Comment posted Job losses of established staff follow SPT’s change of operator of Kilcreggan Ferry by Councillor George Freeman.
I am assuming that Harry is not including me when he ask “where are our Argyll and Bute Councillors who should be robustly protecting their constituents interests” as I have been working very closely with him on this issue over the past two months. As Harry is well aware, on issues such as this, I am like a dog with a bone. As Harry is also aware, questions have been put to our local councillors recently as to who knew what and when on this issue. Unfortunately a number have not answered the question for some reason.
Prior to the current problem with the ferry, I worked with Harry to ensure that those who are disabled and used the ferry could purchase their tickets on the train. Until then, Scotrail insisted that that they should go to the ticket office after coming off the ferry to purchase their tickets before getting on the train. This caused them to walk past the train to buy their ticket and by the time they did that, their train had often left.
As to the comments from Dave Forbes, I can assure him that Clydelink were absolutely serious when they said that their Plan C was to run ribs across the Clyde. I agree that I do not believe that MCA would approve such a proposal.
The main question at the moment is whether the proposed Clydelink vessel is a new build ferry or not. Although the decision to give the contract to Clydelink was based on the ferry being a new build vessel, the indications at this time are that it is not new build. Unfortunately SPT appear to be dragging their heals in asking MCA for information relating to this question.
Given some of the information that has been brought to my attention over the past 18 hours, it would not surprise me if the report to the SPR Operations Committee requesting a grant of £80,250 plus VAT for Clydelink on Friday morning was withdrawn. WATCH THIS SPACE.
Councillor George Freeman also commented
- Although Clydelink stated categorically at the meeting with SPT last week that the ferry would be a new vessel, was currently being built in Southampton and had not been in service before, information that has now come to hand that suggests this may not be a new vessel.
One of the recommendations at the SPT Operations Committee on 20 January was that: (5) recommending that following re-advertisement of the service, contract 1923C1 Gourock – Kilcreggan ferry service be awarded to Clydelink Ltd at a cost of £874,760 for the contract period 1 April 2012 to 1 April 2017, based on the provision of a new build 60 seat vessel.
Given that this recommendation was accepted and the decision to award the contract to Clydelink was therefore based on “the provision of a new build 60 seat vessel”, if the ferry is not new, then this would fail to comply with the Operations Committee decision.
SPT have been asked to investigate as a matter of urgency.
- The proposed new contract for the Gourock – Kilcreggan ferry service was discussed at length at a meeting of Cove & Kilcreggan Community Council (CC) on 14 February. The meeting was attended by over 70 concerned members of the public. Those attending with me included Gerry Gaffney of the Ferry Users Group and Cllrs Billy Petrie and Daniel Kelly as the other two ward councillors.
Following a lengthy discussion, during which a wide range of concerns were raised, it was agreed that a meeting would be requested with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT). It was agreed that those who would attend the meeting with SPT would include Nick Davies – Chair of the CC, myself as local councillor, Gerry Gaffney from the Ferry Users Group (who also has a great deal of technical knowledge) and Harry Cathcart who first raised this issue with me and who has a wide ranging financial background.
Prior to the meeting with SPT, I submitted further questions and FOI requests to SPT and information was gathered from Argyll & Bute Council (A&BC) and from other sources. As a result of the information gathered, I discovered that discussions on the renewal of the contract had been ongoing with Council officers and some councillors from as far back as May 2011. We also discovered that meetings took place with SPT and certain councillors at Blairmore in June 2011 when it was clear that there was an attempt to try and include Blairmore in the new contract.
I also discovered that Council officers had made the Chair of the Helensburgh & Lomond Area Committee aware of the threat to the Helensburgh link as far back as early November 2011. I asked the other 9 local councillors and Cllr Duncan MacIntyre if they were made aware of the threat to the Helensburgh link by the Chair of the Area Committee or by Council officers in November 2011. Four confirmed that like me, they only found out about the proposed change in January 2012. Unfortunately the other five local councillors and Cllr Duncan MacIntyre have not responded. It now appears that no political action was taken since November 2011 to try and ensure the Helensburgh link was retained.
The meeting with SPT took place on 29 February. Those representing SPT and the Council at the meeting were Gordon MacLennan (SPT Chief Executive) plus two of his officers, Cllr Duncan MacIntyre – SPT’s A&BC representative, Cllr Vivien Dance – Chair of Helensburgh & Lomond Area Committee and Cllr Daniel Kelly. Also attending was Mark Aikman from Clydelink who is due to take over the contract as from 1 April 2012.
At the start of the meeting, Harry Cathcart raised a number of financial issues with regards to Clydelink. He also stated that he considered that SPT had not fulfilled their responsibilities relating to the need for due diligence when awarding this contract. Questions were asked about financial checks undertaken by SPT and the funding of the construction costs of the new ferry.
Clydelink informed the meeting that the new ferry was currently being built at Southampton and is expected to be in place by 1 April 2012. Concerns were raised that although Clydelink had been dealing with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) at Southampton, no contact had been made with the MCA at Greenock who will have to approve the use of the new ferry on the route. Given these and other concerns that were highlighted, SPT directed Clydelink to make urgent contact with MCA Greenock to try and resolve these issues.
There was considerable discussion relating to the specification/class of the new vessel. Clydelink advised that the new vessel will be built to Merchant Shipping Notice 1699(M) Class V. Gerry Gaffney advised Clydelink that the Seabus was built to the EU Directive for Domestic Passenger Vessels (EU Directive 98/18) which is a much higher specification than Class 5 and the one which Clyde Marine had adopted as being appropriate for the Gourock – Kilcreggan route. SPT directed Clydelink to obtain information on the Directive with a view to having any improvements/modifications carried out on the new vessel before 1 April.
Gerry Gaffney then presented information relating to the dimensions of the proposed new ferry against the SEABUS, the Argyle Flyer and the Ali Cat and provided information on the number of cancellations for each of these vessels during Nov and Dec 2011. Based on the information available, concerns were highlighted that the number of cancellations due to adverse weather conditions could increase significantly when the new ferry was in service. The Clydelink representative stated that with regards to cancellations, he could not say what level of service he would be able to deliver. This is clearly a concern with regards to the reliability of the new service.
Clydelink confirmed that they had a Plan B and Plan C if the new vessel was not available for the 1st April. Plan B was a Class 5 specification vessel currently based in Oban. Plan C was the use of two ribs running back and forward across the river. SPT was advised that as the vessel based in Oban is a Class 5, it will also require improvements/modifications to bring it up to the EU Directive prior to being brought into service on the Gourock – Kilcreggan route.
We received confirmation from Clydelink that the ferry will be berthed by the crew using boat hooks. This is the reason why Council staff who currently carry out this work have been informed that they could be redeployed or even made redundant. Clydelink confirmed that the proposed berthing procedure would reduce their costs by £20,000. Cllr MacIntyre informed those present that he had only become aware of the potential implications for Council staff that morning.
With reference to an upcoming problem for berthing at the Kilcreggan Steps at Gourock, it was confirmed that a solution to the berthing problem had not been finalised. Although a proposal to berth 200 metres from the current location had been suggested, no decision had yet been taken on this issue.
Concerns were also raised during the meeting with regards to a number of other issues including projected passenger numbers, subsidy figures, risk assessments and changes to the berthing arrangements.
I hope that this information helps to bring readers up to date on this issue and also highlights why the community has serious concerns about the safety and reliability of the proposed new service.
Further information on this issue continues to come to light on a daily basis and I have no doubt that this issue has still got some way to run. Watch this space.
Recent comments by Councillor George Freeman
- Meeting of interested parties on A83 makes Oliver Twist move on Transport Minister
As the Rest and Be Thankful is in my Lomond North electoral ward, I was surprised to read about this meeting which I had no knowledge of. Firstly, we need to remember that, although there are landslips beyond the Rest in the Cowal Ward in Argyll, the major problems with land slips are on the Rest itself, which is part of my Lomond North Ward, which also falls within the Arrochar & Tarbet Community Council area. Having said that, it has been the norm over recent years for local Ward councillors and the Community Council to be ignored when the problems at the Rest are being discussed.
Following the report on For Argyll, I tried to contact the other two ward councillors to confirm if they had been invited to the meeting. As I was told yesterday that Councillor Corry was currently in Sweden and was not available, I contacted Councillor Robert G MacIntyre, who also happens to be the Council’s Deputy Lead Councillor for Roads Issues, to ask if he was aware of the meeting. Councillor MacIntyre confirmed that he was contacted late on Thursday by Council staff to ask if he could attend the meeting. Given that the meeting was being held the next morning (Friday) at 10.30 am, this clearly gave him no time to consult with other ward councillors or the Community Council on what was due to be discussed. Given the short notice, it appears that the late invitation to Councillor MacIntyre to attend Friday’s meeting was an afterthought. How could Councillor MacIntyre be expected to speak on behalf of Argyll & Bute Council when he had not been given the opportunity to consult with the Council on the issues that were due to be discussed?
Most people tend to forget that the Rest and Be Thankful is NOT in Michael Russell’s Argyll & Bute constituency but is in Jackie Baillie’s Dumbarton constituency. Having contacted Jackie Baillie yesterday, she has confirmed to me that she “had not heard about the meeting”. I wonder what Michael Russell’s reaction would be if Jackie Baillie arranged a meeting in Arrochar to discuss an issue that was of major importance to Michael Russell and his constituents but did not give him the courtesy of an invitation or even informing him of the meeting? I doubt if Mr Russell would be been very happy.
It appears to me that the Scottish Government is still not taking the problems at the Rest seriously and are determined to spend as little as possible to try and keep the residents and businesses of Argyll & Bute happy. Would this sort of response be acceptable if this was happening in the central belt? I believe that it certainly would not be acceptable and that the Scottish Government would throw as much money at it as was required to resolve the problem. There again, I am sure that some of those in power think that this is only Argyll, a remote rural area with a small population which does not justify the expenditure required to provide a permanent solution to this problem.
We have heard in the past that there was no money allocated in the Scottish Government’s capital programme to provide a permanent solution at the Rest. That may have been acceptable within the three year spending review period at that time, but could not justify the Scottish Government failing to make provision within the new 3 year spending review period.
- Argyl and Bute Councillors in trouble for non-payment of – Council Tax
For the avoidance of any doubt, and to reassure my constituents, I can confirm that I am NOT one of the councillors referred to in the Sunday Post yesterday as having had Council Tax arrears.
My Council Tax has always been payed on time and I have never been in arrears with Council Tax or any other payments to the Council. That reduces the number of councillors in Argyll & Bute to 35 that the Sunday Post could have been referring to.
- Pro-indy Sunday Herald seen utterly to concoct smear on Labour
Neil, given the report in the Sunday Herald, it would appear that, in their opinion, you are now Leader of the Council? Either that, or it is down to the poor quality of the reporting in the Sunday Herald who obviously do not check their facts before running with a story.
It is good to note how disciplined and united your Group is within the Council under your leadership.
- Council by-election result: Labour takes first seat in Argyll and Bute Council since 1999
Warmest congratulations to Neil MacIntyre for a successful campaign. I look forward to working constructively with him over the next three years.
We will now have four MacIntyres on the Council which will no doubt cause a bit more confusion. I just wonder if we will have another MacIntyre standing in the upcoming by-election in Ward 5 – Oban North and Lorn to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Louise Glen-Lee?
- Will Argyll and Bute Council change its name?
Question, on that basis, Argyll no longer exists so why are we using it and why are folk promoting it?
powered by SEO Super Comments