Friday, March 04, 2005
Cal Mac debate
Alan Reid (Argyll & Bute) secured a debate about Cal Mac privatisation last night, and very good he was too. It is worth repeating some of the key points he made.
In order to compete with the private companies, CalMac will be forced to transfer the employment of its crews offshore to avoid paying United Kingdom employers' national insurance contributions, which will cost the Treasury £1 million a year. Under the EU rules, the Scottish Executive cannot insist on the vessels remaining under a UK flag; they can sail under the flag of any EU country. But other EU countries have lower standards for training and expertise of the crews than Britain, so standards will inevitably fall.
In order to enforce a contract it clearly needs penalty clauses for lateness or failure to complete a sailing. However, that also leads to problems. Already, because of the penalty clauses in rail contracts, connecting trains will not wait at the station if the boat is late. We will now be faced with the same situation with the ferries. The boats will not wait for the late trains for fear of the penalty clause
Inevitably, we will get into a situation when passengers from the train at Oban, say, could even be sprinting along the pier, only to see the captain order the gangway up in order to avoid the penalty clause. To some small islands, the next sailing could be three days later. That is clearly a farcical situation, but it is what we will be faced with under a penalty clause system. A huge majority of my constituents want CalMac to continue to operate these lifeline services. CalMac has its faults—nobody would say that it is perfect—and it certainly has plenty, but a public body can be lobbied and pressurised into making changes, whereas a private sector body will be interested only in conforming to the timetable, avoiding penalty clauses and making a profit.
Crews often live on the islands and are part of the local community. In the small islands, a large proportion of the work force work for CalMac. The crews have a commitment to those islands, whereas a private operator, with crews possibly from the far side of Europe, will not have same commitment to the island communities.
The legislation has already wasted a great deal of taxpayers' money. CalMac has spent considerable sums engaging consultants and has devoted a great deal of time and energy to preparing for the tendering process that would have been better spent improving ferry services.
Spot on, say I.
Alasdair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland) said:
The European Commission is supposed to operate according to the treaty of Amsterdam, subject to the special treatment of peripherality, as it is called. Island and remote communities can be treated differently, and it is an immense source of frustration to me that that never seems to apply in practice.
Too true.
Bringing up the rear, Calum asked:
It would be helpful if the Minister could give a reassurance that nothing in the tendering process will diminish the continuing commitment of CalMac—and the Government—to the health and safety record that it has established on the west coast, as well as to the employees' terms and conditions.
And answer came there none; which I think tells us all we need to know.
In order to compete with the private companies, CalMac will be forced to transfer the employment of its crews offshore to avoid paying United Kingdom employers' national insurance contributions, which will cost the Treasury £1 million a year. Under the EU rules, the Scottish Executive cannot insist on the vessels remaining under a UK flag; they can sail under the flag of any EU country. But other EU countries have lower standards for training and expertise of the crews than Britain, so standards will inevitably fall.
In order to enforce a contract it clearly needs penalty clauses for lateness or failure to complete a sailing. However, that also leads to problems. Already, because of the penalty clauses in rail contracts, connecting trains will not wait at the station if the boat is late. We will now be faced with the same situation with the ferries. The boats will not wait for the late trains for fear of the penalty clause
Inevitably, we will get into a situation when passengers from the train at Oban, say, could even be sprinting along the pier, only to see the captain order the gangway up in order to avoid the penalty clause. To some small islands, the next sailing could be three days later. That is clearly a farcical situation, but it is what we will be faced with under a penalty clause system. A huge majority of my constituents want CalMac to continue to operate these lifeline services. CalMac has its faults—nobody would say that it is perfect—and it certainly has plenty, but a public body can be lobbied and pressurised into making changes, whereas a private sector body will be interested only in conforming to the timetable, avoiding penalty clauses and making a profit.
Crews often live on the islands and are part of the local community. In the small islands, a large proportion of the work force work for CalMac. The crews have a commitment to those islands, whereas a private operator, with crews possibly from the far side of Europe, will not have same commitment to the island communities.
The legislation has already wasted a great deal of taxpayers' money. CalMac has spent considerable sums engaging consultants and has devoted a great deal of time and energy to preparing for the tendering process that would have been better spent improving ferry services.
Spot on, say I.
Alasdair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland) said:
The European Commission is supposed to operate according to the treaty of Amsterdam, subject to the special treatment of peripherality, as it is called. Island and remote communities can be treated differently, and it is an immense source of frustration to me that that never seems to apply in practice.
Too true.
Bringing up the rear, Calum asked:
It would be helpful if the Minister could give a reassurance that nothing in the tendering process will diminish the continuing commitment of CalMac—and the Government—to the health and safety record that it has established on the west coast, as well as to the employees' terms and conditions.
And answer came there none; which I think tells us all we need to know.
