Ferry Services (Clyde and Hebrides)
Agenda item 3 is our consideration of the tendering of ferry services on the Clyde and in the Hebrides. The item follows on from our previous discussion, in which we agreed to seek further information in the first instance on the tendering of ferry services on the Clyde and in the Hebrides. We noted in particular the recent press advertisement inviting expressions of interest for the Gourock to Dunoon route.
The Scottish Parliament information centre has produced a paper, of which members should have a copy. Indeed, members should have a copy of the revised version, which corrects the impression given in the original that Fergus Ewing was successful in getting a motion agreed to in the Parliament. That might happen one day, but it did not happen on the day in question. The revised paper reflects the decisions that were taken on the day of the debate. As I understand it, all three positions were rejected in the voting.
I wrote to the Minister for Transport asking him to clarify the latest position in relation to the tendering process, for both the broader tranche of Caledonian MacBrayne services and the Gourock to Dunoon service in particular. We received a response from the minister on Friday; members should have a copy of the letter. On the basis of the revised SPICe paper and the minister's response, I seek comments from members on how they wish to proceed.
I would like the committee to make it clear to the minister that we want to be involved as early as possible in any responses from the European Commission in respect of the 9 December letter. I hope that the committee can also express its strong concern about the decision to issue the prior information notice after the debate that took place on 8 December.
The minister's letter of 18 February seeks to assure us that the invitation of
"expressions of interest for the route was not the start of a tender process. Rather, it was a first step in ascertaining whether there might be operators interested".
The letter goes on to
"confirm that the Gourock-Dunoon issue will not be taken further"
until information has been received from the European commissioner. That begs the question why we should bother to go through the process of expressions of interest until the matter has been clarified by the commissioner.
The issue of the prior information notice has caused a lot of confusion. It has also caused undue concern that the Parliament was being ignored. The debate on 8 December last year rejected the three positions that were put forward, and I question the judgment that it was necessary to proceed. There is nothing in the minister's letter that tells us that it was necessary, because of the timescale or for any other reason, to go ahead with issuing a prior information notice.
As far as trying to build relations with the industry, the trade unions and others is concerned, the move was like a red rag to a bull. The committee should express concern at the judgment that was shown in issuing the notice without having received the information that was sought from the commissioner in December. I do not think that that decision was helpful at all.
On a personal basis, I agree that the timing was not helpful, particularly given the lobbying that was going on at the time. I would not want us to express a committee opinion on the issue without at least giving the Minister for Transport the opportunity to be here to explain the background to the issue. The timing was, at the very least, deeply unfortunate. However, that is history now and I think that we want to concentrate on the way forward for the ferry services.
I invite comments on how members wish to proceed.
The minister's letter details three key objectives, one of which is to
"maintain the level of ferry services to our island communities; to provide the best quality service, not the cheapest".
I am bound to contrast that with paragraph 2.4.2 of schedule 2 to the invitation to tender document, which states:
"The aim of the evaluation is to select the Tender that requires the lowest financial compensation for the provision of the minimum standards."
I think that those two statements are at odds. The aim is to get quality through the public service obligation in some way. However, it is unclear how the aim of quality—but not necessarily lowest cost—is to be achieved.
I do not agree entirely with Tommy Sheridan about the Gourock to Dunoon issue. There was undue haste in issuing the prior information notice following the debate on the Gourock to Dunoon route, but it is clear that that route is materially different from other routes, in that there are two services operating. It might be possible to operate a service there without subsidy. The separation of that route was justified. Had it been included with all the rest of the services, the Executive's position would have been weaker.
I understand that the decision to tender the route was fairly broadly welcomed, although I am not an expert and do not represent that area. Judging from the information that I have received, the current concern might be that matters have not been taken further with respect to the route. My arguments during the debate of 8 December related to the totality of services, not to the Dunoon to Gourock route. I think that that was true for those members who expressed concern on that day, which resulted in the Executive's motion being defeated, albeit narrowly and with the help of my colleagues.
I hope that it is a fair summation of the debate on 8 December to say that there was a feeling that the minister had not made the case that there was a legal requirement to tender for the totality of services. I appreciate that my amendment was not agreed to on the day. Nonetheless, a clear feeling was expressed in the speeches of members of the Executive parties that that case had not been made. There were many concerns, which I do not think have yet been fully answered. In particular, as the paper from SPICe points out, we have not received the legal advice. Members will recall that the First Minister was asked about that in the final week before the recess. He was asked specifically whether the legal advice would be published and he said, "Maybe". I have submitted a freedom of information request and, in the meantime, an answer to a parliamentary question has said that it is not normal practice to make legal advice public. I think that it should be.
On 11 March I hope to attend a very important seminar that will be chaired by Professor Neil McCormick. David Edwards, who was closely involved in the Altmark decision, will be there, as will Paul Bennett and Professor Neil Kay. It would be helpful if they and others who have in-depth knowledge and access to the legal advice should make it public. I know that that will be being considered because of my FOI request.
I was heartened that the First Minister said that the advice might be made public, because I know that that is unusual. However it is really at the heart of the issue.
I have written to the minister and I hope that he will agree with me that we should not rush to a decision. The matter has gone on for a long time and it is important that we should get it right and not rush it through. In particular, the experts should have a chance to study the complexities of European law before the issue comes back to Parliament. I hope that the minister will not bring it back to Parliament until the legal advice has been published and the experts have had a chance to see it.
My final point is a suggestion. There are so many unanswered questions that it would be appropriate if the minister were to appear before the committee to answer them. We all know that, during the heat of debate, it is difficult to obtain factual and satisfactory answers. After all, hundreds of people work for CalMac and their livelihoods depend on it. We all know the arguments about the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, the 90-day rule, national insurance contributions not being paid, and loss of security of employment, never mind the question of lifeline services to the islanders.
I hope that the minister will publish the legal advice, make it available to the experts before the 11 March seminar, and be willing to come before the committee to answer members' questions. I am sure that there are many members, especially local members such as Duncan McNeil, George Lyon, Alasdair Morrison and Jim Mather, who would like to come along.
I agree entirely with Fergus Ewing and think that we should investigate the matter further by talking to the minister. As one of those who did not support the Executive when the issue came before Parliament, and who attended the lobby when the issue was brought into focus in the Parliament a couple of weeks ago, I would like to hear from the trade unions. The focus has to be on the impact on the employees. I hope to hear a much more reasoned argument from the trade unions than we got during the rant that was made by Bob Crow at that lobby. In the committee environment, we can investigate the issues further rather than listen to threats of the overthrow of the capitalist system—the issue is much more important than such rants and should not be used as a platform for them. If the committee can do anything at all, it should consider the issue in a more reasoned way than has been done so far.
I need to speak up for some of my pals who want to overthrow the capitalist system—that is what the Labour party used to be about.
I hope that we all agree that the minister should be invited. As well as the specific issues of the overall European instruction or otherwise and the legal advice or otherwise, I hope that we can talk about the Gourock to Dunoon route. I am concerned about the timing and whether the legal advice should have been issued so close to a crucial debate. We have to put that to the minister and ask him whether there was some kind of time restriction; I do not think that there was.
I am inclined to agree with the call of a number of members that we should ask the minister to come and answer a range of questions. The main focus would be on the larger part of the CalMac services, but I am sure that the minister would be prepared to answer questions on the timing of the specific press advert as well. It would be perfectly in order for Tommy Sheridan to ask such a question when the minister comes to the committee.
Do we agree to ask the Minister for Transport to come along and answer questions on the progress that has been made in relation to CalMac services and the on-going discussions with the European Union and to give us any information that he can share with us on the requirement to tender?
Members indicated agreement.
Michael McMahon has suggested that we invite representatives of the relevant trade unions to come along as well. Do we agree to do that?
It is not just the RMT that is involved. There are other unions.
That is why I wanted to invite other unions.
I endorse that idea. I thought that Mr Crow managed to make Tommy Sheridan look like a Conservative, but that is just my personal view.
We should close down the debate at this point—it could go on all afternoon. Do we agree to invite representatives of the relevant trade unions to come along?
Members indicated agreement.
We will do what we usually do when we seek representations from trade unions and invite a delegation through the STUC. I imagine that that will ensure that we get a range of representatives.
I agree that we should hear from the minister and the trade unions, but I wonder whether, in that case, it would also be reasonable to hear from the companies involved. Either we take an approach that involves gathering information on an on-going update basis from the minister or we enter the realm of inviting the trade unions to give their views, in which case it would be only fair to give CalMac and Western Ferries, which operates in Gourock and Dunoon, a chance to have some written input at least. I am sure that the companies have comments that they would like to make on the subject.
I am comfortable with your suggestion that the companies be invited to submit written evidence. The crux of the debate relates to whether there is an absolute obligation to tender out the services and I imagine that that is an issue on which it would be difficult for CalMac to comment. I am only guessing, but I imagine that the minister would be able to put the Executive's case and the trade unions would be able to put the case, which they feel is persuasive, that there is an alternative to tendering out. It would be quite difficult for the companies to enter into that debate, but I would be comfortable with the idea of receiving written evidence from them at this stage. On the basis of what is contained in that written evidence, we could consider whether it would be useful to bring them in subsequently.
That sounds reasonable.
Do we agree to note the report and to take the oral and written evidence that we have discussed?
Members indicated agreement.