Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon met in Glasgow on Monday, 30th June 2014, with the Steering Group on the Gourock-Dunoon town-centres ferry service – a full six months late. The DFM had promised in very early Autumn 2013, that she would personally come to Dunoon by the end of the year to deliver her decision on the future of this ferry service.
As time went on – and ran out – repeated questions, some at the Scottish Parliament from Highlands and Islands MSP, Jamie McGrigor, who has taken a sustained interest in this matter, failed to produce any response from the DFM.
The service is currently operated as a 60 crossings -a-day, two-boat passenger service by Argyll Ferries, a subsidiary of the state owned west coast ferry operator, CalMac. The local Dunoon-Gourock Ferry Action group has long campaigned [against all logic and against the lack of any conceivable business case] – for this service to be returned to the days when it was a vehicle and passenger service.
The Press Release on yesterday’s meeting, issued by Transport Scotland yesterday, 1st July, reads:
‘Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “I was pleased to chair the eighth meeting of the Gourock Dunoon Ferry Services Steering Group and thank all the members who attended for their time.
“It gave the group a chance to discuss recent developments, like the potential impact of the recent revised guidance from the European Commission on Maritime Cabotage Regulations, as well as give further detail about the results of the market engagement meetings with the six operators who expressed an interest in the route.
“It also gave the members the chance to air some of their views on the potential long-term options for the route, as well as the deployment of the MV Coruisk over the winter months. I intend to make a decision on future deployment in August.
“I have been clear from the outset that the Scottish Government’s wish is to see a passenger and vehicle service on the route and that has not changed, but there are many factors that we have to be absolutely sure about before we make a final decision on the future of this service.
“There are a number of obstacles to the delivery of a vehicle-carrying service and it is prudent to also consider the alternative of a reliable passenger ferry service using purpose-built vessels. We remain committed to continuing to work with the Gourock Dunoon Ferry Services Steering Group and the wider community to find a suitable long term solution.” ‘
The background
Before we comment, below, on the Deputy First Minister’s statement, here is a brief account of the background to the situation.
Dunoon’s local ferry action group had been given, by senior ministers including Ms Sturgeon and for political traction in the interests of the independence vote this September, apparent reason to hope that their ambitions for a second vehicle and passenger service on the route might be realised.
The Scottish Government deployed the familiar kick for touch by commissioning consultants, MVA, to produce a ‘helpful’ feasibility study. This produced the most supine conclusion seen in such a study – that the proposed service ‘could be feasible’ – provided that a whole series of unlikely scenario’s all cosmically clicked into place at the same time. The most notable of these being that the current provider of a successful vehicle and passenger service, on a shorter crossing between the two towns, took no competitive action of any kind.
On the basis of this less than convincing feasibility study, the Scottish Government then publicly went through the motions of touting the route to ferry operators across the UK, with the action group flattered by being in attendance. The government brought operators to an information day on the route, held in Glasgow; and later conducted one to one sessions with them.
Dunoon and Gourock are also served by Western Ferries young fleet in an 80 crossings-a-day, four-boat vehicle and passenger shuttle across the shorter and faster crossing between the outskirts of the two towns in question.
There has been absolutely no indication from any quarter concerned that any of the ferry operators engaged by the DFM’s Steering Group has seen a business case for offering the proposed service of a state subsidised passenger service on a vessel offering a vehicle carrying service and operated at commercial risk against a successful sitting competitor holding all the cards:
- a shorter, faster route;
- cheaper to operate with lower fuel usage;
- with an almost 24/7 four boat operation as needed;
- owning both its terminals so paying no berthing or passenger dues to third parties;
- cheaper fares and a loyal market;
- the most reliable ferry service on the Clyde;
- a recorded declaration to the feasibility study consultants that it would take any competitive action necessary to protect its position.
It is unsurprising, in the light of this socially responsible and magisterial commercial position, that no private sector operator appears to see any leverage in taking on Western Ferries; and the Scottish Government is prevented by competition law from subsidising competition to an existing private sector operation.
Commentary on the DFM’s statement
Firstly, for information, the reference in the statement to yesterday’s meeting’s discussion of: ‘the potential impact of the recent revised guidance from the European Commission on Maritime Cabotage Regulations’ relates to the opening up of tendering longer contract periods.
This is not new information. The maritime industry has been aware of the option to extend public sector contracts for many years. The relevant factor here is that whilst the contract lengths can be extended, this is dependent on operators being allowed to source [lease or build] their own vessels. Given that the Scottish Government’s position on every other west coast route is for the state to provide the vessels which are then leased to the operator, the assumption has to be that the Government will, in the end, deliver the vessel solution for the Gourock to Dunoon route. If so, the contract period will continue to be the shorter and current 6 year period.
There are four major eye-openers in the DFM’s statement:
First, her admission that there are ‘obstacles to the delivery of a vehicle-carrying service’ runs contrary to the conclusions of the feasibility study her department expensively commissioned – which made no mention of such obstacles.
Does this mean that the feasibility study is now acknowledged to have been less than competent? The answer is ‘yes’. Once the realities of these obstacles are factored into the ‘feasibility’ of a second vehicle service, any possibility of such is torpedoed below the waterline.
Second, as there is no evidence of serious commercial interest in the route from private sector operators, it would be interesting to know more about the discussion delicately nuanced in the statement as: ‘the results of the market engagement meetings with the six operators who expressed an interest in the route’.
The inclusion of this sentence may indicate that the Scottish Government will now release this information in to the public domain. For some time the Dunoon-Gourock Ferry Action Group has claimed that there were many operators interested in competing against Western Ferries, so the release of this information will test the integrity of those claims.
Third, there is the first formal mention of: ‘a reliable passenger ferry service using purpose-built vessels’ [Ed: our italics]. The strong political inference here is that, given the aforementioned obstacles [and lack of market interest], the best solution will be new passenger vessels most likely provided by the state. This would be tactically compensatory for the local activists.
It may be a political ‘wish’ to see the return of a vehicle-carrying service as the action group demands, but this level of commitment is no more binding to future action than lighting a candle on a birthday cake.
The multiple vessel solution might not even be achievable, as no case has been made to demonstrate the need for more than one vessel on a route which is already grossly over provided in ferry crossings.
Also, with the state owned CMAL fleet, which CalMac are contracted to use, ageing and breaking down more frequently each season, there are true lifeline island services on the West Coast that would rank above the Dunoon to Gourock route in any ‘needs’ contest. Investment in two new purpose built vessels for such a route, the need for which could not be more highly debatable, would cause friction and resentment within other communities and would divert scarce funds away from where any investment would have the most benefit.
Last, The DFM’s commitment to making her decision known in August on a second deployment of MV Coruisk over the winter of 2014-15 is strangely belated.
The delay of this decision may point to a [reasonable] element of doubt on the viability of this vessel’s further deployment. Her appearance on the route this last winter, on the government’s own reluctantly released evidence, cost the taxpayer a fortune and made virtually no difference to the service. The Scottish Government is also concerned – and rightly so, about legal challenges to any supplementary deployment due to the proven increased costs, the failure to make any real difference in performance and the Coruisk’s woeful timekeeping.
Alternatively, a late decision on Coruisk’s deployment – and August is so strategically positioned in relation to the indy vote in September- may well indicate a politically targeted announcement at that specific stage, of consent to deployment for the coming winter.
With limited finances and serious service needs elsewhere, it must also be not at all certain that the government will have the latitude to deliver new vessels for a passenger route that is arguably not necessary at all – when west coast lifeline routes are being left without scheduled crossings as old boats go out of service for repair.
‘What a tangled web they weave…’