THERE IS HUGE OPPORTUNITY WHY ARE WE BLIND TO IT?

I was sent this short video by a gentleman who created a FOI enquiry which he sent to the Scottish Government trying to find out why Dr Ballantyne never received any reply to the letter he sent to the Scottish Government in 2021 warning them about the ferry situation.

After a mix up and a mistake in procedures for which the Government apologised the official position is that the Scottish Government never received the letter. Given that this website published the letter in full in March this year and that this set off widespread media interest in the ferry debacle it seems remarkably convenient for the Scottish Government in a reply dated 23rd June 2022 to state that they have no record of receipt.

In those intervening months between March and the end of June Dr Ballantyne was quoted in virtually every news outlet not just in Scotland but in the UK discussing the content of the letter. In many cases the SG is recorded making comment in response to this. Now I know this blog is read widely in Holyrood and I am certain that ministers, Msp’s and civil servants read the National media so I find it hard to believe that none of them made any attempt to track down the letter that kicked this all off, particularly given the high level of media interest. It has been available on this blog, in full, ever since publication. Is this believable that nobody knew the content? Could nobody have contacted Dr Ballantyne and asked for a copy? You would have thought given that ministers, including the FM were being interviewed and having to comment that somebody could have made an attempt to get a copy.

For the benefit of the Scottish Government I detail below Dr Ballantyne’s original letter as published on this site back in March 2022.

Kate Forbes MSP

Cabinet Secretary for Finance

Dear Cabinet Secretary

The Scottish Parliament

Edinburgh

EH99 1SP

25th February 2021

I wrote to your predecessor Derek Mackay MSP on 11 January to offer the services of Sea Transport Solutions in resolving the requirement for the vessels 801 and 802 currently partially built at Ferguson’s yard at Port Glasgow and in enabling the construction of modern efficient ferries to replace the aging and inefficient CMAL fleet operated byCaledonian Macbrayne.

We at Sea Transport Solutions have been following recent hearings of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and are astonished at this decision bearing in mind the intrinsic unsuitability of these vessels for the services to which they are intended, the significant additional cost of bringing them into service and their anticipated extremely high operating costs thereafter. As they are unable to berth at existing terminals, 802 for example will I understand require an estimated £60 million in terminal investment which brings the additional cost of bringing this vessel into service to well in excess of £100 million, leaving aside the funds already spent and effectively lost. We can design and build ferries in a UK yard appropriate to Caledonian MacBrayne’s requirements to operate to existing terminals for less than a quarter of that sum while at least halving the operating cost per unit. There is no reason why such vessels could not be built on a production basis at Fergusons assuming efficient management.

Transport Scotland’s Finance, Infrastructure and Sponsorship Manager, R Davie, mentions that decisions on vessel investment are taken in the context of the Vessel Replacement and Deployment Plan (VRDP) and that should we retain an interest in any future procurement opportunities, we should contact CMAL directly.

We submitted a design to CMAL for a replacement ferry for the Arran service based on our well-tested, fuel-efficient, highly manoeuvrable and cost effective catamaran format. We were later to discover that a series of design options was presented by CMAL in which our 80 car, 762 passenger design was quoted as having a deadweight (i.e. payload) of 200t and a capacity for only four trucks. The actual deadweight of the vessel is >440t which is more than enough to cater for any load recorded as being carried on the route to date or indeed anticipated in future.

It was also suggested by CMAL that our catamaran design would not fit existing terminals (untrue) and that their sea-keeping would be inferior (also untrue). Our smaller Pentalina, operated by Pentland Ferries, which incidentally frequently carried nine fully laden trailers, has proven to be an excellent sea boat, regularly sailing in conditions that keep NorthLink’s!Hamnavoe stormbound in port. Hamnavoe is of a design not dissimilar to 801 and 802 and incidentally emits some four times the CO2 per crossing as Pentalina and at some three times the operating cost.

Was the misquoting of deadweight a genuine mistake? If so an extremely serious one that it seems led to the commissioning of 801. Or was this a deliberate attempt to mislead? If so, an even more serious matter. The link is

:

https://issuu.com/idmorrison/docs/brodick_-public_meeting- _3rd_december_2012?viewMode=singlePage&fbclid=IwAR0pUDIY86s161oNI0I7DkX8ovJkQoF4u_Cg PwFlSmNOyoKSYea7QIpErQs

As a second example, CMAL’s three small 23 car hybrid diesel/battery electric ferries are often quoted as examples of environmental good practice. In fact, in terms of litres of diesel consumed per car space per hour at between 3.89 and 4.13, they compare badly with Western Ferries efficient conventional diesel 40 car ferries quoted consumption at 1.83 litres per hour per car space and yet Western Ferries vessels at almost twice the capacity cost one third the build cost of the CMAL hybrids. Our 35 car design would compare at least as favourably in terms of cost and environmental credentials. We actually own and operate ferries and our own terminals so we practice what we preach.

I suggest that CMAL are not well placed at present to deal with the on-going matter of replacing the current Clyde and Hebrides fleet. As CMAL do not own all the terminals to which CalMac operates. I see no reason why they need own all the ships. 

 One or more alternative ship owning entities could have the potential to provide a   more cost effective ship leasing arrangement than that provided by CMAL and could bring new tonnage on stream both faster and for less capital and operating cost. We at Sea Transport Solutions would be more than happy to work in partnership to offer such a service and in so doing effect a step-change in productivity so as to markedly improve frequency and capacity of Clyde and Hebrides ferry services while significantly reducing the annual cost to the Scottish exchequer. The present system is a disgrace, likely to pull your Government down.

Our group has designed and enabled the building of over 100 state of the art ferries and other vessels now operating in some forty seven administrations worldwide. We are currently fulfilling a contract for twenty catamaran ferries for the Philippines. While we have found an enthusiastic welcome for our input in these administrations, I find it hard to understand why we have experienced thus far such a negative response in my native Scotland.

As a proud Scot, it distresses me that Scotland’s maritime capability has been reduced to such a shadow of its former standing. I have offered to make a contribution to reinstating Scotland as a world class ship designing, building and operating nation and would be happy to meet with you and such others as may be appropriate to discuss how this might be achieved.

Finally I wish you well in your new ministerial duties and if I may suggest, in the light of being prudent to revisit your predecessor’s decision to continue with 801 and 802, but develop instead a future strategy for the yard in a competitive market, in which, if desired, Sea Transport Solutions could provide the design competence and experience.

You can phone me directly on xxxx xxxx xxxx

Yours faithfully

Dr Stuart Ballantyne

Chairman

SO WHAT INFORMATION WAS THE FOI REQUESTING?

Further to your email of 26 May 2022 I have now completed my review of our failure to respond to your request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) for any and all information, regarding the Scottish Government’s receipt and processing of the Letter (this refers to a letter dated 25th February, 2021, regarding replacement of the ageing and inefficient CMAL ferry fleet operated by CALMAC, from Dr Stuart Ballantyne, Chairman, Sea Transport Solutions (“Sender”), to Ms Kate Forbes MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Scottish Government (“Recipient”); (hereinafter described as “Letter”)), including any discussion of or meetings pertaining to it, within the Scottish Government and between the Scottish Government, its officers, officials and advisors and any other parties.
1) Did the Recipient receive the Letter?
2) Provide any and all information on action taken upon receipt of the Letter, including, inter-alia;
a) Was the Letter read by the Recipient or any of her officials or advisors;
b) To whom, within and outwith the government, was a copy of the Letter sent by the Recipient, or her office and or others and with what instructions, requests or annotations, if any; and
c) Was the Letter or any part of its content discussed in any meetings within the Scottish Government including government agencies such as Transport Scotland and, if so, provide records of such discussions and any outcome or conclusions regarding whether and or how to respond to the Letter.
3) Provide any and all information on processing of the Letter by Transport Scotland, including, inter- alia; b) Was the Letter or any part of its content discussed in any meetings within Transport Scotland or between Transport Scotland and any other party and, if so, provide records of the same. c) Did Transport Scotland prepare any response to or commentary, including internal notes or memoranda, on the Letter or any part of its contents and, if so, provide a copy of the same.
4) Did the government decide not to respond to the Letter and, if so, what reason, if any, was recorded

The FOI response then went on to state

You stated that 3 a) of your original request (Who in Transport Scotland received a copy of the Letter) did not form part of your request as you had subsequently received a response under a separate request. Therefore, I have not considered it here.
In accordance with section 21(4) of FOISA, I have also reached a decision on your request.
I apologise for our lack of response to your request. The request was withdrawn after being mistakenly identified as being a duplicate of another request that you had submitted. We should not have withdrawn the request, and steps have been taken to ensure that this does not happen again in the future.
As per our response to your request 2202002092676, no letter was received by Scottish Government officials or advisers. The Scottish Government do not hold a copy of the letter, therefore we do not hold any of the information that you have requested.
This is a formal notice under section 17 of FOISA that the Scottish Government do not hold the information that you have requested.

MY COMMENTS

So there you have it. Nobody in the Scottish Government can take responsibility because the postal service is responsible. Now in fairness, that may be the case but if so Dr Ballantyne is an awful unlucky man because other information about his alternative proposals did get through to Scotland but when they were being ”considered” someone ( identity unknown) mistakenly supplied figures in error that were wrong and which allowed his proposals to be discounted from the final choices being made. More ”bad” luck?

The one thing this story confirms is that when it comes to ferries trying to get to the bottom of who is responsible requires a very wide net to which it now appears Royal Mail now needs added.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland.

BEAT THE CENSORS

Sadly some websites that claim to be pro Indy have turned out to be only Pro SNP sites and have sought to ban any websites that dare to question SNP Policy or tactics. They seek to avoid the public being aware that alternatives to waiting for Westminster to “grant” Scotland a Section 30 to hold a referendum exist. Issues like the flawed franchise, the Claim of Right route, the work of the SSRG and Salvo fill them with dread. As this blog promotes all routes, including alternatives I am banned from these sites and am therefore very grateful to my readers, who knowing about these efforts to ban and suppress go out of their way to subscribe and to share my articles far and wide. It is a good thing that attempts to restrict free speech and censor are defeated in this way.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

Free subscriptions are available on this site from both the Home and Blog pages. This will ensure you will be notified every time a new article is posted. Each article already gets posted to many thousands of people, I hope you will come and join us. You will be most welcome.