For Argyll has asked for responses to the following questions from Transport Scotland and from the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment.
‘In the hypothetical situation of any specific change being actively considered by SG in relation to the nature of the current passenger ferry service between Gourock and Dunoon or in relation to its mode of provision – eg a specific boat:
- ‘Would a STAG appraisal be necessary?
- What are the criteria for carrying out a STAG appraisal?
- In what circumstances would change to the nature or provisioning of the service on this route NOT require a STAG appraisal?
‘Mr Neil is on the record as having declared that one of the Argyll Ferries boats on this route – the MV Ali Cat – is ‘not fit for purpose’.
- We are challenging Mr Neil to define precisely the ways in which he has judged this boat to be ‘not fit for purpose’?
- We are also interested to know how, if Mr Neil believes this to be the case and can legally defend the position, he has not had the MV Ali Cat withdrawn from service?
‘Mr Neil, as a Scottish Minister, is a shareholder of Argyll Ferries, the owner of the boat in question.
‘As the Cabinet Secretary ultimately responsible for transport, how does he not have a duty of care for the safety of the travelling public to have withdrawn from service a boat he has declared to be ‘not fit for purpose’ and which is owned and operated by a company owned by the government in which he serves and of which he is himself a shareholder?
‘In what ways is Mr Neil NOT legally responsible for a situation he is attempting to distance himself from in his public criticisms of it?
‘Other Cabinet Ministers, such as Mr Russell, seem equally confused as to their roles and responsibilities in this matter, but Mr Neil is the Cabinet Secretary with specific responsibility for Transport and, as such, is directly responsible and directly accountable for it.’
Newroom (aka soapbox) have you not grapsed the fact that the BOTH the Ali Cat and the Argyll Flyer are unable to operate reliably.
We have just had 24H where AFL was saying the service was interrupted and cancelled in the summer.
The Ali Cat is the worst and it is because of reliability that it “not fit for purpose” (though neither is the Argyll Flyer).
The safety issue relates to operating outside the terms of its certification (something you think is trivial) and the MCA are investigating that and investigations can lead to prosecutions. Hopefully if there are prosecutions it is the company and not the skippers that suffer. Though no doubt the company will stand firmly behind their employees pushing them forward and saying it was their decision to sail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ferryman
Maritime law is very clear in this matter. The decision to put to sea lies solely with the captain or skipper of the vessel, but, as we don’t live in a perfect world, if the captain or skipper of a vessel is put under pressure to sail when they feel a vessel should not be at sea then your recourse is to report your employees to the MCA. A case in question developed some years ago on Easdale island, the ferrymen made 12 complaints to their employees, Argyll and Bute council with no action taken, they kept a diary of events and reported to the MCA who duly turned up and immediately took the ferry out of service. Seafari then had to step in resulting in a bill to A&BC of something in the rejoin of £14,000 for 2 weeks use.
Easdale island resident.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Henry,
I would say the simple act of giving somebody a vessel with a restriction that it operates in “fine, clear, settled weather” and then asking them to sail a frequent year round ferry service on the Firth of Clyde using it constitutes pressure.
This is particularly true since the MV Ali Cat had an operational history on the route and was known not to be able to operate reliably in the sea conditions.
The skipper has to make the decision to sail WITHIN the terms of the restrictions. How many days on the West Coast of Scotland are “fine, clear and settled”? The skippers were given an impossible task which surely amounts to intense pressure.
Also the Company should have been monitoring the operation of the vessels. The incident that seems to have brought matters to a head was the service operating throughout the day in dense fog.
I think the article I read quoted the MCA as saying if there were a prosecution it might be against the skippers, the company or both. I heartily hope it is against the company alone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0