Caledonian MacBrayne
The members' business debate is on motion S1M-1263, in the name of George Lyon, on Caledonian MacBrayne. I ask those who are not staying for the debate to leave quickly and quietly.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the high proportion of Caledonian MacBrayne employees who are drawn from the communities that the company serves; acknowledges the importance of these jobs to the economic well-being of these remote and island communities; notes with concern the fears that employees of Caledonian MacBrayne have regarding the potential consequences of the competitive tendering process required by the European Commission, and urges the Scottish Executive to do everything within its power to ensure that job security for staff at Caledonian MacBrayne is maintained throughout and after the conclusion of that process.
I thank all those members who took the time and trouble to support the motion. As members may well understand, Caledonian MacBrayne is important to my constituency. Some 60 per cent of all its routes originate in Argyll.
For those who occasionally visit the islands on the west coast of Scotland, the ferry journey is a novel and exciting experience that adds to the attraction of a holiday in or visit to the isles. However, CalMac ferry services are fundamental to the way of life of island residents. It is no understatement to say that they are the life-blood of the island communities. CalMac affects every part of island life—the price of goods in the shops, the ability to travel off the islands and the ability to visit those who live on the islands.
How many understand the concept of being cut off from the mainland? Many on the islands are cut off for 12 hours every day. At the extreme, my constituents who live in Coll and Colonsay are cut off for two to three days every week between ferry journeys. Those are the reasons why the future of CalMac and its routes are of such deep concern to the communities that I and other members represent.
About 1,000 workers and their families are affected. Many—I would say the majority—are based in the island communities and work for Caledonian MacBrayne. They are worried about what the future holds for them and the routes.
The main concerns have been listed many times, but it does no harm to repeat them. Does the tendering process mean the breaking up of the network? Will the routes between Portavadie and Tarbert, and Dunoon and Gourock—which are mainland to mainland routes, not island routes—continue to be supported and attract public subsidy? What will happen to the employees of CalMac if a private operator is successful under the tendering process? So far, the only real comparison we have is with the northern isles routes, but on that issue it is not clear yet that there is an answer. I hope that the minister can shed some light on that.
Will we get a better service, lower fares or even new vessels? Many of the Clyde vessels are coming to the end of their lifetime. CalMac would like to replace them, probably with leased ships, but during the tendering process nothing can be done to upgrade and replace the vessels. It is often asked whether we need to go through the process at all. My friend Neil McCormick addressed that with his question in the European Parliament, when it was stated categorically that we do not have much choice but to go through the process.
I know that the minister has taken proposals to Brussels for consideration. When she made a statement to Parliament on the issue, she invited MSPs to travel over, to hammer home to the European Commission the views of the islanders and communities that CalMac serves. Last week, my colleague John Farquhar Munro and I responded to her invitation and were received well by the Commission. We impressed upon the Commission how important the routes and the network are to the future of the island communities. We emphasised that the majority of the responses to the consultation that the minister received were fully supportive of keeping the routes together rather than breaking them up.
The Commission's views were simply put. First, it has no problem with putting public service obligations on all the routes, which means that it has no problem with the idea of support for the routes. Similarly, when we asked about Portavadie, Tarbert, Gourock and Dunoon, it had no problem. It is reasonably relaxed that the routes are a justifiable need and that the Executive should pay subsidy on them.
We asked about possible changes to the Council directive. The answer was clear: there is no intention to make any change in the directive. However, it is intended to consider the guidelines that accompany the directive. That will involve consideration of issues such as the length of the contract; for example, whether it will be five years. At the moment it is five years, but should it be increased to accommodate ferry operators or special circumstances in the islands?
The area of great concern was the bundling of routes. Commission officials stated categorically that they would not stop the Executive going ahead with its plans to tender on a single bundle of routes, but they believe that there is a risk that a private operator will launch a complaint. When we asked what that would mean to us in Scotland and what the process would be if that happened, it became clear that it would trigger a Commission investigation of the whole process. That would include not only the transport division but the competition division, because the complaint would be on the basis that the bundling was uncompetitive and a barrier to an operator bidding for the routes.
I asked what the eventual outcome of that investigation might be. It was clear that, if the Commission found a case to answer, it would instruct the Executive how to proceed on the bundling. That caused me a great deal of concern. I had been led to believe that the Commission was quite relaxed, but it is clear that it has concerns. The ball on how to proceed is in the Executive's court, as the Commission said that it would not formally oppose the bundling of the routes. Whether it should be proceeded with is in the Executive's jurisdiction.
I have outlined the responses we received from the Commission and I ask the minister again to address the concerns that my constituents and the island communities have raised with me. However, I would especially like her to address the bundling of the routes, given the feedback that we are beginning to receive from the European Commission.
I am grateful to George Lyon for instigating this debate. It seems that CalMac has been a crucial part of the west Highland infrastructure from the Clyde to the Western Isles since the dawn of time—ever since I was a wee girl, at least. When I was a girl in Oban, my father was often away working on the islands—Mull, Uist or Barra—and I was sent down the town on a Saturday morning for the messages and to watch out for the boat coming in so that I could run home and tell my mother to put the potatoes on for my father's dinner.
It was therefore an enormous trauma for the west Highlands, and for CalMac, to face up to the prospect of CalMac having to compete for its own routes. The first reaction was for some to deny that there was any necessity to compete, and there was much poring over inscrutable EC regulations to prove that. Most now accept that putting the routes out to tender is inevitable if we are to continue to subsidise our ferry crossings, which are so crucial to the economic well-being of the Highlands and Islands. However, so that we can be absolutely sure that the cabotage regulations are not affected by the proposed changes that George Lyon talked about, Catherine Stihler MEP has lodged a question in the European Parliament that should get a definitive answer in the next few weeks.
The consultation exercise resulted in overwhelming support for tendering all CalMac routes as a single entity. Tendering the whole service as one unit is unusual, and the EC has to be persuaded that that should be done. It has obvious advantages in keeping the services integrated, with through-ticketing made easier, ensuring that no routes are not bid for and no routes are cherry-picked. There are also obvious economies of scale. I think that it is possible to persuade the EC on those points.
The proposal to retain in public ownership the vessel-owning company will also need approval from the EC. I am glad to hear George Lyon say that the EC seems to be relaxed about that. That seems to be the only way to ensure that vessels appropriate to the route are available. However, Professor Kay has raised concerns that we will need new legislation to ensure that the vessels' operators comply with safety regulations. I do not know whether he is correct; we must be sure of that point. Mainland-to-mainland ferry crossings also have to be included. Again, I am glad to hear George Lyon saying that the Commission is relaxed about that.
As George Lyon said, we have to get behind the minister in support of all these proposals to the EC. Duncan Hamilton has been in touch with me supporting them, but I was astounded when I heard Fiona McLeod, in the no-confidence debate, criticising Sarah Boyack for going to the EC. Of course she has to go to the EC. Of course we must lobby to get the kind of contracts and tendering documents we want.
What is now of most concern to the crews of the CalMac ships and to the communities where they live is who will sail the boats. If CalMac does not make the winning bid, where will the successful company find its crew? A couple of weeks ago at question time I asked the minister if she would include in the specification for the bids a requirement, for example, to use crews who are familiar with the difficult conditions in the west Highland waters. I believe that strongly drawn specifications will protect the interests of the present crews. I believe, from the answer that she gave, that the minister is sympathetic to that request.
It is crucial for coastal and island communities that the work on the ferries is not lost to them, nor the wages and salaries diminished, as the economic implications would be huge. It is crucial that the expertise of the men and women who work aboard the CalMac ferries is not lost, whatever operator eventually wins the contract.
We have to congratulate George Lyon on bringing this matter before Parliament today and on the work that he has done and the interesting information that he has put before us. I cannot actually remember whether I signed his motion, but I agree with the points that it makes about the protection of the rights of employees. We all agree, especially given the pressures on the economy of Argyllshire and the remoter islands, that jobs in those areas are of critical importance. They are quality jobs and people who live in those areas will want to see that employment protected.
The Conservatives are always willing to see the principle of value for money pursued, but that must be a value that is pursued through operational efficiency and the driving down of costs. It must not be value sought at the expense of employment and, in particular, the rights of CalMac ferry service employees.
I am not any kind of expert on the European procurement directives, but I trust that when the Executive refines the process and puts the tenders out, the fullest protection that is possible and compatible with European law will be built in. I say that while being well aware of the limitations of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations in terms of protecting the employment, wages and pension rights of people in the long run. Perhaps that is an area in which, given that the tendering is essentially voluntary though with some degree of pressure, we may be able to gold-plate a European directive to good purpose.
It was interesting to hear George Lyon recruited to the in-Europe-but-not-run-by-Europe brigade. I appreciate his concern about the possible impact of the Community on how the matter proceeds. I am happy to state for the record that the Conservatives will support the minister and the Executive on the principle that this should go ahead as a single contract if at all possible.
Finally, I want to mention the communication that all members of the Transport and the Environment Committee received recently from Professor Kay—I know that the minister is aware of it, because Andy Kerr has written to her about it—expressing deep concern about the way in which regulation and contract control will run under the new contracts.
There is deep concern about the potential attitude of the new operator of the service, whether CalMac or anyone else, if it does not own the assets but merely leases them. There is also deep concern that the operator of last resort proposal is flawed. I say again that I am no expert on this, but Professor Kay is concerned that no model for this exists anywhere and that the Scottish Executive has not demonstrated the expertise necessary to shape and allocate contracts of this nature.
I hope that the minister will address those issues in the brief time that she has at her disposal this afternoon. I hope that she will give a full response to the Transport and the Environment Committee and take the committee into her confidence, so that we can assure ourselves that whatever comes out of this will be examined again if necessary and that safety and services are built in as essential and core components of whatever we reach at the end of the process.
Since we started, a further four members have asked to speak. Everybody will not be called unless we keep speeches to less than three minutes. I call Bruce Crawford.
Please use your microphone, Mr Crawford.
It does not appear to be working.
Please move along one seat and use the mike there.
It is not on either.
There appears to be a general problem in the sound booth. I ask your indulgence.
Shall I just shout?
No, that is impossible. We need to record you for the Official Report.
I ask the indulgence of the chamber. I am told that it will take no more than one minute to fix the system. We will suspend for one minute.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
That was a quick minute. We are back in business.
On a point of order. Would it be in order to ask you to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by whatever period is required to allow all those who have asked to speak to take part?
Yes. We will need only another five minutes. Is the minister agreeable?
Yes.
I will entertain a motion without notice to extend the debate until five minutes to six.
Motion moved,
That the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Mr Murray Tosh.]
Motion agreed to.
As the sound was not working the first time, I congratulate George Lyon a second time on lodging this motion.
We share a common concern about the end result of this process and about how best we can retain the high-value jobs that we have. There may be differences in how we approach that—I do not agree entirely with everything that has been said today—and I will try to tease them out.
There is genuine concern that the threat of privatisation still hangs over the services that are currently provided by the publicly owned CalMac. Even if the Commission were to accept the somewhat flawed proposals for a separate vessel-owning company, the routes would still be exposed to a form of competitive tendering. I hope that, if the tendering becomes a reality, any tender submitted by CalMac will be successful.
This process could, unfortunately, result in the prospect of a foreign operator winning tenders for some or all of CalMac's routes in Scotland. We could end up, for example, with the preferred bidder status being awarded to a Greek ferry operator, as happened for the proposed Rosyth continental ferry on the east of Scotland. If a foreign-owned company were to win the tender for the network there is real—and I have to say understandable—concern that the work force may be faced with a drive for lower wages at the expense of staff and safety. That is a matter of profound concern for existing CalMac workers and the communities in which they live. It should also be a matter of profound concern for this Parliament and the minister.
As the minister is aware, the state aid guidelines are due to be revised in 2002. Surely it is not beyond the wit of Government to find a mechanism to delay the publishing of the tendering process to await the review of the guidelines. That would allow for consideration of the strong arguments to exempt services provided by CalMac, which are—as George Lyon rightly said—lifeline services, from the requirement to be exposed to competition.
I have doubts about the strategy to create a separate vessel-owning company. I am concerned that that strategy could be the Trojan horse that leads to the creeping privatisation of CalMac. I will be surprised if the Commission does not accept the minister's proposals: it recognises that they would make the job of privatisation easier. I suggest that there should be a delay in this process, to allow the revision of state aid guidelines to come into force. That would give a real chance for the argument to be put forward that these are lifeline services.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer, I have just realised that I have gone over my time.
No you have not, Mr Crawford. The clock is jammed. You have another 40 seconds.
That is all that I will need.
I will relate to the chamber a story that Linda Fabiani, who lived on the island of Bute, told me this afternoon. It typifies why it is important that this service remains in public ownership. She was able to relate, from her personal experience of life in Rothesay, the pride that the ferrymen have in the services that they deliver to those communities and how they will go the extra mile to help. That extra mile means doing things like going to help an old lady out of her home and down to the ferry in the morning to get her across to the mainland.
I cannot imagine that same level of commitment being shown to communities by a privatised network if workers' wages and conditions of service are being put in jeopardy. This is about so much more than jobs and wages: it is about a living and breathing community. We must find a way to delay this process to allow a case to be put for lifeline services so that a sensible way can be found in which to go forward.
I congratulate Sarah Boyack on her campaign on behalf of Caledonian MacBrayne, not only in the Scottish Parliament but—with her colleagues—in Europe. As George Lyon said, we spoke to the commissioners when we were there last week. They were well aware of Caledonian MacBrayne's situation. As George pointed out, they understand the dilemma that we face. I understand that, if the ferry services go out to a single tender, there is a fear that a small operator might raise an objection. If that were the case, the European Commission would be bound to act on it and investigate the complaint.
I need not tell members about the fondness that people in the islands have for Caledonian MacBrayne. There is nothing new about that—they consider Caledonian MacBrayne to be part of the one big family of the Highlands and Islands and that feeling has existed for many decades. Although people want that to continue, we are in an ever-changing world. I suppose that, at the end of the day, as long as the people in the island communities that depend on the ferry services are satisfied that they receive an efficient, safe and affordable service, they will welcome and applaud this move. The Executive must also be complimented on its decision to form one shipping company—that is, to conserve all Caledonian MacBrayne ships under the control of the Scottish Executive. That approach should be welcomed and encouraged. [Interruption.]
The island communities see Caledonian MacBrayne as theirs, and will not be pleased if they do not see the Caledonian MacBrayne emblem on the funnel of the ships.
I will not take up much more time. However, if we consider that Caledonian MacBrayne has served those communities for—
I am sorry. We were having noises off from Duncan McNeil a moment ago, and now your microphone has gone off.
Oh, it is back on again. On you go.
We should consider the excellence of that service and the love that the people have for the crews of the ships. After crossing the Minch on a very stormy day, a distressed lady went up to the skipper on the bridge and said, "Captain, I thank you for taking me across in such atrocious conditions. If it wasn't for the grace of God and your own skill, we wouldn't be here." "Yes, madam", said the skipper, "two good men together."
I hope that we will see the Caledonian MacBrayne emblem flying on the ferry routes in the Western Isles for many decades to come.
My contribution will be brief, because I have concerns about three areas. I am grateful to George Lyon for securing the debate; maintenance of essential services to our island and remote communities is vital. All members will agree that, in that respect, Scotland is an individual and very distinctive part of the European Union—the Scottish Executive has the competence to articulate that point forcefully.
However, as my colleague Mr Tosh mentioned, concomitant with that is the prickly, ticklish and somewhat controversial issue of value for money. I have already pointed out the inconsistency—indeed, the lack of rationale—in relation to the inability to get transparent operating costs from Caledonian MacBrayne on its individual routes. The company might be hoist with that petard, because such aspects might become more painfully apparent during the competitive tendering process. In recognition of the need to provide such essential services to the island communities, it might be beneficial to have greater transparency about the actual cost, to try to establish the actual need. Proper accounting could be viewed, as could what the crossing pattern of costs and subsidies might be. That would be done with a view not to ceasing the service, but to providing everyone—including the customers in the communities—with best value for money.
I will conclude by alluding to the points that were raised by Professor Kay. On many of the extended and remote routes in question, any separation between vessel owner and operator might make it difficult to procure relief vessels when there are breakdowns. The operator might not necessarily be geographically proximate to Scotland. Professor Kay outlined some genuine concerns; it would be appropriate for the minister to allay some of our apprehensions in that respect.
I will be brief. I thank George Lyon for giving members the opportunity to discuss this issue again.
I echo John Farquhar Munro's positive approach to the challenge that we face, and I offer my support to the minister who is taking our case into Europe. I also welcome the £3 million award that was received as a clear sign of confidence in the Gourock-Dunoon run. However, that will not allay the natural concerns of many of the people who work in the CalMac headquarters in Gourock, and who operate the ferry from the terminals at Gourock and at Wemyss Bay in my constituency. However, there is another operator, Western Ferries, just along the road and also in my constituency that might take a different view on the matter.
It is always good to stay for members' business debates after hours, in which Murray Tosh might talk about workers' rights. I was pleased to hear that today, but there are real concerns about such issues. We have heard about the dedication of the workers over the years, and I hope that they will be rewarded with a clear future.
Many confused messages are coming out and some councillors in the Western Isles are encouraging people to put in private bids. I am sure that Bruce Crawford will take that message back, as the messages that are coming to us through the networks are causing some concern. I can name the councillors concerned to him, in the hope that he can sort them out.
I have outlined a number of issues that I hope the minister will address in her summing up, including Professor Kay's concerns about vessels and the trade unions' concerns about the way in which the process is being carried out.
I, too, congratulate George Lyon on securing the debate. Perhaps it is fitting that I am the last member to speak, because I want to ask on behalf of my constituents in the west of Scotland why it is that so many of them are worried about the threat to CalMac.
In the west of Scotland, CalMac is a large employer. Duncan McNeil mentioned the fact that CalMac's headquarters are in Gourock. What happens if CalMac loses the contract and it goes to a company whose headquarters are outside Scotland? There are terminals at Ardrossan, Wemyss Bay, Gourock and Largs, and many of my constituents are worried. The services can be a daily lifeline for some people, and that is what is important to them—their daily lives.
For the island of Cumbrae, the ferry provides the daily trip for pupils who attend Largs Academy. Without the ferry crossing being guaranteed at a price that folk can afford, how can secondary school pupils get to school? The daily ferry from Largs to Cumbrae brings the home helps who help so many of our elderly citizens to stay on Cumbrae to the ends of their lives—something that they want to do. We must ensure that such lifeline services are available for all.
Maureen Macmillan said that I criticised the minister for going to the European Community on this issue. The SNP would never criticise a Scottish minister for going to the European Community to make the Scottish case. My criticism was that, to date, she has not achieved the result that the SNP could achieve for Scotland.
I listened closely as George Lyon and other members spoke. It was almost a unique experience to hear the member who opened the debate ask a series of questions, 95 per cent of which he proceeded to answer extremely effectively. I shall respond to the one or two points that he left for me to address.
I welcome the opportunity to put on record the views of the Executive on this matter. As George Lyon rightly pointed out, the situation is developing. The Executive recognises the importance of CalMac to the communities that it serves throughout Scotland. The company is an integral part of many people's lives, and members have echoed those people's comments. I am absolutely committed to protecting levels of service. The company plays a crucial economic role in facilitating the imports and exports on which the island communities depend and in allowing tourists to visit some of Scotland's most attractive destinations.
The motion correctly identifies the fact that the employment that CalMac provides is an important element of that economic equation. CalMac draws many of its employees from the communities that it serves. Those jobs are good and they are stable, which is particularly important in communities with fragile economies. George Lyon and Maureen Macmillan made that point effectively. We cannot overstate the importance of the experience and skill of the CalMac work force and its commitment to serving Scotland's island communities. The simple fact, however, is that we cannot leave the situation as it is. CalMac's services breach European Community rules on state aids. The European Commission wrote to us in June 1999 and we have been working since then to ensure that we develop proposals that comply with the EC state aid regulations.
I was disappointed by the fact that Bruce Crawford and Fiona McLeod questioned the reason for putting CalMac's services into line with the EC state aid regulations. We have to be able to ensure that we avoid infraction proceedings and the termination of the subsidy for our services. We have to make the case to Europe that CalMac provides lifeline services that are worthy of PSOs. I do not want to take a risk with our right to pay for our lifeline services and to pay subsidies. We are clear that the guidelines to which Bruce Crawford referred will not change the fundamental point about tendering. They will, however, help us to put forward Scotland's unique case. It is vital that we bring to the Commission's attention the importance of CalMac's services and our willingness to bring them within the EC rules.
One of the arguments that could be used in favour of CalMac is its experience in dealing with our waters, which are acknowledged to be some of the most dangerous in Europe.
I have already made the point about the expertise and commitment of the staff. We have to ensure that our proposals deliver the highest possible safety standards. We have had discussions with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to ensure that we meet the UK standards on safety. It is clear that we must do that within the tendering process.
There has been overwhelming support for the approach that we have taken with the Commission on our package. I believe that our package will provide a robust framework for the continued delivery of high-quality lifeline services to the Highlands and Islands. We are not trying to privatise the system; we are trying to ensure that the investment that we have had from central Government continues. We want to keep the CalMac fleet together and in public ownership—that is the opposite of what Bruce Crawford alleged tonight.
I want to ensure that we get our message across to the Commission. I am aware that the Commission understands the importance of our lifeline ferry services, partly because of the work that the Executive has done, partly because of the efforts of MSPs and partly because of the work of the trade unions and local authorities. Many representations have been made to the Commission.
I am conscious that the prospect of change is worrying for people in communities that are served by CalMac and for its employees. That is why I met the CalMac work force and the trade unions last month to outline our proposals to them. I wanted to ensure that they were fully briefed about the proposals and to give them the opportunity to put their concerns to me so that I could consider them fully. The meeting was useful and we are working on a number of issues as a result. When I visited Oban last month, I was able to talk to the work force and the management about our proposals.
Our proposals aim to keep a single network going. As George Lyon pointed out, we have to persuade the Commission about that. We are mindful of the experience that the Spanish Government had in getting its services into line with European state aid regulations. We have a lot of work to do, which is why I appreciate the support that has been offered from around the chamber and that has been demonstrated in the past few months.
Annabel Goldie talked about best value and ensuring that our investment delivers for us. As members know, CalMac has experience of a tendering process. The company recently competed, in a joint venture with the Royal Bank of Scotland, to run the northern isles passenger ferry services. Last December, the Scottish Parliament approved the undertaking with the joint venture, NorthLink, for the 2002 to 2007 subsidy contract. That contract will provide an improved service for a lower subsidy. I hope that that experience has given CalMac some expertise in that area. We have already begun discussing the way forward with CalMac senior management. Although there are no guarantees, I expect CalMac to put forward a strong and competitive bid.
Members asked what would happen if CalMac did not win the tender. In our tender documentation, we will be making it crystal clear that bidders will have to consider the whole issue of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations when making their bids. While the TUPE regulations are a matter of law, we will ensure that they are highlighted in all the tender documentation.
I reiterate the point that members have made about the fact that the CalMac work force is skilled and is uniquely experienced in the routes that it serves. Winnie Ewing mentioned the treacherous nature of some of those routes. Skill and experience are important to bear in mind, given some of the conditions in which services are run.
Some members have made unhelpful comments in recent months, which has not helped us to move the debate forward. I want to put on record the fact that it is absolutely critical that any tendering process meets the stringent safety standards that are set for all passenger ferry services, including regulations about crew numbers and experience. It is also important to put on record the fact that safety will never be compromised in the process with which we are about to proceed.
I am aware of the comments that the Transport and the Environment Committee has made about the process and I welcome the scrutiny to which the committee will be subjecting our proposals. I have been asked to comment on some issues that Andy Kerr, as the convener of that committee, has raised. He has asked me to comment by next week, and I intend to do so fully. I hope that that will be useful to committee members.
Communication in this situation will be absolutely vital, which is why I am happy that we are having this debate and that we are able to bring members up to speed with the discussions that we have been having. It is also important that the CalMac management keep their staff and the trade unions closely informed about developments.
Several meetings between CalMac senior management and groups of staff and the unions have already taken place and others are planned. I am aware that the company is making considerable efforts to ensure that all its staff are kept fully informed and to minimise their understandable concerns in what will appear to be a period of uncertainly. Furthermore, I met representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress last month.
When the tender specification is drawn up, it is important to ensure that the widest possible consultation takes place with communities, trade unions and local authorities. Issues such as the vital economic lifeline that is provided by the CalMac routes, the importance of protecting levels of service and fares and the maintenance of standards of safety will underpin that process.
As George Lyon pointed out, the process provides an opportunity to improve services; we will take that opportunity. I thank George Lyon for giving us all the opportunity to discuss this issue and to enable me to put the Executive's views on the record.
I give a commitment that we will continue to work closely with CalMac and the unions to ensure that staff and Parliament are kept informed as we continue our efforts not only to bring our ferry routes under the European regulations, but to do so in a way that is suited to Scotland's needs.
Meeting closed at 17:53.