Brian Wilson, born in Dunoon in Argyll and Labour Minister of State from 1997-2003 in the Scottish Office, Foreign Office, Department of Trade and Industry and Energy, is also founding editor and publisher of the pioneering West Highland Free Press, which was born in 1971 and published since then from the Isle of Skye.
This was and remains a politically engaged, radical, wide ranging, and straight speaking newspaper which continues to demonstrate the credibility of a rurally based paper resolutely defying parochialism and challenging political thinking and actions at a national level from an informed and committed position.
For Argyll is delighted to be able to publish this piece from Brian Wilson where, steeped in the cultures of the west coast and familiar from his earliest years with the vital role of ferries here, he brings his depth and breadth of knowledge and experience to issues embedded in the forthcoming tender and contract award for the Clyde and Hebridean Ferry Services.
There are few matters more complex, few more absolutely determining of life on the Scottish west coast and islands – and few more easily destabilised by governments with a private agenda.
In this piece, Brian Wilson asks some very searching questions of the Scottish Government, questions which perhaps centre on a core issue spelled out in a sentence of Wilson’s which we have made the inner title of the article.
Why would the Scottish Government ask one question but not the other?
The Scottish Government’s announcement of a timetable for the next Caledonian MacBrayne contract signals the start of a battle. It also suggests a sense of impunity on the part of Ministers which is about to rudely interrupted.
According to the timetable, the process will reach its climax with the announcement of successful bidders by ‘the end of May 2016′. The next elections to the Scottish Parliament are due to take place on May 5th, 2016.
Did they really think nobody would notice the cynicism of that chronology? Did they have the same public relations advisers who told the Rangers board it would be a great wheeze to hold their egm in a London hotel? Do they think people are that gullible?
This exercise has been going on in all but name for the past three years and more. At the end of 2012, the tendering exercise was ‘pulled’ under pressure from the RMT union who told Ministers bluntly that they would face industrial action if they went ahead. It was kicked into touch until after the referendum.
That event having passed last September, the idea that precisely 18 months – not 16 or 17 – are required to complete the process is literally beyond belief. The failure to give a commitment that voters in communities served by CalMac will know the outcome in advance of May 5th, 2016, is outrageous and must, for starters, be reversed.
This is not purely about the politics of what now, even more than before, looks like a timetable for privatisation. It is also about the legitimate interests of those who work for Caledonian MacBrayne and their families. It is indefensible to prolong, for political convenience, uncertainty about job security and conditions of employment under a potential private operator.
The fundamental question remains of whether this tendering exercise is necessary at all. The trade unions do not think so and neither do I. The least that can be said is that an administration which mouths so many platitudes about left-wing credentials should put the matter to the test, using precedents which have emerged in recent years [notably the Altmark ruling] to make a case to the European Commission.
My own long-held view is that the Commission have never been much interested in CalMac but has been pressed into taking an interest by Scottish Government, and previously Scottish Office, civil servants in order to give cover to their own agenda which has been, and remains, the privatisation of these services.
As the trade union briefing papers points out, the Scottish Government successfully sought a derogation from the Commission on the length of contract. At the same time, they have ‘dodged the fundamental issue of whether a tender competition for the Scottish lifeline services is necessary in law’. Will any SNP representative come out of hiding to tell us why they could ask one question but not the other?
The statement from the SNP’s Transport Minister, Derek Mackay, certainly does not suggest any lack of enthusiasm for the process. The contract period has been lengthened, he declares, ‘to make it more attractive to potential bidders by giving the operators more opportunity to deliver service improvements and efficiencies over the course of the contract’.
Ministers are now looking for ‘innovative delivery of service provision in the more qualitative elements of bidders’ responses’. It is the same old drivel that we hear about rail privatisation contracts. Throw in some window-dressing and hope that nobody notices the basic formula which privatisation results in – more public subsidy, higher fares, reduced terms of employment and cuts in uneconomic services. These are the ‘qualitative elements’ that communities dependent on CalMac should expect, if ferry privatisation is allowed to happen.
Fortunately, we do not have to rely on hypothesis or even reference to the railways in order to confirm all of that. We can look north to Orkney and Shetland where ferry services have already been contracted out by Scottish Ministers to their favourite private company, Serco – who had been lined up three years ago for the CalMac contract.
When I visited these islands recently, I heard just how unpopular the Serco regime is. As the union briefing paper points out, they have raised fares, cut services, reduced crewing levels and done all the things you would expect a profit-driven private operator to do. In the Northern Isles, they are dealing with three ferries and a handful of routes.
CalMac is a much bigger and more complex operation as its recent difficulties confirm. I am told that Ministers believe the company is now so unpopular that hardly anybody will care one way or another if it is privatised. They have a rude awakening ahead of them.
Moaning about CalMac is an island hobby, often well justified. But communities which depend on these services are well able to distinguish between the baby and the bathwater. What they want is a better, more accountable CalMac – not a privatized substitute.
Insofar as CalMac is nowadays distant and dysfunctional, that is entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Government. It is this administration which has reversed policy and gone out its way to appoint a CalMac board which contains nobody who lives in the places served by CalMac or has first-hand understanding of its operations. The senior management seems to rely mainly on hiring consultants to tell them what to do. One might almost think that CalMac has been set up to fail.
Nobody in the islands can trust the CalMac board and management to wage an effective campaign to win this contract for the simple reason that nobody knows anything about them. None of us has a clue what agenda they are actually working to. We need to find out – and fast.
It is essential, at this crucial moment, that the entire CalMac board and senior management should present themselves for scrutiny and questioning by informed audiences of ferry users and workforce representatives. We need to know if they have a strategy for keeping CalMac as a publicly-owned company, existing only to serve island communities, or are they a puppet regime which exists to serve the objectives of Ministers?
For the record, the names of the CalMac board members appointed by the SNP administration are David McGibbon, Murray Easton, Stephen Hagan, Primrose Stark, James Stirling and Albert Tait. We look forward to seeing them soon on public platforms from Stornoway to Port Ellen. We need to see the whites of their eyes and hear how they plan to keep CalMac as a public sector company.
The scandal is that this whole process has so far been conducted at long distance from the places which will have to live with the outcome for ever and a day. The politicians in charge of it must be made understand that is they who will be held accountable for the outcome. They cannot hide behind an anonymous CalMac board and management. Let battle commence.
Brian Wilson
