 Fel y cwestiwn nhw i ystod, mae'n broses yma, fel hyn yn rêitanol i sefydigwn i gweld i hynny o gyffredig y ffordd geissel. Roeddwch i'r gweithio agwrdd Seryddon yn ysgolwch yn rai'ch gyrfa ar gyfer am y meddwl y cyffredin sydd y gwestiwn, Aishh. I tro .... Roeddwch eich gweithio'r gweithiannol y cwestiwn i bryd y cyffredin hyn y gallu cysygau i gyrddwch i gyd, cyfe-igwyr ddysguo'r gweithio, ac o'n amserau ac, oherwydd, ein bodi bod y cymru yn gweithio amddangosol, yn gweithio amddangosol a'r ystafell ddiddordeb yn ei ddiddordeb yn fawr. Mae'r cysyllt iawn y cysylltu. Felly, rydw i'n rhoi gael i'r cysyllt. Ar sy'n gwneud i chi, Ash Reagan, rwy'n ei ddwylliant i'ch gwneud. Rydw i'n ddiddordeb i chi, Ash, oeddi'r cysylltu i chi'n gwneud i chi'n gwneud i chi. Rydw i'n gwneud i chi. Rydw i'n gwneud i chi'n gwneud i chi. Gw 익 xerwm a'r cyfnod o ran i amserion a ffoto i ym privent. A'r cyfnod o ran i amserion a ffoelio i ffoto i amserion a ffoelio i amserion a ffoelio i amserion a ffoelio i amserion ac y poryrwyddoch chi wedi'i gyfnod yn ffoto i fynd yn gweithio fynd i gyfnod o'r welgo hwn sy'n dweud i haes ffoto i poryrwyddoch chi. Mae'r cyfnod o ffoelio i amserion i poku hyn i. Mae'r next item on the agenda is agenda item 3, which is an evidence session in relation to our inquiry into a modern and sustainable ferry service for Scotland. I refer members to the papers for this item. This is our fourth evidence session of our inquiry into Scotland's ferry services. Today, we are pleased to be joined by a panel of trade union representatives to hear their views on ferry services. I welcome our panellists who are joining us remotely today, Martin Gray, the Executive Officer of Nautilus International and Gordon Martin, the regional organiser and lead officer for CalMacFerry's National Union of Rail Maritime and Transport Workers. Thank you for accepting our invitation. You have a series of questions which are going to ask. I thought I would just give you the opportunity, if I may, but I ask you a very simple question. Are you happy that the ferry services provided by CalMac recognises the hard work of your members who are providing the services on our ferries? If we would start off by Martin on that, followed by Gordon Martin. Good morning and thank you. Are we happy? Are members happy in the way that CalMac is recognising the work and effort that they are putting in on a daily basis to keeping Scotland moving and connecting remote island communities? Are members proud to work for CalMac and proud to work for the people of Scotland in helping them to get to where they need to be? It is interesting to see that the situation with regards to interactions that they have had with members of the travelling public in recent times have become a little bit more strained partly because of the issues that the fleet has been experiencing with reference to reliability and some other issues. Are members always remain professional and have the best interests of the safety of the travelling public at heart as well as the interests of making sure that people do get to where they need to be? I think our members could be happier but are satisfied and very proud to work for CalMac and to work for the people of Scotland. Thank you, Martin. Gordon, I'm going to come to you now. I think you're having problems with broadband so you're going to be audio only so Gordon, over to you. Morning, can you hear and see me? We can't see you but we can definitely hear you so we'll, if that's up, now we can see you. Perfect, so we can see and hear you. Good morning, welcome and if you'd like to answer that question I'm happy to let you. Thank you and thanks for the opportunity to give evidence in today. Obviously there's a number of issues at play in the ferry sector in particular like CalMac. Vessels 801 and 802 should have been on the run some time ago, they currently aren't. There is no resilience within the fleet so when vessels break down, passengers, islanders, purists, et cetera can get upset about that so it's putting pressure on everyone we've just left through a pandemic which has put huge pressure on the frontline CalMac workforce but overall yes I think it's fair to say CalMac are a reasonable employer to look after the staff reasonably well aided and abetted by the trade unions at times to ensure that it does happen. So an answer to your question, yes, although things are a bit difficult and a bit strained and not where we would like them to be compared to some other ferry operators, you know this, this committee will be well aware of the bandit capitalists at P&O on ceremoniously sacked the whole workforce so compared to that, yes. Gordon, okay and I'll take that but we'll just part that because there's nothing we can do about it although I'm sure we all have strong views. I'm going to go to the committee member Monica now to blend into us. The next question, Monica. Thank you. Good morning to Gordon Martin. I'll just remind the committee that I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group. We've heard a little bit today and in writing about the impact that the unreliability issues are having on frontline staff, on your members. So I wondered just for the record today if you can elaborate on that. What does that mean day to day for members when members of the traveling public are getting upset I think as it was put there? What does that mean for frontline staff in each of your unions? Come to Gordon Martin and to Martin Gray please. Thanks Monica, I mean obviously it's putting stress and pressure on frontline workers, you know. When things don't go the way people expect them to go, they very often take the blame out on the frustration out on people that don't deserve it, whether that be supermarket check-outs or in this issue frontline ferry workers. So it's been very difficult, you know. We've had to raise it to the company at managing director level. We've raised it to the transport minister, you know, that people are being threatened physically, verbally and so on and it's not acceptable. So we're looking for the company to do everything they can to avoid that and only the only way they can avoid that Monica is to get some resilience in there, to get some additional vessels so that if something goes wrong somewhere there is an alternative vessel ready and able to be used to take the pressure off everyone. Thank you. Before I come to Martin, you talked there Gordon about threats physical and verbal, and that sounds very serious indeed. You've touched on what could be done about that in terms of building in resilience, but what more could be done to try and change that behaviour because clearly that's not acceptable for members of the public to behave like that towards anyone. Is there anything else that could be done in the short term to address that? Unfortunately, these are societal problems, but what can be done and has been done in white colonies and things like that, the police have been made available at certain term rules and additional security. We ought to ensure the safety of workers in particular as people wait to get on and off ferries, particularly busy holiday times. Thank you. Can I come to Martin for your perspective please? Thank you. First of all, I think it's really important to recognise that every delay, every missed sailing, every time there's an issue with those ships, our members and the people that work on those ferries are equally as frustrated with the situation as what the passengers and travelling public are because our members do not want to be having to cause delays to people. Our members are not causing the delays to people. We want to operate a safe, reliable ferry service for the people of Scotland. That is what all of our members want to do is operate safe and reliable ferry services that get people from where they are to where they need to be in a timely way. And because of issues with vessels, because of a lack of resilience, because of upswing in passenger numbers and other factors such as a lack of investment in infrastructure and expansion in import infrastructure as well to cope with larger vessels where routes have picked up, we're finding ourselves in a situation that is causing passenger frustration to be taken out on our people. And that's not right. CalMac do try to deal with it robustly where they can, but physical threats from passengers are not uncommon when delays occur. I think it's really important to stress and have this opportunity to stress to you and to the travelling public that we are on your side, our members are on your side and want to get you from where you are to where you need to be and want to do that in a timely way. And please remember that they are not, our members are not the ones who are responsible for the issue that is on board, but they are the ones that are trying to deal with it, to fix it, to get things up and running again, to get things moving so that you can be where you need to be. We really want to get you where you should go. Sometimes we can't do that in a safe way and that is what the situation is and what the problem is. The kinds of abuse that our members have been subjected to in recent times have included some threats involving people threatening to drive into them, to run them over, to threaten to forcibly board the ferry as if that's actually going to help the situation or get them to where they need to be. And I get that there's a lot of anger and frustration and it's hurting people financially, it's hurting people socially, it's got a significant impact on the well-being both mental and physical on island communities, but our members are really wanting to support island communities and get them moving and keep their economies going, which is what the ferry services are essential for. So, yeah, it's, I think, very important to remember that it is equally as frustrating for our members when these situations happen, which leads to delays and cause problems. Thank you, Martin. Before I move on to my next question, to explore some of the short-medium and long-term solutions, again, both you and Gordon have painted quite a bleak picture there, which sounds very stressful and potentially very dangerous for the workers that you represent. My understanding is that we have a shortage of seafarers. You're describing threats of violence, people being threatened with being run over with cars. No one should have to put up with that. Are you losing, not losing members, but are you seeing people leave the sector? Is it making it harder to retain people? You talked about people being very proud of the work that they do, but how much more can people put up with? I think that's an excellent question. We are starting to see people come to their limit, see people consider their retirement options earlier than what we would expect, and see people indeed look for opportunities that don't necessarily involve dealing with members of the travelling public going to levels of abuse that they receive. So, whilst in certain sectors and certain specialities, there may be a shortage of skills to operate certain vessels, it can be compounded by that impact that levels of abuse being received are having. Nobody should have to put up with abuse in the workplace, and it is something that's essential to get done that's going to just make things a lot better for individuals to want to go to work and to want to do the best that they can do. A lot of it is also what more everyone can do in terms of understanding what is causing issues and how much control on individuals have over these issues. When a vessel doesn't sail, it is not on a whim, it is not an arbitrary decision, it is a significant call to stop a sailing, to stop one of those services, owing to breakdown, owing to a mechanical difficulty, owing to something that isn't safe to go for, and it is to protect people rather than to inconvenience people that these decisions are made. If the continued abuse keeps being piled on, if there are consistent pressures in operating what could potentially be unsafe services, we're looking at a situation where you're then applying commercial pressure for operating vessels that might not be safe to operate, which could lead to disaster and catastrophic consequences for the travelling public and for all of our members and workers on board those ferries if something was to go terribly wrong whilst it was sailing and it probably shouldn't be. The knock on consequence for this continued abuse could potentially lead to a situation where somebody is making a very fine judgment call on, is it safe or is it not safe, and they don't err on the side of caution with it, and that can lead to even more disaster and loss of life potentially if that decision was made incorrectly. So we've got to be really careful, and we're very supportive of our people who are making these decisions on the ground knowing that safety should be the primary concern when it comes to operating these services. Martin, just before I come to Gordon to answer the question, and I'd like to just build on something Monica said. First of all, I don't think there would be a single person ran this table who would condone that the activities that you are suggesting goes on, but it's however frustrating it is. Everyone's entitled to a safe place of work, and I think that's important that that goes on the record, so you have the support of the committee on that. But what I would just ask the question is, has it become more acute in the last five years, or has this always been a problem, or is this a more recent problem? A very short answer so I can get Gordon would be helpful. Very short answer, yes. Over the last five years it's been increasing, and even more so in the wake and post-pandemic immediate situation. So, yes, it has been increasing over time, but that's in line with the reliability of the vessels and the increase in breakdown issues. Without a doubt, there is a shortage of seafarers, and there's a shortage across the piece. At CalMac, the rate of callback, people on their time off being asked to go back to work to keep the services operating is actually through the roof, and it's a problem at a number of other operators. What CalMac have been good at, though, is taking on a number of apprentices 20 this year, 20 in previous years, and hopefully escalating that and increasing the number of apprentices, because Scotland is a seagorn nation, the West Coast islands need to be serviced, and CalMac are the operator that provides that service, because people go older and leave the industry, or if people get disillusioned and leave the industry, which happens in this happen, we need to encourage other people to replace those workers, we need to train them, we need to get them in situ, and we need to ensure that this essential lifeline service continues to deliver to the very best standards that this committee and more importantly the people of the West Coast Islands of Scotland expect and deserve. Thinking about what needs to be done in the short media man long term, it was Martin who talked about under investment. I want to ask both of you, thinking about a longer term investment, what do you think the priorities need to be? Are we seeing under investment in ferry services and if there is an under investment to what extent, I don't know if there are any figures you can put on that, but it would be helpful to hear your views on that. I might be sick with Gordon and come back to Martin. It's clear that, as well as vessels, we need investment in new tonnage, but we need equal investment in the staff. That empty convener at CalMac is often saying that the committee needs 100% right. It's not just the vessels that need to be looked after, they're overworking the staff because there isn't enough. As I mentioned earlier, I'm going to go call back, which means people on which should be the rest time are being asked to get back to work to ensure the services continue to sail. That's unsustainable in the long term, so investment in new tonnage is, of course, very important, but investment in the staff for me is equally or probably more important because they're human beings and they need to have a work-life balance. During the worst of the Covid situation, people, seafarers on some of the islands when they were going home for the two weeks off or whatever period, the thing of they weren't going into the family home because we're terrified of spreading Covid, that puts enormous pressure on people, so that's looking back to me, but looking forward, we need to be prepared for every eventuality, and for me that is real investment in the staff, including the apprentices, as I say, putting a year at the moment, which is good and better than most other companies, but I think it could be stepped up right across the range of skills that are needed to keep CalMac as iconic leading brand that is at the moment. Thank you, Gordon. Martin? Yeah, it's sad to look through the list of CalMac vessels and see just how many from the 70s and 80s are still being operated today. These are vessels that, under normal commercial terms, are operating in some of the harshest environments. They get in the battering, and they have had 30 to 40 years of a battering, and they're being maintained, they're being eked along on their normal lifespan, but you're looking at lifespans that have been extended beyond what you would expect to see. A typical ferry will operate for 25 to 30 years, and there is a bulk of vessels here that are getting to pass their prime already because of what's there, and there was no seeming plan to invest in new tonnage as it needs to come along. That has been changed with the 801 and 802, which have been significantly delayed. More tonnage needs to be invested, more vessels need to be invested, but, as Gordon says, skills are important here too, an investment in people making sure that people have the right skills and training for operation of these vessels. What's also really important is the decisions that need to be made now as to the future operations of these vessels and how the routes are going to look and the type of vessels they're operating. They're going to have a significant impact on Scotland's net zero to 2045 strategy, too. There's a lot of things tied into decisions that are being made now that have long-term consequences because of an operational lifespan of the vessel. I think there's been issues in the past with coming to decisions, and I think now is the time to start making the right ones that's going to empower a transition into a low-carbon or decarbonised ferry sector for CalMac, and that's going to support a just transition for the workforce of that, that's going to maintain these high-quality, high-skilled jobs that people are going to want to do, and it's going to build in inherent reliability within that to support the travelling people of Scotland and these remote and vulnerable island communities that depend on these services. Thank you, Martin. If I could just say before I move to Jackie, Martin Gordon, I have to try and keep all my committee members happy by allowing them to ask as many questions as possible, which means that I implore them for short answers. I have to ask you for short answers so that I can get them all in. Everything that you're saying is really critical, but if you can condense them down, it will save me having to deal with the committee afterwards. Jackie, over to you. Thank you, convener, and I'll keep my questions short. That was me being told beforehand. Good morning and welcome. I'll go to Martin and Gordon in that order, because that's the way I see you on the screens. But what discussions have your unions had with Transport Scotland about the forthcoming islands connectivity plan? Martin, if I can come to you first. Yeah, I'm bearing in mind the guidance of the convener and keeping the answer brief. We have regular communication with Transport Scotland on a variety of subject matters, and our lead national organiser for CalMac is in frequent discussions with Transport Scotland and Relevant Transport Minister on this and a variety of other matters too. There is regular communication there, there could be more, but there could also be a lot less. Okay, thank you, and Gordon? Yeah, just to concord with what Martin is saying, there is meetings, there is correspondence, there could be more, of course. We have regular meetings with Transport Minister and our Transport Scotland officials, and regular meetings with CalMac at senior level, including managing director level, where all these related matters to the island connectivity plan are discussed. But of course we would always welcome more, and we would welcome more action, as well as more discussions on them. Okay, thank you very much, and can I ask Gordon Earth, what your view of your union is on the possible unbundling of the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services in any future tendering exercise, and can you give me the reasoning behind your union's views, whether you're for it or whether you're against it? We are totally opposed to any unbundling or privatisation of a CalMac contract. We are in full favour of all the Scottish ferry services being in public ownership, because it provides a better service. You know, it gives you more resilience, you know, the broad shoulders, if you like, the public sector, and it avoids a race to the bottom, I mentioned P and O a minute ago. We've also seen issues by Penton ferries, where they had a ferry out in the water that they were trying to put onto CalMac. They had carried out adjustments to it, unauthorised adjustments, we had to bring to the attention of the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency. We are very much in favour of public service seathorse under one CalMac service, and unbundling won't work. It's difficult enough getting seafarers to cry the vessels in the moment, and if it was unbundled and erased to the bottom, some islands would get virtually no service, while the more profitable routes would get a better service. So, totally opposed to it, and totally in favour of people's CalMac. Okay, thank you very much for that. Martin, can I hear your union's views, please? Yeah, unbundling would lead to a risk of companies cherry picking, which services they wished to tend to for and to operate, and you would then see a large amount of competition for those that would be tendering for the highly profitable and potentially lower cost routes, and you would see potentially operators of last resort being left with the rest, where you would have minimal service levels and you wouldn't have a universal quality standard of service. You're going to be looking at a situation that would lead to for some limited communities perhaps an improvement in services, but for the majority it would likely get worse, as there would be no guarantee as part of that unbundling service, an unbundling process that you would have that resilience and backup. So you'd be looking at however it was unbundled, lots of small pockets of organisations that would then have lots of other issues when it comes to being able to try and put out for tendering for other things, for looking for alternative tonnage, for looking for backup tonnage, and they'd be less resilient for vessel movements within those organisations as based upon need and different community servicing. So if you're looking at a situation where unbundling could potentially lead to significantly worse services for some communities and potentially marginally better services for others, but in all events it would then create what you would end up with as a two-tier system, whereas CalMac now you've got that universal provision and coverage where they can make decisions to move vessels around to try to keep lifeline services operating wherever possible, which has not on impact for some communities in limiting services, but it's to try to maintain an overall basic level of service that meets the basic level of needs of what people have and unbundling could put that at very risk. Okay thank you very much. Thank you Jackie and thank you Martin. I'm now going to come to the deputy convener, Fiona Hyslop. Good morning and thank you for joining us. I'll come to Gordon Martin of the RMT first. Clearly the Scottish Government have said that they do not want to see an unbundling of the service, but the experience has probably been informed by concerns around privatisations in rail and other areas. It has been floated that ferry services could be operated or some, or maybe one or two or a small number, operated by a social enterprise or community-owned company. Do you want to maybe share your views about that proposal? As I said earlier, we are totally in support of a people's calm act, which is calm act as it currently sits, but the more islander influence on the board, we workplace representation on the board not to ensure that the current situation improves. I mean the real issue in all this is the delayed 801 and 802 and if they were normal propulsion, no diesel vessels they would be on the run and we wouldn't be having a lot of these problems if they haven't, but a hammer shouldn't be taken to calm act because a short term problem is elsewhere. Unbundling in any way, shape or form would be a mistake and even for currently profitable routes, as the vessels got older or any other mishaps happen, the one of the broad shoulders in the rest of the calm act organisation would come to the rescue. As I said, we are totally in favour of a people's calm act, which is calm act that would better governs than it currently has. Gordon, do you think that the demand for community and social enterprise companies operating ferries is just a reaction to that disconnection and that there needs to be a closer connection between the users, the workforce, the islanders and CalMac? Yeah, 100%. I mean, if it wasn't for the delayed 801 and 802, a lot of these problems wouldn't exist. However they do exist in a lot of island communities at the moment are feeling a bit left out and isolated. In some of the island communities, the business leaders who would appear to me are pushing their business agenda rather than the welfare of the whole island community. So what we need to do is we need to get vessels on the runs as soon as we possibly can and get a proper governance regime put in place at CalMac that meets the needs of the aspirations of islanders and obviously as a trade union official, I would say the workforce. So I'll stay with you just now, Gordon, but just to put matter on stand, I'll ask the same questions of him as well, but that leads us on to project Neptune and obviously there's been a great deal of criticism of project Neptune, but it has delivered a report that's got extensive information in it. Is there anything that you can take from project Neptune that would help deliver better outcomes? So let's maybe concentrate on what we want for the future as opposed to what we don't want. Well I think project Neptune, where it's certainly hints strongly are, is Seymal and CalMac becoming one entity rather than the separate entities that currently are, which I think everybody recognises would probably be a good thing, but what we have currently done is we've commissioned a report by Professor Finlay and her colleagues at Glasgow University looking at project Neptune and the benefits, if there are any, on the downsides and what they are, that report will be issued early in the new year, and I don't know what the protocol is, but if I'm able to, I'd like to invite this committee to attend the launch of that report early in the new year, which will be in Parliament. Where I believe Professor Finlay and her team have already, beyond reasonable doubt, established that CalMac should be a single operator in the public sector and shouldn't be unbundled in any way, so I think that project Neptune is a distraction really, but the good bit in it is the possible Seymal and CalMac coming together. To Seymal at the moment, you know that there are a way of them vessels and doing stuff to vessels, CalMac are cut out of the loop, the trade unions are cut out of the loop, nobody wins in that situation. I'm sure that the committee would be very interested in seeing that report. I think that we need to laze with the RMT about the timing of that and the timing of our committee, because obviously January is probably when we're coming to further close. You're extremely diplomatic, Deputy convener. I think that we were discussing this morning five more evidence sessions, but I think that we'd very much like to see the report even if we can't attend the meeting, but thank you for the invitation. Sorry, Deputy convener. Okay, if you don't mind, I'll now move on to Martin from Nautilus. Again, the same two questions is, what's your critique on the proposals for social enterprise or community-owned companies taking on one or two services? What would be your critique on that? Secondly, about project Neptune and is there anything from project Neptune that you would think would be positive in taking forward into the connectivity plan? The problem with social enterprise and community companies is that when times are good, things work well, but when times are bad, they can sometimes lack the direction and experience needed to steer through troubled times and to get them through. Whilst a community group may be able to operate a ferry service when things are happening and going well, there's a lot of regulation, regulatory requirements, a lot of complexities that require a lot of highly skilled and specialised people, where you're going to end up repeating that on an unbundled service eight, nine, 10 times, or even 26 times if you unbundled them on a route-by-route basis, where you've then got that repetition at skill and knowledge, which is problematic to find sufficient people that have that lead there. It's going to result in worse outcomes for taxpayers, quite frankly, through needing to then look at what that's going to result in additional costing and how much extra that might require funding-wise. The unbundling, even with a social enterprise or a community group, is going to be a challenge and something that I think you can avoid by just fundamentally looking at the interactions that CalMac has with community organisations and community groups to make sure that they are feeling as represented as they need to be in support of services. If we look at Project Neptune and take the piece on Project Neptune, it does point out that there is a lot of complexity in the current operating structure for the ferries in Scotland, which you could look at simplifying that with reference to Transport Scotland's input, with CalMac's ferries input, with David McBrane's limited input and Caledonian maritime assets limited input, and you could look at consolidating that more, trying to generate extra savings and putting it under one umbrella that can work better, that's got all of the strategic direction that it needs, as well as all of the resourcing and empowerment that it needs, that can feed in with those community groups to make sure that they're represented and getting the service that they need, that can feed in better with trade unions to make sure that the workforce are empowered and having the input that they need to deliver quality ferry services because the workforce knows how to deliver those quality ferry services. We have the skill, we have the experience we're doing on a daily basis. I don't think unbundling has been alluded to and has potentially suggested through Neptune and elsewhere. He's going to be the way to deliver a ferry service in Scotland that works for the Scottish people in the way that the one service through CalMac will do. Okay, thank you. I'll pass back to the convener. Thank you, Fiona. Mark Ruskell, Mark, would you like to come in at the stage? Yeah, thanks, convener. I'd like to come on. Great. Gordon, I'd like to come back to you. You mentioned, in answer to that previous question, that you felt that unions and ferry workers have been effectively cut out of the procurement process. I wonder if there's anything more you wanted to say on that. Has there been no engagement at all with workers and unions or was the engagement ineffective or badly handled? Maybe go to yourself first, Gordon, and then I'll bring in Martin on that question. With that, Mark, I'm referencing vessels, you know, we build vessels, etc. What we get is a ffator company. We see the drawings, etc. Once it's in it, it's going by the design stage and it's going out there and it's at the beginning of the cutting steel, so to speak. What we have argued is to make the mistake time after time. We should get us involved. We should be able to talk about crew accommodation, including flat apprentices, you know, those common apprentices, but it's too late, so it would have come. There's not enough crew accommodation very often, which leads to all sorts of other problems. We provide accommodation in hotels, which are very difficult at times, so we believe and we state it to them as we are colleagues and not us time after time. We should involve us right at the start of this process and we would avoid making these mistakes time after time. Sorry, but Mark, can I just clarify the comment from Gordon there? Sorry, I was unclear. Was that in particular referenced to 801 and 802, or was it all ferries, just so I can get that? No, it's not in particular reference, it's including the island vessels, etc. that are coming on board. Thank you very much. What would that specifically look like in Gordon? Is there a particular phase in the development and procurement of a new vessel where you could be inputting? It seems like you're talking about the initial specification. Is it a good practice from elsewhere? Could you tell me what that would look like for your members? To give you an example in a different industry, the rail industry, if they're going to build a new depot somewhere, we're involved right for the outset, you know, industrial reps, safety reps, looking at the designs, looking at the drawings, looking at okay, this'll work, that won't work, work the walkways, etc. That is missing for the maritime sector, the ferry sector here at Calwant. My background was real infrastructure, so when it came to depots, I knew before I got a soil was dug what the plan was, what was going to be there, but we don't get that foresight with the ferries, we get a fairer company, here's what's happening and then you need to try and make the best date for that. Right, that's helpful. Martin. Thank you. We need to be more involved at the concept stage. The concept and the development of what the service is going to look like, where the vessels are planned for operations, because our members have got skill and experience of operating in those sectors and can already point out some issues that are likely to be. I mean, with reference to 801802, from technical perspectives, you're looking at these vessels that are planned for dual fuel usage, we could have highlighted back when the plans are on going that you're going to need to commence training cycle development and looking at upskilling, re-skilling people to make sure that they're going to be able to operate dual fuel LNG vessels well before the vessels are coming on stream, so that everything's in place and these vessels can seamlessly line into where they need to go, but you're also then looking at us being able to point out any issues that we can see with positioning accommodation towards the rear of a vessel where in shallow water you'll tend to get vibrations when you're maneuvering in and out of port operations. So if you're on a service, live abroad and crew accommodation is towards the rear where you're getting a lot of vibration coming from the prop in maneuvering and the vessels maneuvering every three or four hours, you're breaking up the sleep and causing fatigue of crew and you're not delivering a safer service is what you could do by looking at issues like that. We're involved at a much earlier stage than what we are with CalMac in other companies or we have been involved with other companies far sooner who will approach us and say we're thinking of building a vessel, these are the ideas that we've come up with with the requirements, is there any guidance that you can give or that your members will be able to give on what's best to position or any other input that you've got on these plans with reference to crew facilities, accommodation, layout, that kind of thing. So we don't get the level of engagement that would be beneficial for everybody to have at CalMac because we have the expertise. Okay, thanks. That's very useful. Can I move quickly on to climate and climate targets? I think the point was made in the RMT submission that within the maritime sector there isn't an actual sector plan, a sector transition plan for how we're going to meet net zero from that part of our transport emissions. Can I ask you just about how you would like to see a sector plan develop? Are there any particular challenges that you would zone in on at this point? Obviously we'd like to get there as soon as possible through whatever technology is available to get as soon as possible. However, as 801 and 802 have shown if the technology isn't quite right or if the means of installing that in the universal isn't quite right at this time, when there are real difficulties and I think there's going to need to be a mix for a period of time of traditional marine diesel, battery operated hydrogen, whatever it may be going forward. We all want to get there but we've got an immediate problem now where people can't get from A to B very easily in some cases because of the lack of resilience and that is partly being driven by the 801 and 802 cycle but we're trying to get that LNG whereas if it had been marine diesel it would be on the runs now and when we'd have a lot of these problems it would be gone but we do need to acknowledge it, we do need the technology, we've got the carbon footprint so to speak and to get it there as soon as possible but we need to be realistic as a point and if that means we're on the marine diesel for a period of time to keep the service operational I'm afraid I think we're going to have to do that. Right. Okay, Martin. I think there were complexities in the marine sector which mean that a sector plan it's urgently in need of being developed and in need of being confirmed. Vessels that are coming on stream now will be around in 2045 and will be contributing to greenhouse gas emissions because of the way in which it's inherent and you're looking at extensive expense in needing to undertake retrofitting of newer technologies that's going to be supportive of that whereas if we get this lockdown to where it needs to be and I actually have a clear strategy and plan in place and start looking at sectors where you can operate pure electric, start looking at areas and operations where you can operate a hybrid blend and start looking at other factors, alternative fuels so long as you're not compromising safety you can actually have something meaningful in place and really minimising transports and certainly various emissions contribution to the picture by the 2045. Nautilus is extensively involved in work on climate and just transition and we work with the ITF in developing what that looks like and making sure that any transition and decarbonisation has got positive impact for working people so absolutely want to work with Scotland on making sure that decarbonisation and transport is beneficial for all working people including our members that are going to be operating these services well into the future. Okay that's very useful and I think you've got more detail on that just transition work it's a particular interest for this committee and the point that you know workers need to be at the heart of that conversation around just transition. Final question is about road equivalent tariff. I'm going to go back to yourself Gordon. I mean I think in your submission you stopped short of saying road equivalent tariff should be scrapped but you make quite a good case for it to be scrapped and I suppose there are some people in our communities that may agree with you on that in terms of its impact of demand and everything else. I mean is that your position and if it was or if you know do you think government should consider something different to RET that could do the same thing but do it in a slightly different way without the unintended consequences or what I'm just interested in fleshing out do you have effects for you on RET or not? I mean I don't think we want to abolish because let's be honest but it made ferry usage a lot more affordable but it has done unintended consequences with some of the islands that are in effect car parks in the summer because you know the volume of road traffic go over and then it becomes very difficult to get about certain islands so it's like the right idea but maybe consequences that weren't intended but we're doing it to address it so we don't know what the answer is on it but I mean we want ferries to be used we want them to be affordable for tourists and you know people visiting islands from Scotland as well as Ionders myself but it has created problems and there has been a bit of a backlash in Skye and elsewhere where it's virtually made life impossible at certain times in a year for the locals you know the volume of road traffic going over. Thanks Martin. Yeah RET has been a victim of its own success so the road equivalent tariff has absolutely done its intent in making ferry travel affordable and comparable to other means of transport and to not disadvantage ing island communities and ensuring that they have the connectivity they need to get to where they need to live and to work in Scotland. The downside of that as Gordon has pointed out has led to complexities and challenges with reference to an upswing in tourism traffic and people wanting to get about which again isn't a bad thing but it's something that now moving forward could benefit from review to make sure that RET is fulfilling its intended consequences is developing and making sure that ferry travel in Scotland is fair for all those who are using it and is still supportive of the vulnerable island communities that it's there to support and and and help. Thanks back to you convener. Thank you very much Mark. Deputy convener do you want to come in on that point? Just on the success of RET being lots of cars over one of the suggestions we've heard is it might be in pursuit of net zero to a good idea to encourage people to leave their cars on the mainland and to have more electric cars on the islands for tourists to use and also to try and reduce as I said the impact of excess carbon so can I maybe just ask Gordon, do you have reviews on that? It's the first I've heard that to be fair but if that's a feasible answer then why not you know I'm assuming you mean higher electric cars on the island so you drive to get I think that would be a good idea however it depends on the numbers still because 100 electric cars will take up the sink in our rooms 100 diesel petrol cars and it's the volume I think of traffic at times but yeah all in all not a not a bad idea at all I don't think. Yeah part part bit is the idea that families going over to islands can often take many cars and it's to try and reduce the numbers on the islands I don't know Martin if you had any comment on that? It's a new idea that I've heard but looking at it from a sort of comprehensive transport strategy I think you probably want to encourage more people to use reliable frequent public transport and mass transit solutions so if you look at a hydrogen or an electric bus that can carry 40 or 50 passengers that will still go to places on the island that he needs to go you're taking quite possibly 20 or 30 cars off the island so if you can look at allowing for individual vehicles to be hired then I don't see why you couldn't look at improving mass transit there which would have knock on benefits for the island communities themselves out of season as well as removing traffic sort of on season for that so I think better mass transit is probably a better and more sustainable solution certainly for your net zero 2045 than having a lot of electric cars available for hire which have got other knock on impacts with regards to lithium mining and mineral resource exploitation that they also require to be made themselves so I think mass transit is probably the solution as opposed to multiple electric cars in situ and that applies getting people two ferries on the mainland as well as obviously what happens the other side so maybe a one word answer is do you agree that the connectivity plan that's being developed it should be a bit wider than just ferries and should look at the connectivity to the ferry ports on the mainland but also what that transport means on the islands is that something that your unions agree to one word answer is yes it needs to be far more encompassing but yes Gordon absolutely we are in favour of integrated transport so absolutely okay thank you thank you very much for your name Liam you've got the next questions thank you convenient good morning panel martin gray we heard Gordon talk earlier about on-board accommodation and you talked in an early answer about the vibrations and disturbed sleep can you tell the committee is there any practical reason for living aboard these vessels as opposed to using onshore accommodation there's yeah there's quite a few reasons as to why you would probably opt for neverboard as opposed to accommodator shore one you'd have to invest significantly in shore based accommodation which if the vessel is then moving routes because of resilience or then looking at moving routes because it operates different summer winter timetables as some routes do you're then going to have to make sure you've got lots of accommodation blocks which will go unused for periods of time in island centres the other thing that you've got is in the event of an emergency happening on board if you've got live aboard crews and you're doing a everybody muster you've got a situation where you've got effectively double the people available to assist in passenger evacuation to assist in responding to an emergency situation meaning that quite often you can deal with something a lot easier because you've got more happens to deal with what that problem is live aboard I would say is a safer option a more resilient option because if something goes wrong whilst that vessel is in transit such as fire or need to evacuate or other reason like that you are stuck with only the crew that you have on board for that as opposed to the crew that you have on board and the crew that you know the crew that you've got on board that are working in the crew that you've got on board that are taking rest you can call all hands and you can have far more people available to deal with and respond to an emergency and be far more effective in that so I think having accommodation that you can flex up with in response to say increases in passenger numbers that are going to be very short term might be useful I think having that could be an option in some routes at some of the times but I think the safest the most practical and the best solution is to make sure that the vessels that are being constructed now have got high quality decent live aboard accommodation that allows for the right number of people to be on board those vessels at all times so that those who are on board and taking rest are able to do so and be rested those are on board working they're able to do so and and do so without fatigue and that should the worst happen you've got enough people to be extremely efficient at dealing with any emergency I'm very grateful can I press you just for my own understanding on that does the fact that crew live aboard have any impact on their status so does it make them a seafarer for the purposes of maritime labour convention for example or does it have an impact on national insurance and the applicability of the tax advantages of being employed out of Guernsey you forgive me but I don't believe that Caledonia McBrown operates any service which would constitute something that potentially need to comply with the maritime labour convention in itself because of the routes that it operates on so I don't believe that there is a need for it to particularly comply with all all areas of that and I believe that it chooses to do so because it sees that recognizes that as the bare minimum that any operator of ship should aspire to in question to national insurance arguments I am not qualified to provide you with an answer on that because it's not my area of speciality I am but a simple marine engineer and I work for a trade union that's fine thanks for that I'll throw the next question to Gordon Martin but Gordon if you've anything to say on that national insurance and by all means but I appreciate it's a rather technical question but on Gordon Martin then the decision on whether a vessel will sail in inclement weather the committee has understands rests entirely with the master now are you aware what does the master consider when taking a decision on whether or not a vessel will sail and are you aware of whether those considerations are formalised anywhere well the master is in control of the vessel you know so safety of the vessel and the crew is the number one priority so if the weather is so bad the the captain of the master if you prefer decides not to sail well that that decision is totally with him come back support the masters on that as do all all the other ferry operators that I'm aware of so their maritime professionalism is the last word on whether it's safe to do so not and if it's not then the ship wants to thank you do you on on that basis so it I'm assuming from that that nothing is formalised it's just to do with their professionalism as you said do either the unions whichever relevant union and or any company policies have any influence over the master when he's making that decision not to manage you martin grade uh anything to add on that yes so the master's taken to a lot of different factors into consideration when using for opting to see whether or not a vessel is safe to sail that includes whether at present destination whether on passage whether at where the vessel is going to where the final destination vessel is going to be other considerations such as whether or not that that weather is going to be changeable changing gusting whether the power and capacity that the vessel is operating at present its mechanical reliability all of these taken into consideration as to whether the captain or not is safe and confident that he will be able to or they rather will be able to sail that vessel from where they are to where they need to be without harming either the passengers the crew the vessel itself or the marine environment those are the key considerations that the captain will take in it is a very fine balance of analysis that a captain will undertake with that it is very difficult to put in a formal process or a formula as to what to do because these circumstances from day to day it could be that there is an issue with a fuel injector on one of the engines meaning that power is restricted to 80% of that engine's output for that sailing whilst they repair and swap the issue in the next port which means that that captain in ordinary times might have said we're on the limit but I think I can do it but mechanically I actually don't think it's safe on this occasion and therefore I don't think it's ready for us to go there's so much that has to be taken into consideration that these kind of decisions are decisions that are made before every sailing looking at the prevailing conditions and circumstances it is such a highly skilled nuanced call to make there is a reason why it takes years of training and development and experience to be a captain to be a master and why CalMac rightly so make sure they train as to the highest of possible standards and make sure that their development is continued throughout their careers that's very helpful i'm very grateful convener thank you i'm just looking around the committee to see if anyone else wants any questions i have a couple of what i would call clarifications if i make for a couple of questions first of all Gordon you said that you had direct contact with transport scotland and what i want to find out does that include direct input into the island connectivity plan have you have you have you seen the draft one and are you building into it or are you just making more general comments on it if memory serves me i think we have written so the machines forward the convener as well as the meetings where we have we transport scotland and the minister etc so you feel you're absolutely involved in in the formulation of that plan yeah i don't think we've got any complaints at this stage yet okay perfect sorry it's not a trick trick question i just want to clarify exactly where we are and i was interested on the deputy convener's point about looking at the connectivity to the ports as well as from the ports and i'm assuming that that will include a single ticketing thing so you can buy your ticket at the outset to get you right the way across which is possible i just want to go back on to the point of i think both you gordon and martin had said involvement in the early design i think on 801 and 802 cow matt put a special specification to seamale who tightened that up had it approved by transport scotland and then put it out as part of the tendering process where were the unions involved in that was it before cow matt put it up was it subsequent to seamale's modifications or subject afterwards to transport scotland's modifications perhaps you could clarify that for me martin and first and then gordon i would be delighted to give you an answer in writing to that because i want to make sure i get it correct i don't have that information to hand and i want to make sure i give you the right information so i will follow up in writing if i may convener thank you i mean it's important that i think before steel is cut and before the spec is put out and the price is agreed if you're going to have an input as unions you get to the right place gordon do you want to just clarify that or do you want to give me the same answer i'm going to come to you in a minute monica i'm just going to push on 801 if i may part of the designing of 801 is crew accommodation which you said was vitally important there have been mentions or discussions that 801 and 802 may be double crewed in the future however there isn't double crew accommodation and there's possibility that the single crewing may not allow for the crew that are on downtime to have uninterrupted sleep meaning that it takes them longer to come back on duty is that the case and have you got concerns about 801s and 802s ability in the future to be double crewed gordon do you want to start with you as you're on the screen we have concerns of course uh our our position our belief is you know there should be suitable accommodation for the double crew for all the reasons that martin alluded to uh early army submission but also as now is that you know accommodation assure can be very very difficult it can be very difficult to get it can be very very expensive and it takes away for the you know the mustalistic etc as martin was alluded to earlier and hopefully unlikely event that someone goes on so yeah we believe it it's imperative that there is suitable onboard accommodation on every vessel okay martin do you have any particular comments in relation to 801 and 802 in the design of those boats which are right will be around in 2045 when they when they eventually come yeah i don't think i've got anything further to add i think gordon summed it up quite nicely and i'm acutely aware of not trying to use too much time so okay monica did you want to come in uh that stage i've got a couple more questions afterwards so monica yeah thank you convener i was just looking through our committee papers because we we got a lot of written submissions um for the inquiry this one um is for gordon because it talks about the rmt um we had a couple submissions that were quite critical of the role of trade unions and in particular of the rmt so i wanted just to give you the the chance to to respond um we heard in some submissions that um radical thinking and action is required and a means found to remove the outdated controls and stranglehold imposed upon calmac by the rmt union who only seek to operate in the past and then it went on to say um taxpayers are getting extorted by union run calmac um i just wanted to get your response to that um from a rmt perspective gordon i'll certainly let you answer the answer that and i'm absolutely sure that you as a union robust enough to make the comments of why why you think that's wrong maybe uh a quick answer because i'm not sure that the committee will take too much of of into that particular question but gordon yeah okay i'll be very brief it's not true um we have a good working relationship with calmac we have good relations with island communities they remind a lot of our members that calmac live on those islands so to say that we have some kind of stranglehold and we're living in the past is inherently untrue we welcome progress in every sphere we operate in and like we definitely don't want to live in the past we want good sustainable jobs now and on the way we're into the future so we ain't no dinosaurs and whoever's portraying us is certainly ill informed and unified. I'm thankful to get that on the record in light of the submissions that were made thank you convener um just one comment uh just uh on when we went to um Aaron the other day the speed of turnaround of the caledonian isles uh with the uh with the way it's set up proved how quickly it could be done when when the design had been correctly thought about would you um just if i may martin just push you slightly on that is that one of the benefits that you see of being involved early in in design of ferries because you know what actually has to be done by the people on the ground absolutely it's it's situations like this where you have people that have worked on these routes many of them for decades at a time that understand deeply where the hold-ups are where the snagging points are where the efficiencies can be made that just makes everything that little bit smoother that little bit safer that all adds up to a better service for traveling people that's what needs to be done you can design by committee in an office and get a vessel that you think is going to be what you need but it might not be unless you've actually checked with the people that are going to be responsible for operating that day in day out and that know where the snags are on the existing fleet know where the issues are with existing infrastructure and can point that out to you and say if that was designed in such a way that it could do this we could potentially turn around five ten minutes faster which in summer can mean you know an extra run in you know an hour and a half in two hours which is that many more people that are transported across which is you know that much more for a local island economy which is that many more but that much more in terms of efficiency so there's a lot of different things that can be built into that by bringing your people along with you and you do see it in other countries you do see it in other companies where at the very concept stage workforces brought in I did it myself working at sea when I was working with a large shipping company they will bring in working crew to discuss vessel design vessel layout and equipment that's being used to make sure that any issues that you've experienced in the past they can account for that to try to improve to try to make it more efficient and better because they recognise as a company that that is going to have benefits for everybody. Okay I'm going to go to the deputy commune and then I've got one final question unless anyone else has one so deputy commune. Thank you and I'll just say with Martin first of all do you think the terms of the Clyde and Hebrides and Northern Isles ferry service contracts unduly limit and the ability to respond to customer needs so do you think there needs to be sort of probably more decentralized decision making about what happens in problem situations that there might need to be more flexibility in the new contracts once they're tendered to give more decision making powers locally to the operations obviously informed by the crew that might help resolve some issues. The honest answer to that is it would depend on the circumstances there could potentially be benefits to more localised on the ground decision making with that but there's drawbacks as well and as with anything you're going to have to consider carefully what the consequences could be for a decision that's made locally that's got knock on impact elsewhere I mean with if we take the Clyde and Hebrides for example a local decision to say okay well we need to you know swap vessels over and do that it's going to have potentially knock on impact elsewhere so it's quite challenging to be able to make local decisions for for Clyde and Hebrides because you've got to balance an entire route sector Northern Isle ferry services again slightly different because you're looking at something that's that so yes and no or no and yes depending on the circumstances there's there's a time and a place for a local decision making and I think where that could be beneficial that should be empowered but I also think that where that's got then knock on consequences elsewhere it makes more sense to have that centralized where you can balance competing priorities and make sure that you're maintaining a broad operation of service for vulnerable island communities and coming to to Gordon on that do you think there might be some way of making more flexibility part of the the new contracts with the new tendering and in terms of the the future one to to make I suppose that kind of responsiveness informed clearly safe but more practical yeah I think I think there's certainly scope for that as long as the local and the national of your link are talking to each other you know conversing with each other coming to joint decisions quick decisions you know as we've said our people's calmat that should include island representation on the border and workforce representation to make it more responsive to everybody's needs but what I would say as well is on the tender we believe that you know calmat it's wholly owned by the Scottish Government the technical exemption is what we spoke about way back in the past there is no need to tender so to avoid all the uncertainty we believe it should just be an award to calmat by investment over a long sustained time just investment in the vessels and equally as important the crew that actually forward no other way will succeed on the basis that we're expecting there not to be a tender but there will be new contracts issues we should be looking at what can be improved with the contract for the future and obviously I think perhaps times limited but if there is anything that the rnt think and indeed Nautilus think should be in the new contracts to improve them and to have that flexibility I think that something would be interested in because obviously we want to make recommendations for the new connectivity plan and obviously the new contracts as well thank you so a quick question and then then an even quicker one afterwards we've heard evidence given that smaller ferries and more of them would be more responsive to island needs allowing us to flex up and flex down at peak periods rather than having one big ferry in the case of 801 that can take a thousand passengers which isn't always needed do you support smaller more flexible ferries that can go across the entire route as of something that we should be considering for our sustainable ferry services Gordon do you want to start with that I think it's a mix and matching on some routes you do need the bigger vessel because of the sheer volume of people and road traffic but the harbours have to be fit for purpose as well and some of them aren't you know some of them are owned by local authorities etc so I think it's a bit getting a holistic picture right here that includes vessel types in size harbour developments the whole lot rather than trying to do bits in isolation it'd be great if we could sit down and get the holistic look right across what's needed to make it a world-class service it should be for the people that rely on it thank you Gordon Marsden it's a challenging set of circumstances that requires a lot of mix and matches Gordon's already set and I think sustainable is key in this a lot of small vessels whilst you may increase flexibility for being able to operate in the amount of more ports you're also increasing your maintenance costs you've got more vessels to maintain you're also increasing your fuel bill as you are operating more of these vessels and unless you're looking at hybrid sustainable fuels or alternative fuel technologies you're going to end up increasing your carbon emissions on a route by route basis if you're operating more smaller vessels unless you're significantly going to be working on an efficiency basis for that you can have more economies of scale with a larger vessel but again you can have issues if that vessel becomes off service I think the key thing is to mix and match as as Gordon said some more small vessels are going to be needed but fundamentally you need to look holistically across the piece to make sure your infrastructure is in place the vessels are in place and that you're looking at developing vessels that are fit for the future based upon size passenger need and other so that you've got something that works on most of the routes most of the time it's a challenging optimization analysis that needs to be done with this but the answer is not necessarily going to be to have a lot of very small vessels because that's going to cause issues elsewhere with reference to sustainability and ambition for net zero for 2045 okay my final question is is just northlink we haven't really talked about northlink i'm just wondering one here's very little about it which assumes that there are good relationships between employers and staff is that your understanding or i mean it's a question i'm going to ask them when we see them but martin do you have any views and gordon do you have any views with northlink and service that's operating on the northern iron ferry services we have good industrial relations with the organisation frequent communication with them and they operate the service to mostly the satisfaction of those using it they have been fortunate in recent times to not experience issues whereas calmac have been unfortunate but they also have marginally more modern vessels at their disposal and operating on longer routes which gives more availability to to to deal with issues that they need to be they've got longer days in port which impact less on time-tabling issues if you need to spend four or five hours repairing mechanical issues you have that built into the schedule whereas that's not the same on the west coast exactly as martin alluded to you know that the vessels do the same for longer to Aberdeen to Shetland dropping in at least a couple of nights a week in their in-core all day so that work can be done that needs to be done calmac's a different animal altogether you know it's shorter quicker turn the rounds etc you're not comparing like for like what i will say north link again is same as north west we have good industrial relations that are a well led organisation no issues there whatsoever but as i said earlier in the contribution we would like to see the economies of scale in the whole of the ferry service in scotland coming under the one remit a nationalised ferry service which economies of scale from dry docking vessel procurement etc we believe is a way for us okay thank you very much thank you very much for your input this morning i'm afraid we're now at the end of our time so martin gordon thank you for all the evidence you give and i think you offered both of you to submit further evidence committee and we'd really appreciate that when once you've had a chance to do it so that that concludes the public part of our meeting and we're now going to move into private session thank you