy to determine the trade and maintenance patterns. CMAL is starting to do that, but there is perhaps a case for a Scotland-wide body. There was some talk earlier about some sort of maritime regulator for Scotland, and I support that.
How do you think such works should be funded in the longer term?
The ports and harbours, whether they are owned privately, by the trust ports or by CMAL, are public utilities and there should be some support from the taxpayer to ensure that they are maintained and can provide the right services.
We are a private port. At Greenock, most of our berths are multi-user berths, so our revenue is ploughed back in to provide whatever the ship owner requires. The Ardrossan service, which is the only one for which we operate the port—all the others operate within the statutory harbour area—seems to have a reasonable business case, and we spend what is required as long as everything stacks up.
Mr Platten, can you say a little more about the 10-year programme that you spoke about? You mentioned issues to do with ports and harbours infrastructure and some of the issues that might be less visible to passengers, as well as some of the more visible things such as ferry terminals. You also mentioned the lease or purchase of replacement vessels. I am interested in how you determine the priorities for those different areas of investment, and in who else helps to shape those priorities. For example, do you consult ferry users, operators and other agencies that might be stakeholders?
I have been in post since August last year, as have most of my team, so we have only been around for a relatively short period of time. Our first action was to find out about the state of the nation's ports and harbours, as well as the ships. The average age of the larger ships is now 17 years, and for the smaller ships it is 19 years. If we consider that the life expectancy of a ship is perhaps 30 years—although Professor Baird would argue that it would be a lot less than that nowadays—we see how often a ship needs to be replaced, and we have 31 of them. Apart from the Islay vessel, we have no new ships on order at present, so by the time the Islay vessel is delivered in 2011, the average age of the vessels will be 21. That issue needs to be addressed urgently.
When you say long term, do you mean after the period of the 10-year plan?
Yes. I am learning very quickly that 10 years is a blink of the eye where assets are concerned. We have to start planning for 10, 20 and 30 years hence. One of CMAL's advantages is that it can do that. The day-to-day running of the ferry service is down to the operator; our job is to look at the long-term infrastructure and investment requirements.
I will come back to the 10-year plan in a moment, but I am interested in the process that you use to formulate the longer-term priorities, and the scope for including ferry users—island communities and businesses that are based in the islands—in developing plans. It is easy to get forthright views about what is happening or what is wrong now from some of those communities. Do you try and get people to feed into the longer-term questions about development and investment in the future? If so, how?
We already engage with communities. CMAL is the statutory harbour authority at a number of locations and we are seeking to broaden that, which means that we have to engage with communities in order to find out what they need. Through that, we are building links.
Could you outline for the committee some of the specifics of your 10-year plan and how it is spread around the country?
The 10-year plan is purely for maintenance of ports and harbours at the moment. We will look at each harbour and find out when investment or deep maintenance will be required. That can vary from harbour to harbour.
When you say that the plan will deal mostly with maintenance, will it be visible to users or will stuff that needs to be done go on behind the scenes where users cannot see it?
A lot of it will be done where users cannot see it. Maintaining linkspans or piers and jetties is not particularly exciting, but it has to be done.
I disagree with Mr Platten; I find linkspans fascinating.
The £200 million figure is aspirational. It is the money that we will need to invest to replace the fleet. You will see from our figures that we have enough money to replace the Islay vessel—that is a given—but so that we can place further orders, our mechanism is to increase the operator's charter fee. It is inevitable that doing so will result in an increased subsidy requirement.
Is it CalMac's or your job to find out what customers want and where new routes can be developed?
That is done in conjunction with the operator. Obviously, the operator has deep knowledge of the routes and the communities that they serve, so it is fundamental to the process. We also have a role to play, because we are trying to build for the long term, and we know how long it can take for a ship to be built, from a decision being taken that we want a ship to its being delivered. The process can take five or six years.
Let us consider a hypothetical situation. The board of CalMac approaches you and tells you that it wants a vessel to go from A to B, the sort of vessel it would like and the timescale within which it would like it. Would you then be asked to provide the budget and acquire a vessel by leasing or purchasing?
That would be one way of doing things. We would then look to work up a specification and seek funds through loans, for example. If money is borrowed, it must be got back from somewhere, which inevitably leads to increased fleet charter fees.
Obviously, your organisation is still in the public sector. Do you still need permission from the relevant Government department in Victoria Quay to go ahead with such funding?
Yes, we do. We get loans from the Public Works Loan Board, so we must get such approval.
So you basically put a business case to Victoria Quay and say, "This is the route that we want to develop, this is the vessel, and this is the cost." You then get approval for your proposal, borrow money and pay back that money.
We pay money back and pass on charges to the end user, as any commercial organisation would do. In this case, CalMac Ferries Ltd is the end user.
Right. Do you have the same relationship with NorthLink?
No. NorthLink ships are leased from the Royal Bank of Scotland.
So if NorthLink had new proposals, it would go back to that private bank to get provision for a new lease.
We have no say in such matters, but I presume that that would be the case.
What you said about the budget is useful—I had been a bit unclear about it. I must remember that the figure that you mentioned was aspirational. You aspire to obtain £200 million in the same way that we all aspire to be First Minister.
I used the word "aspirational", but the fleet will have to be replaced, so we will need at some point to find the money to do that. Some organisations can project only for the three years of a spending review period, and so will try to influence the next spending review. One of CMAL's advantages is that we look 10, 15 or 20 years hence rather than two or three years hence. We flag up how much money will have to be spent on vessel replacement in 15 years. I hope that doing so influences matters.
I forgot to mention another point that the Scandinavian consultants made: they said that vessels should be of a type. Obviously, economies of scale will be achieved as a result of mass producing vessels of the same type. I realise that vessels should be compatible with ports and that they should be the right size—Rob Gibson mentioned berths and so on—but does that point make sense?
It makes a huge amount of sense. In partnership with colleagues from the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland and the department with responsibility for Gaelic affairs in southern Ireland, we are about to investigate a project for a common small ferry design, as we recognise that we all have small islands and our infrastructures are not too different. We are investigating whether we can work together. It certainly makes sense to go out to the market for a number of vessels rather than for only one. Nowadays especially, shipyards are not too interested in one-off vessels, but they would be interested if we wanted three, four or five, and economies of scale would definitely be achieved.
One of the arguments that is used by the private sector is that it could acquire vessels easier and quicker than the public sector. I have never quite understood how that is the case, as I presume it operates in the same world market.
I would be happy to try that model. One has to ensure one has a ship for the peak periods, but there is nothing to stop one putting a ship on the market on a time-charter or voyage-charter basis over the winter months. The industry models are in place and the charter agreements exist, so it would be very straightforward.
Time is running out. My final question is also to Mr. Platten. If a private sector operator—or any other company—wished to use the ports that you operate, what sort of arrangement could you offer? Have you had approaches from private operators who want to utilise your ports?
We have had informal approaches from a couple of potential operators. Obviously that information is commercially confidential. As yet, nothing formal is in place.
Do you have existing customers or is it all aspirational?
A number of ships use our berths in Port Ellen—a number of small cruise ships such as the Hebridean Princess and the Waverley also use our berths. We get a lot of fishing boats, and leisure craft also use some of our berths. We get a small income from them, but not much.
A fuel tanker uses Brodick monthly, as well.
If members do not have any final questions, would the witnesses like to address any issues that have not come up?
Several private individuals have come to us looking to start up services. The committee is probably aware of the Clydefast hovercraft trial that has been around for some time. The operator of the trial began with fast mono-hulled vessels but has moved on to hovercraft travelling from Dunoon, Gourock and up-river.
We have listened carefully to Mr Platten and what has come through is his concern about funding over the next ten years. He is aware that there are funding problems for the trust ports. He does not have an unlimited budget. He is carrying out a review of his own facilities and when that is complete he will look at the trust ports. When it was announced without notice in December that the money for lifeline services—the piers and harbours grants—was to be handed to CMAL to administer there was almost panic among the ports. I give credit where it is due, however: Mr Platten and his team have worked very hard to communicate with the trust ports. He did not mention that he has established the grant management group, which consists mainly of trust port members, along with a CMAL member, to consider management of the funds over the next 10 years.
I echo Mr MacLeod's comments. CMAL is committed to investing in our ports, helping with the trust ports and investing in replacing vessels. However, that will mean expenditure.
I thank all the witnesses for spending time with us to answer questions. Your evidence is appreciated. The committee's report will be published when we have reached our conclusions.
Meeting closed at 17:18.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation