Official Report 259KB pdf
Good afternoon everybody and welcome to the sixth meeting in 2008 of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. I remind everybody present that mobile devices should be switched off.
Thank you for inviting me. I am the acting convener of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, which I will abbreviate as MACS, if you do not mind.
Thank you. I am sure that members are aware of the issues around that. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to discuss the matter in another format.
From its outset, MACS had a view of transport that was modal dependent; we had a buses group, a trains group and a ferries group. I am proud to say that I chaired the ferries group in the early days. I live in Orkney, where I am a councillor, so my interest in ferries is more than a little and not just because of my MACS interest. MACS took a strong interest in ferries from the beginning.
You talked about vessel and terminal design. How much input has MACS had to more day-to-day issues such as timetabling and changes to ferry services?
MACS provides strategic guidance rather than getting involved with detailed, day-to-day issues. We receive submissions from disabled people regarding their dissatisfaction. Two types of comment are characteristic. First, people complain about the complication of timetables. They have difficulty in understanding the complex diagrams that CalMac, for example, produces. I know that there are many complications—for example, on school days a ferry might have to leave half an hour earlier, so there might be a little cross against the scheduled time to show that, but that might not apply on Thursdays, and so on. We have been working on—and producing guidance on—the provision of information for travellers and would-be travellers about such things.
Have you raised the issue of staff awareness of the needs of people with disabilities with the ferry operators?
We have worked with NorthLink, whose managing director is very enthusiastic about having disabled passengers on his boats, and active in promoting that—in fact, one of the MACS meetings took place on a NorthLink ferry. I am not here to advertise NorthLink, but the director has tried hard and when the person at the top of an organisation tries hard, that makes a difference. We have worked frequently with CalMac representatives and explained the sort of things that they need to know. On the other hand, some of what we have seen when we have taken trips on ferries has been far from ideal.
How does your organisation intend to link in to the ferry service consultation structures that operate under the auspices of the regional transport partnerships?
As I explained, we have considered that, but it is no longer relevant if MACS does not exist. That is a question for James King. We are aware of the new consultation arrangements, which have been quite a long while in coming—they were being discussed in the earliest days, when I was first a member of MACS six years ago—and we tend to work with such groups. We also work with the RTPs, insofar as we are able to.
What response did you get from the RTPs to your submissions?
The response was patchy. We have not done the round of visiting the RTPs, as was our intent, to talk to them about the issues. Some have responded, but a lot of our letters have gone unanswered; that is true of other organisations, too. When we were developing the training guidance, many transport providers—certainly tens of different providers—worked with us. That was worth while—there is no point in doing something that goes against the views of people who are trying to operate the service.
Has your organisation had any input to the design of the pilot road equivalent tariff scheme that will begin in October? Do you have any views on those proposals?
The committee has not had any input on that scheme. When a new scheme is introduced, such as the removal of bridge tolls, we try to identify the benefits and disbenefits for disabled users. There were issues regarding the complexities of whether tolls on bridges should be removed for people with blue badges and so on, and the implications of that.
You spoke about some of the work that you have been doing on ferry accessibility and the associated infrastructure. Will you break down the detail slightly by giving us descriptions of existing infrastructure and the barriers that prevent good practice from being implemented?
Thank you for that question—you have given me the opportunity to say what I really wanted to say. I hope that the convener will be firm with me if I get too carried away. Very large ferries appear to be serviced very well, so I will ignore them. There is no problem there because the amount of money rolling around to operate very large ferries means that, by now, all or most of the terminals have been upgraded to standards whereby the slope of the walkway is of acceptable tolerance for people with walking difficulties and wheelchair users.
When Dave Stewart and I were down in Dunoon recently, we were given examples of how timetables and frequencies impact on people with mobility difficulties who are trying to access other services—whether it is the health service or another service that they need to access on the mainland. Have any issues been brought to your attention about people having difficulty accessing services because mobility difficulties have not been considered?
In a place such as Orkney, the health service is dominated by ferry timetables. A real effort is made there. I am sure that that is true in some parts of the Western Isles, too; in places where everybody who moves does so on a ferry, there is much greater interest in the issue. However, there is a lack of joined-up services.
Is disability taken into account when it comes to timetabling, or does that happen only when such a great proportion of the population are affected that those who are responsible cannot help but take it into account?
I do not think that it is taken into account. In Orkney, because of community planning and the attempt to join up health services and local authority services, the health board has taken a much greater interest in the matter. When medical services are being provided across many islands, there are huge advantages if they can be joined up with the transport system.
Given what you said about the smaller ferries, do operators tend to meet only the minimum legislative requirements in respect of accessibility issues?
Yes, there is a problem in that regard. The initial legislation was the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; ferries typically last for 30 or more years, so it will be a long time before many of them are dealt with.
It is another situation in which consulting people with disabilities might have come in handy.
Absolutely.
What is your view on the Dunoon situation, where there is a £10 million linkspan? That would have been excellent for disabled access, but unfortunately the boat design from CalMac is not sufficient to access the linkspan. I believe that the situation at Rothesay is the other way round, and that we have the boat but not the linkspan. Where is the joined-up thinking there?
Absolutely.
How easy is it for people with mobility problems to complete multimodal journeys, for example by ferry and then by bus or train? Whether people are travelling to use the health service or simply trying to get to another part of the country, what changes should or could be made to make their journey easier?
Disability is high on my agenda, but health and safety is even higher. Maritime and Coastguard Agency regulations require that people cannot stay in vehicles on ferry crossings of greater than half an hour. The difficulty with that is that, for example, a community minibus can take somebody to a ferry, on to a ferry and off at the other end, but during the journey—if it is longer than half an hour—that person has to come out of the minibus.
The link with buses and trains is vital. Has MACS considered the fact that often people with disabilities travel not on their own but with their family? I have heard that in some places families are split up, because people with disabilities have to go in one direction and other family members have to go in another. How can we change that situation?
It is a difficult issue. It is messy and untidy for walkways to be used by the mobile public when the access method for wheelchair users is the car deck. We would like to move away from that system as much as possible. MACS is realistic about the fact that that cannot always be achieved, but we have heard stupid stories about families being divided unnecessarily.
Perhaps this is a discussion for another place, but I am concerned that some of MACS's expertise may be lost.
Because we have taken evidence from you as a panel of one, we have gone through our questions a little faster than would normally be the case. Before I end this part of the meeting, would you like to raise any issues on which we have not touched?
I have made an informal initial submission, which will be formalised and submitted to the committee by MACS. I have talked a great deal about linkage, but members who use ferries will understand that the quality of many of our ferries is way below any acceptable standard. Steep steps are one of the biggest problems. They are very common and present incredible difficulties not only for wheelchair users and those who cannot walk, but for anyone whose mobility is at all challenged. We are looking to get lifts, but those are difficult to install on small ferries. Typically, ferries last for 30 years, so it will be a long while before the whole stock is converted to an acceptable standard.
I thank the witness for his time. If this is the last time that MACS speaks to us as MACS, perhaps you could convey our thanks to your colleagues as well.
Thank you.
We will suspend briefly to allow the changeover of witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We resume with panel 2, and I welcome colleagues from the trade unions. We have with us: Phil McGarry from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers; Paul Moloney from Nautilus UK; Stan Crooke from the Transport Salaried Staffs Association; John Docherty from Unite; and Stephen Boyd from the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
First, I thank the committee for its indulgence in inviting such a large panel of witnesses. Since CalMac became a key issue for trade unions, we have sought to work closely in partnership with the four trade unions that have members on the ferry services, so it is important that all of us are represented today. We thank you for that.
When we have sought views from communities of ferry users, we have heard the view expressed strongly that ferry services are sometimes provided to suit the needs of operators rather than passengers. The STUC's written evidence argues that the ferry workforce and island communities are effectively one. How do you reconcile those views?
That is a common issue throughout all essential public services. We often hear trade unions described as a producer interest in the delivery of health or education services, which completely ignores the fact that trade union members are users of the same services. That is true for ferry services, too.
My union has a long history of arguing for seafarers in general and, of course, people working on the ferries in Scotland to have the best skill levels. We have tried to do everything that we can to enhance those skill levels. For example, we participate in the Merchant Navy Training Board. We have tried to frame arguments to protect those skills from the worst excesses of the global marketplace in which seafarers find themselves. Our approach is very much in the interests of ferry users.
What impact might the working time directive have on the provision of ferry services and what should be done to take account of it?
I read the evidence from the previous meeting on the train today. That was the first time that we had seen the working time directive raised as an issue. I will ask one of my colleagues, who is slightly more expert on the issue, to answer your question.
I work on ferry services and I am an islander. I am fully aware of the implications of the working time directive for the smaller ferries that serve the smaller islands, where there is a requirement for a longer day, but perhaps with gaps. I work with CalMac, which comes entirely under the rules for the maritime sector, in which people calculate their hours of rest rather than their hours of work. The directive has not had a huge impact on us to date, although it is a tool that has to be looked at when we are considering either extending timetables or setting up new timetables. The flexibility involved in the hours of rest directive is different from that around the 48-hour week. I imagine that a swing towards later sailings will have a bigger impact, which will mean that we will have to employ more crew to maintain the extended timetables that will be required for some routes. We do not have a problem as such, but I understand that the smaller ferries will have problems.
We have also heard that where a vessel is based has implications for ferry crews. Do the witnesses want to comment on that?
I know that John Docherty spent the past two weeks moving ferries about the west coast, so he is probably best placed to answer that question.
Most ferries are island based, for the reason that, if the weather and harbours permit, the ferry will be at the island that it serves in case of medical emergencies and so on. That is perhaps becoming less relevant, given modern helicopter evacuation procedures. Nevertheless, for weather reasons, sometimes ferry services are the only option. In the case of Mull and Iona, the ferry cannot be berthed on Iona, but it still needs to be available to take the doctor over before they decide that a helicopter is needed. Some of the islands do not have a doctor. Although it is handier for us to be on the island that the ferry serves for hours of rest reasons—it may save an hour in getting the ferry from start to finish—where the ferry berths is not really that important. The transit times to the islands that the ferries serve are all built into the timetable.
I want to follow that up by asking about the quality of life for the crew who operate on longer services. We heard some evidence last week that the crews had to be based on the mainland three nights a week and that it might be better if that was flipped—if the crew came from the island, it would be better to berth the ship at the island.
I take it that you are talking primarily about the inter-island services, rather than the Oban to Barra routes and so on. You will find that most of the crews on the smaller ferries are local. I do not know whether what you suggest would be required for the bigger ferries. Although a big percentage of islanders work on the larger ferries, those ferries are mainly berthed at mainland ports for the sake of crew turnover and shift changes.
Although Stephen Boyd acknowledged the fact that the STUC's written submission is just an interim submission, in it the STUC raises concerns that the redeployment of vessels or changes to services could impact on seafarers' working and living arrangements. Can you explain a bit more the impact you think that such changes might cause? How would you like that impact to be minimised?
Such questions are probably best handled by the people who deliver the services.
The crews concerned are on a two-week tour of duty and will stay on board. Although they stay locally, I imagine that most of them will stay on board for weather watches or early morning starts. The workforce is quite fluid—it is not as if there is a certain group of islanders in the major fleet who work on a certain ferry and are there every night. Although the crew may stay in Stornoway, they may be on an Islay service just because of the way in which the rostering and manning requirements work out. The fact that the ships are flexible and can go on any route benefits all the communities of the Western Isles. The local knowledge is not kept in one area but can be spread throughout the fleet.
Mr Boyd, do you have agreements in place in respect of negotiations and consultations over any redeployments, or do they happen on an ad hoc basis?
The STUC would not be involved in that; that would be for the unions on the ground.
On local agreements and rostering, especially when the extension of timetables is involved, our company gets involved at trade union level just to double check that changes have no impact on the hours of work schedules and do not lead to people working an excessive number of hours. We have an input on timetable changes; there is a mechanism in place within the company to enable that to happen.
So there are no improvements to the process that you would like to be made.
It works well at present. The biggest problem arises when, with a bit more flexibility, we could do more runs. There could be a lack of flexibility because of the current restrictions and penalties.
Would you care to make any remarks about deck officers being moved from one route to another? Those officers have specialist knowledge about particular ports, so should that practice be encouraged or not on the services that run at the moment?
We have a partnership-at-work agreement with CalMac. That means that, on issues relating to timetabling and flexibility, our union is consulted and will have a view. In general, we encourage flexibility. Our members who work on Caledonian MacBrayne routes and the other ferry routes that operate from Scotland are all trained to standards of training, certification and watchkeeping 95 level, which means that their skills are transferable. Having said that, it is perhaps common sense—and certainly good business practice—to build up a degree of local expertise. We want that expertise to be built up and maintained. Nevertheless, in general, our members are trained to be able to operate on any route; indeed, they are trained to serve in deep sea if necessary.
We are interested in working out how certain ferry services run. For example, there can be many cancellations during the winter period at Ardrossan. Is it important that the Arran ferry crew are able to deal with the difficulties that the harbour at Ardrossan presents?
As my colleagues said, the training and flexibility of the workforce are important. If we have only two or three men who can work a route and they leave, are off sick or whatever, we could end up with nobody to work that route. Therefore, it is highly important that the workforce is fluid. There are occasions when ports are inaccessible because of the weather. That applies to all ports, and it is only right to expect that on the ground of safety. We would be silly to get ourselves tied down with a certain number of men working one route.
The STUC's written evidence expresses clear opposition to the provision of ferry services by private operators and the introduction of competition. Why do you oppose those things?
We have never had a proper rationale for the tendering of Scotland's ferry services, beyond compliance with European Union law. We have always said that we can understand why the Scottish Executive felt the need to tender. We disagreed, but we could understand why it thought that infracting EU law would lead to detrimental consequences for ferry services. However, the fact is that it tendered under regulations whose purpose would not be met by tendering the ferry services in that way.
What about the use of private operators?
We were always hard pushed to see which private operators were going to tender for the services. That was borne out at the end of the process, when CalMac was the sole bidder.
We are heavily engaged in the debate in Europe about protected maritime skills. Our view has always been that the tendering process that CalMac had to go through conflicted with statements that were made in Europe that nations need to do everything they can to enhance and protect the maritime skills base.
I have a question on road equivalent tariff, on which I understand Stephen Boyd has said that the STUC will provide a written submission. Were the unions involved in the development of the RET pilot? What impact might the pilot have on the provision of ferry services?
In principle, we are not against developments that reduce fares for ferry users. We see that as being generally a good thing. Sorry, but is the question whether we were consulted on the pilot?
Yes. Were any of the unions around the table consulted on the RET pilot?
I am not aware of any consultation. I know that there are fears over capacity issues, on which John Docherty might want to elaborate.
Any move to lower the cost of ferry services for everyone is most welcome, but we face overcapacity issues even now. We cannot cope with the tourist trade on some routes in the summer. Although the road equivalent tariff is welcome, things will only get worse unless we start thinking about increasing capacity.
Convener, I think that it is important that we ask the Scottish Government to ensure that the trade unions are involved in the RET consultation. As John Docherty said, the proposal has implications for the service's stakeholders.
The company training in which I have been involved has been basically on customer care. A very small section of that was on the mobility impaired. Certainly, the newer vessels include vastly improved facilities and have better infrastructure for getting on board from piers. However, I take on board the point that Mr McLeod made earlier that the smaller and older ferries and slipways are just not geared for that type of operation.
Would it be helpful if staff had an opportunity to consider what else they could do to ensure that they have enough time to be able to help support people with disabilities?
Yes. Certainly, the issue could be included within the training infrastructure.
What is preventing greater innovation in ferry services in Scotland, such as the development of faster ferries and more routes? There is a clear demand for such development. If the trade union movement was starting with a blank canvas, what elements would it include in the mix?
The tender specification does not allow sufficient scope for innovation. In designing that type of contract, it is very difficult to safeguard lifeline ferry services while providing scope for innovation. Those two things can be difficult to reconcile. Such difficulties are well-known. Sorry, is the question about specific improvements?
Yes. We would welcome any suggestions from the trade union movement on specific improvements that could be made.
I am not sure that I can suggest a specific improvement, but I can give a view on why people are reluctant to innovate and to invest in new routes. The Scottish ferry operators operate within the context of the United Kingdom, where they see other developments in the ferry sector. I firmly believe that operators are worried about the competition that exists. To be a quality operator in the ferry sector, operators need a long-term business plan and to be prepared to make investments on which they will not make a return for a significant number of years.
I was going to ask for your view on the tendering situation, but you have partly covered that in answering questions from my colleague Cathy Peattie. One great worry in the industry is cherry picking, which means creaming off profits from more lucrative routes, whereas the bulk of routes—as you probably know better than me—are social routes that can operate only with subsidy. As you will know, academics have suggested potential solutions, such as exclusivity clauses, light public service obligations or setting fares at a fairly specified low level, so that competition would not be possible. What are your views on that? I am quite keen on using PSOs in the aviation industry but, by and large, they have not been used in the Scottish ferry system.
First and foremost, we supported tendering the Clyde and Hebrides services as a bundle. I am aware of no academic proposals to tender those services in another way. Three main pieces of academic literature pertained to the earlier consultation exercise on the tender specification. The first was from Professor Neil Kay, who talked about the services being delivered as any other essential public service is and being regulated by an independent regulator. Dr Paul Bennett from the University of Edinburgh questioned the whole basis for tendering the services and was keen to maintain the bundle's integrity. Jeanette Findlay's research, which the STUC commissioned, was on the costs of tendering and showed that tendering would deliver no benefit to the public purse.
Do the trade unions have a view on the use of public service obligations for ferry services? We are where we are with the tender, which has about six years to run.
If a PSO maintained the current services, allowed scope for innovation that might improve those services and safeguarded our members' terms and conditions, we would be keen to study any proposals. We are aware that PSOs have been beneficial in your region and have been important in delivering services from Inverness airport. We are open to their use.
An opportunity was missed when the tendering took place: it would have saved everybody a lot of money if bids had been required to be based on contracts of employment registered in the UK. The fact that the contracts were eventually registered offshore was detrimental to our members, although the vast majority of our members have been used to offshore contracts. However, we have to take into account the lost national insurance contributions to central Government in the UK. Once offshore contracts were allowed, a good deal for the public purse was not possible. UK-registered contracts could easily have been insisted on, as could the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—an offshore contract cannot comply with TUPE. If people can compete and bid on the same basis, that is fine. However, the process showed that that was not possible.
That is a useful point, and the committee might pick up on it in future.
Most of our activity has focused on the main Clyde and Hebrides bundle; we have never focused on the Gourock to Dunoon route as we perhaps should have. I will say only this: if the car service is to be removed from the CalMac Gourock to Dunoon service, it will leave Western Ferries with a private sector monopoly. I struggle to understand how that will be in the long-term interests of the community.
The STUC's written evidence shows that the relatively short life of ferry service contracts could impact on long-term capital investment in vessels, ports and harbours, and we have touched on those issues. Do you have evidence to support your claim? How could the problems be overcome?
We have no evidence yet of impact, but we are obviously in the very early stages of the process. We will not be able to provide evidence until we are into the later stages of this particular contract or perhaps into the next one.
We will have to follow those points up with some of the owners.
It is not the easiest thing in the world to produce detailed evidence in a first submission. However, we can look at the successful ferry operators in the UK and in Europe in general. The successful ones are those with long-term investment strategies and long-term plans for the replacement of their vessels. They have business plans that are not for five or six years but for 20 years. We should consider that evidence. It is difficult for an operator to plan an effective ferry service when it could lose the contract after six years. I suggest that what makes a successful ferry company is a long-term vision rather than a short-term chase for profit.
The STUC's written evidence states that the tendering of the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services has hindered integration between ferries and other modes of transport. Do you have evidence to support that statement? What could be done to improve the situation? I am talking about integrating ferries with trains and buses or whatever.
As part of the tender process, we met CalMac to discuss the implications of its bid for our members. We would have undertaken a similar process with other bidders if any had emerged. During that meeting, concern was expressed on both sides about the effect of the penalties regime on integration. The issue is how the contract should be designed. To safeguard services, we must specify the penalties that will be incurred when those services are not delivered. Unfortunately, the consequence of that can be that the penalties regime is so restrictive that it works against integration with other services. John Docherty may have experience of that.
A few concessions have been made on issues on which the company had concerns. Rather than go fully for public transport connections, the company raised concerns about essential services—the example that was used was that of a bread van that is coming up to Oban to get a ferry but which is held up because of a road traffic accident. Under the restrictions, a ferry would not be able to wait for essential services. I am led to believe that a concession was given in that regard. On the issue of penalties, we can never account for the weather, particularly on the longer routes from islands such as the Uists or Harris. The trains have penalties, too, so they cannot wait long either. The situation definitely restricts flexibility. However, I can understand why trains cannot wait too long.
There are two types of penalties, because there are two contracts—one for ScotRail and one for CalMac. Is there any way of trying to get the two systems to work together? There is evidence that ferries can wait a little, whereas trains can wait for only a limited time before the paths are taken up on the routes that they follow.
I am tempted to say that the delivery of the ScotRail franchise back into the public sector would provide a unified and publicly owned transport network in Scotland, which would be bound to assist. As things stand, it is difficult to reconcile the issues, when we have different operators working to different contracts, with different regulators.
I wonder how easy it would be to get investment to ensure that we have capacity in the railway. That shows the difficulty of what we are talking about—thank you for the answer.
I want to pursue that. When Rob Gibson and I were in Brodick yesterday, issues were raised about the train connecting with the ferry and vice versa. As representatives of workers in the transport industry and, in some cases, as workers in that industry, are you saying that the contractual obligations in the ScotRail franchise or the CalMac contract have taken away the commonsense operational integration whereby somebody on the ground takes responsibility for holding back a ferry if a train is going to be 10 minutes late? It is common sense to do that so that a trainload of passengers does not miss the ferry, or vice versa. Is that now a thing of the past because a fear of sanction has arisen, so that somebody higher up the food chain will say that the person took an operational decision that wrong-footed the company in relation to its contractual obligations?
Absolutely.
So what used to happen is a thing of the past.
Yes. There are a few exceptions such as blue-light incidents. We will have more of an idea in the summer when things start getting busier; after all, we are still in the early part of the year. However, we on the ground fear that management will start asking the ship's operators why they are running late.
I realise that it is a novel pressure for those on the ferries, but those in the railway industry have lived with it for a bit longer.
I would say so.
Delays will be addressed only through cohesive planning by operators to ensure flexibility in train and ferry connections. The fact that every delay costs money will ensure that operators get things, particularly the trains, moving.
It might be argued that ultimately the taxpayer pays those fines. The irony is that, although the travelling taxpayer is asking for this discretion, they are not being given it.
Forgive me for pursuing this point, but does the same phenomenon arise with bus services? Is there any flexibility there?
I cannot comment on bus services in Scotland.
We do not have any bus workers' representatives with us today but, from my very limited understanding, I think that the big difference is that the bus industry is not regulated in the same way that the rail industry is. I struggle to see how the same penalties could apply under that structure.
Interestingly, the timetables for the bus and train services that meet the major ferry services into Oban from Mull, the Uists and so on are near enough identical. Perhaps I am being too logical but, if the train is scheduled to leave at 12 o'clock, why schedule the bus to leave at 5 past 12? Surely if the schedule for such a long route is so tight, it would be better for the buses and trains to stagger their departures to give passengers some flexibility. Of course, it does not help if a passenger still has to wait, but it seems pointless to have buses and trains screaming down to and back up from Glasgow at much the same time if it means that the passengers who missed the midday connection have to wait until 6 in the evening for the next bus or train.
Would it be useful for Transport Scotland to have responsibility for ferries as well as for road and rail and to have a stronger integration function? As far as I understand it, it has no responsibility for ferry services at the moment. It also seems more sensible to have a single integration body.
The answer is yes. I found it strange that, when Transport Scotland assumed responsibility for various areas, responsibility for ferries remained with the Government. The rationale behind such a move was never articulated and, even to this day, I cannot understand it.
I do not want to give anyone a history lesson, but politicians are certainly well aware of the policy objectives behind having a fully integrated transport system. If the answer lies with Transport Scotland, the transport partners need to get together, plan effectively and co-ordinate timetables to ensure that this public service is delivered by the public and for the public.
Last week at CalMac headquarters, I was interested to discover that there are different winters and summers for ferry, bus and rail services. Do we need a man for all seasons for transport?
If the timing of winter becomes subject to Scottish Parliament intervention, we might well see some petitions on that matter.
During trade union week in January, we held an event at which we discussed with the committee clerks and a number of members—whom we thank for attending—the possibility of holding a consultation event or two on various areas of service delivery that would focus on workers rather than on the public or on user groups. Is there still scope for such an event? We are certainly keen to do anything that we can to help you to pull that together.
I must ask you to let us consider that a little more. We will get back to you in writing in the near future.
I have one final comment. We believe that tendering these services will have a huge impact on other issues that the committee is considering such as timetabling, new routes and innovation. We encourage the committee in its report to ask the Scottish Government to revisit the tendering issue. Indeed, we would certainly be keen to assist the Government in building a case to take back to Europe.
In response to a point made by Mr Stewart, I should mention that we have not yet engaged with our people on the effect of the withdrawal of car services on the Dunoon to Gourock ferry. We will do so, and our union will submit its views either collectively or separately before 31 March.
I should say that no decision has been made on the issue. I was simply expressing my personal worries.
But it is better to be proactive than reactive.
Indeed.
I thank the witnesses for their evidence. There will be a five-minute break before the next panel.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our final panel of witnesses: Marjory Rodger, who is from the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK; and Peter Williams, who is from First ScotRail. I invite the witnesses to make brief introductory remarks.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come to the meeting. I will be unusually quiet this afternoon, because I do not have a lot to say on the subject. As the trade association, the CPT cannot get involved in commercial businesses, so the decisions that individual operators take are not in the CPT's remit. However, I canvassed members for their views, which are represented in our submission to the committee. All members support integration of services and good, effective transport information across modes. First ScotRail and all the bus operators pay for Traveline Scotland, which provides information on ferries and internal air routes—a new development has made it possible to receive journey planner information, including ferry times, on a BlackBerry. We are involved in proactive initiatives for residents and tourists, which are important, and we would encourage any action that would speed up such work.
I am sure that members will get out their BlackBerrys to plan their forthcoming visit to Shetland.
Thank you for inviting me to contribute to the committee's inquiry. I am commercial director for First ScotRail and my responsibilities include train planning, marketing and customer service.
Thanks very much. Will you give a bit of background on the process of developing bus and rail timetables? How is that work done? What do operators do to ensure that they take account of integration with other modes of transport?
Setting up a bus service is relatively easy. An operator can register their timetable with the traffic commissioner for Scotland. The operator must give 14 days' notice to allow for consultation with the local authority. Once the timetable has reached the traffic commissioner, it takes 56 days before it is accepted. That makes a total of 72 days. Once an operator has started a new service, it cannot cancel it and must run it for 90 days before it can vary it. I give all that timescale information to illustrate the fact that we cannot simply change services overnight to provide better integration.
Our starting point is our franchise agreement and the service level commitments that we must work to, which are the foundation stone for all the services that we provide. As I said, the franchise agreement includes various commitments on the integration of services with ferry transport. By and large, the requirement on us is to make all reasonable endeavours to ensure integration with ferry services. That evolves in a number of ways. We liaise regularly with the regional transport partnerships. I meet them twice a year to talk through our planned timetable changes, which allows them to bring up any issues or opportunities that they would like us to take on board. Likewise, we liaise regularly with local authorities and Transport Scotland. Every four weeks, we meet Transport Scotland at a transport integration group that it chairs. The subject matter of those meetings is integration, including ferry integration.
As we discussed with the previous panel, timetables and reality have a nasty habit of not always marrying up. What are your reflections on the reality of holding services beyond their timetabled departure times if a ferry is a few minutes late? Can trains be held? In your experience, how big a problem is that? What can be done to alleviate it?
In practice, we have not found that that is a big on-going problem. The regional transport partnerships and Transport Scotland are not tasking us on the matter. If it were a big on-going problem, we would do something about it. In stark contrast to what has been said previously, the main issues relating to holding trains are operational—they are nothing other than that. I can certainly give examples of when we hold trains to ensure that they connect with ferries, and vice versa. I have demonstrated that we also work on a longer-term basis to iron out failings in connections where that is needed.
So would you argue that First ScotRail already has enough day-to-day flexibility to hold a train for a few minutes if a ferry is coming in a bit late?
We hold trains where we can. There are problems from time to time, but not on-going problems. Relationships exist between the ferry operators and our control department, which is responsible for the day-to-day management of our services and short-term alterations to them. Sometimes there are difficulties and trains cannot be held—for example, we are occasionally asked to hold trains that are going out of Stranraer, but connections will be missed in Glasgow if those trains run late. Those trains then go on to strengthen other services in the peak period. It is obvious that if we want to operate an efficient system, we do not want to have rolling stock that could be used sitting around all day long at a buffer. During the peak period, we use rolling stock to strengthen services. Likewise, if a particular path that we have scheduled for a train is missed, it can end up behind a slower-running coal train, which will have a big knock-on impact on a range of services and will affect a range of customers. The interdependency of the rail system must be borne in mind. However, we do what we can on a pragmatic basis.
Can you give us in writing any statistical information on instances when day-to-day—even minute-to-minute—decisions have been made to change the departure times of trains to take account of such things or instances when it has not been possible to do that?
Yes. I can go away and get together information on that.
That would be helpful.
I want to press Mr Williams briefly on operational arrangements. You have said that there is not an on-going problem with holding trains, but yesterday, inhabitants of Arran told Rob Gibson and me that holding trains at Ardrossan is a frequent problem. Let us take that as an example. Are you telling us that the operational arrangements are such that a ScotRail member of staff in Ardrossan would phone ScotRail's control department and seek authority to hold a train because they had been told that the ferry was going to be late?
That is right.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. Can you explain why major public transport operators such as FirstGroup and Stagecoach have shown no interest in bidding to run Scottish ferry services when those services have been put out to tender?
I am afraid that I would have to ask FirstGroup and Stagecoach about that. That had not occurred to me. The word "monopolies" comes to mind, but I would have to ask them. I am sorry.
I work for First ScotRail and I cannot speak on behalf of FirstGroup about that.
Perhaps we could pursue the question in writing.
We might take up the issue somewhere else.
We were not involved in the consultation on RETs, and we have concerns about them. There is the precedent of the national concession scheme. We were told that the maximum take-up of that scheme would be 880,000—I am referring to MORI research for the Scottish Executive—but the take-up was 1.1 million. We are worried about RETs, and we have not been consulted on them.
I am not aware that we have been consulted on RETs. Capacity in the rail industry cannot be switched on overnight. If an issue arose, it would take a while before it could be fixed.
I have a brief supplementary question to Marjory Rodger. In your submission, you mentioned that there were some customer relations issues on the Gourock to Dunoon ferry. Can you enlighten the committee on that, or would it be better to explain it in writing?
We will explain that in writing—the issue came from a couple of small operators.
Will you clarify whether you would actually welcome more passengers? [Laughter.]
Yes, of course. We are in for growing the market in all ways, but equally we want to be geared up so that we can provide for those passengers.
We have grown passenger numbers by 19 per cent since we took over the franchise—that is your answer.
But RETs will affect only those routes that relate to ferries. Would you be geared up there?
Sorry, could you repeat the question?
Would you be geared up to deal with increased numbers on the ferries, which would mean more people on the rail routes that link to the ferry terminals?
As I said earlier, we cannot switch on capacity overnight. That would always be an issue. We have a fleet of rolling stock, which we deploy as efficiently as we can. If dramatic changes happen, we cannot accommodate them immediately.
It would be interesting to know your average capacity on routes that meet ferry terminals at Gourock and Ardrossan, for example. Can you find that out for us?
Yes, I certainly can.
The CPT has mentioned a working group involving Citylink, CalMac and ScotRail, which is lobbying for improved facilities at Oban. Can you give us more information about that?
That is the concern for passenger growth—ensuring effective interchange and making it simple for the passenger. There is also the concern that we are bringing in more low-floor buses yet some of the temporary ramps do not allow us to use them. That affects the local West Coast Motors buses more than the Citylink coaches, which are higher. There are operational issues, and it is a question of pointing them out. None is major, but all need to be taken into account and addressed.
We are involved in the development group at Oban. Analysis is under way to see how we can improve the integration of the transport modes and the physical interchange as well. We are involved in that.
Is there a timescale for that?
It is being run by the council. Off the top of my head, I am not aware of the precise timescale.
You have probably partly answered this question, but will you say what First ScotRail has done to improve connectivity between trains and ferries, for instance by providing through-ticketing and information?
We have continued to expand through-ticketing on an on-going basis—
Mr Williams, I am sorry to interrupt. We will suspend the meeting for a moment; I think that we have a technical problem.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I thank everyone for their patience. We are now in committee room 4 and Cathy Peattie will resume her line of questioning.
What has First ScotRail done to improve the connectivity between trains and ferries, for example by providing through-tickets and information?
We have continued to increase the number of through-tickets that we provide. As I mentioned in my introduction, we recently worked with Rapsons, the coach operator, and NorthLink Ferries on the Scrabster to Stromness service. That is an example of how we are working with other operators. Sometimes it is rail and ferry, and sometimes it is rail, bus and ferry.
What are the barriers to further integration between rail and ferries in Scotland? I am thinking of the terms of the First ScotRail contract or the single-track Highland rail infrastructure, for example. How might such barriers be overcome?
We work closely with the regional transport partnerships and, at this point in time, we have no burning issues with our current level of service that we have not managed to address. We ensure that we comply with our service-level commitment to spread out services during the day. For example, if we have to integrate with ferry services, there will be a morning service, a midday service and an evening service.
You gave interesting examples of good practice. How do you prioritise improvements? Is that through discussions with the RTPs or with the public?
Demands tend to come from RTPs but are sometimes made by Transport Scotland, through the transport integration group. Our presumption is that we will introduce through-ticketing, which provides a benefit and is convenient for our passengers. We are a commercial business, so we have a vested interest in growing passenger volumes.
My question is for the witness from CPT. What factors prevent people from using buses to access ferry services and how might the use of buses to access ferries be increased?
We must make it simple for passengers. We must provide viable choices and give people information in advance—that is important in the context of tourism in the islands. The linking up of the VisitScotland and Traveline Scotland websites is one measure in that regard, and there can be physical measures on the ground.
What progress is being made towards involving ferries in schemes that promote integrated ticketing? You said that we should wait for smart cards, but you went on to say that we might have to wait a while for smart cards.
The first smart card pilot went live in Shetland in November and covered bus and ferry travel. Shetland was chosen because the network is subsidised, so there are no commercially sensitive data. People were trying to get an experimental initiative off the ground, so it was felt to be easier not to include commercially sensitive data. Shetland was like a closed network. The system worked and it has been working ever since.
The timescale has slipped since we moved to another committee room.
No, I brought it forward. I meant that I should not have said that it would take until 2014 for smart cards to be brought in.
Oh, I see. That is good. Even when you give me good news I accuse you of giving me bad news. Have commercial sensitivities around data been overcome?
Yes. That was a big exercise for the suppliers, because there is a huge volume of data. Many problems cropped up and extra software and linkage were needed, with the Royal Bank of Scotland and LogicaCMG doing the back-office system—the HOPS, or host operating or processing system. Difficulties to do with hot-listed cards had to be dealt with. The vast amount of data caused difficulties.
Logica is a name that is not unknown to members of the Scottish Parliament.
I have a quick supplementary on that issue. To what extent is it necessary to get all operators on board before integrated ticketing can move forward? Is that a barrier, or will significant operators be able to move forward by reaching individual agreements?
I understand that the national through-ticketing proposal will be out for consultation relatively soon, so I do not see any barrier. We are all into growing markets and achieving modal shift. Through-ticketing is an attractive way of doing that.
You touched on bus interchange infrastructure in Oban just a few minutes ago. Is there a general need to improve such interchanges at ferry ports? If so, what needs to be done and who should do it?
I would rather come back to you in writing on that. I will ask the operators that are closely involved for specific examples.
Do you have any views on any aspect of the existing ferry network and services or any suggestions on how they might be improved?
I have nothing further to add to what we stated in our submission.
Perhaps when you come back to us with information on bus interchanges, you can tell us how the interchange at Scrabster is working.
Do members have any final questions?
We asked First ScotRail to provide information on whether services can be held back to allow for integration, but we have not given a similar opportunity to Marjory Rodger. Can she provide any information on holding back bus services so that we can see whether there are any comparisons between bus and rail?
Thank you for the opportunity.
Could we be provided with any statistics on that, or is the information more anecdotal?
It is more anecdotal, but I can certainly ask the operators involved.
Members have no further questions. Before we close, do either of our witnesses want to raise any issues that we have not touched on?
We talked about smart ticketing for bus services. I should mention that there is no mandate for that for rail services in Scotland. Smart ticketing is being introduced throughout the UK by the DFT, which is making it a requirement of any new franchises that are let. Our franchise predates that policy, but we regard smart ticketing as the future of ticketing within the transport industry. The technology is quite revolutionary and will open up all sorts of possibilities. Therefore, it is worth making the point that we are actively investigating a smart card pilot on the Edinburgh to Glasgow flow so that we can explore how we can best use the technology to improve integration with bus and other forms of transport.
The plusbus schemes are proof that we are all agreed on the principle. They are available at every rail station and allow passengers to buy a bus ticket add-on. We are all agreed on the principle; we just need to get the right platform to do it on.
I thank both our witnesses for their time and for answering our questions. I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow the witnesses to leave. I thank them again for their forbearance with our technical problems.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—