Renaming Glasgow Prestwick Airport (PE1506)
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I welcome you all to today’s meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. As always, I ask everyone, whether members or those in the public gallery, to switch off any electronic equipment because it interferes with our sound system.
Item 1 is consideration of two new petitions. The committee will take evidence on one of the petitions. John Wilson has sent his apologies and I welcome Jim Eadie, who is substituting. David Torrance will not attend today, either.
The first petition is PE1506, by Alison Tait, on behalf of the Robert Burns World Federation Ltd, on renaming Glasgow Prestwick airport as Robert Burns international airport. Members have a note by the clerk, the briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre and the petition. Members will note that Willie Coffey MSP has indicated his support for the petition. He would have liked to attend the meeting, but he has another engagement.
I welcome our witnesses. Good morning and thanks for coming along. From the Robert Burns World Federation Ltd, we have Alison Tait, the chief executive, Jane Brown, the president, and Jim Thomson, the senior vice-president. I invite Alison Tait to make a short presentation of around five minutes to set the context, after which I will ask a couple of questions. Chic Brodie and Jackson Carlaw have a particular interest in the petition, so I will invite them to ask questions after I have asked mine.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, convener, for allowing us to come along and put forward our case for the renaming of Prestwick airport.
The Robert Burns World Federation was founded in 1885. Its main objectives are to advance the education of the public about the life, poetry and works of Robert Burns and in furtherance thereof to encourage and arrange competitions among the general public, students and school children; to stimulate the development, teaching and study of Scottish literature—all Scottish literature, not just Burns—art, music and language; to conserve buildings and places that are associated with Robert Burns and his contemporaries; and to strengthen the bond of fellowship among members of Burns clubs and kindred societies throughout the world. Clubs, societies, individuals and corporate bodies that support the aims and objectives of the federation may be admitted as members. However, as the leading authority on Robert Burns, his life and his works, we interact on a daily basis with many people, both members and non-members.
Robert Burns is a global icon and is recognised worldwide. He is one of the top literary figures in the history of the planet and is comparable to all the greatest literary characters. The culture secretary, Fiona Hyslop, said:
“Robert Burns is Scotland’s greatest cultural icon, recognised and celebrated all around the world. His legacy is of incalculable value to Scotland and the country’s image abroad.”
However, it is not the sentimental aspect of Burns but the business case that is important and that brings us here today. Prestwick airport is Scotland’s other international airport. Renaming the airport would immediately identify its geographical location right in the heart of Burns country. We see it as a positive step forward to have the international airport almost in sight of Robert Burns’s birthplace. As a gateway to the region, it will potentially be seen by millions of passengers. Renaming the airport would be a fitting and relevant tribute to the memory of Robert Burns. More important, it could have an impact on the market, as it services an area that is rich in culture, heritage and tourist attractions.
We envisage that renaming the airport would increase its profile for Burns tourism and would provide an opportunity to improve passenger footfall to the area. That would be of advantage not only to Ayrshire, but to Dumfries and Galloway and to wider Scotland. There is an opportunity for the south-west of Scotland to capitalise on tourist value in respect of everything from spend on tour guides and ancestry research to golf and hotels—I could go on. From a marketing point of view, it is possible to capitalise on Burns throughout the airport and potentially increase footfall. Due to security, footfall in airports nowadays is mainly passengers as opposed to the cafe culture footfall that existed previously.
In physical terms, Prestwick is Scotland’s largest commercial airfield, although in passenger traffic terms it sits in fourth place after Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen airports. However, it has the potential to improve on that. Passenger traffic peaked at 2.4 million in 2007 following 10 years of rapid growth, which was driven in part by the boom in no-frills airlines, especially Ryanair, which uses the airport as an operating base. We understand that there has been a significant reduction in passenger traffic, with around 1.1 million passengers passing through the airport in 2013.
The federation has worked closely with the Scottish Government for many years on the promotion of Burns, as both organisations realise the value that Burns brings to the Scottish economy. It is reported that Robert Burns is worth nearly £160 million to the Scottish economy. The federation continues to encourage overseas visitors to Scotland, with Burns being one of the greatest focal points for those who visit Scotland.
Fiona Hyslop also said:
“The strength of culture is challenging us to think differently, to do things in different ways”.
So, we are doing things differently. We are working in partnership and collaborating with many other organisations nowadays. We would be delighted to work in partnership with the airport management to provide assistance wherever necessary to progress the airport’s future growth. The Robert Burns World Federation is keen to see the airport used to its full potential, as that would have a positive impact on employment in a region of high unemployment where the unemployment rate in several areas is currently above the national average.
Burns was the ultimate cultural activist, challenging the political mores of the day and envisaging a different future. We envisage a different future for the airport.
Thank you for listening. We are happy to take any questions.
Thank you very much for your evidence. If Jane Brown or Jim Thomson wants to answer questions, they should catch my eye, please.
I have a couple of quick questions. Looking at the petition, it seems that what you really want is a change in branding. What evidence do you have that a change in brand would make customers more likely to fly to and from Prestwick airport?
Burns is a global icon who is known worldwide. His name is so well known that, if it were attached to the airport, people from all over the world would recognise it immediately. They might not recognise the name Prestwick.
I do not have any statistical evidence, but there is anecdotal evidence. In the past year, we have had several visits from overseas, particularly from the United States. People flew from Pittsburgh, Los Angeles or wherever into London and thereafter had to fly to Glasgow or Edinburgh. They made it quite clear that they would have preferred to fly to an airport closer to where they wanted to come. Although there is an opportunity to do that via Ryanair, I do not think that the people from the Carnegie Institute, for example, wanted to do that, so they had to fly to Glasgow. People would travel to the airport not only from the USA and Canada, but from the far east and other points.
I had a look at some other exercises in brand changing from across the UK. You probably know that Wick airport is now called John O’Groats airport, that Sheffield airport is Robin Hood airport and that Liverpool airport is John Lennon airport. They are all different, of course, but have you compared their experiences to see whether the change in name changed the footfall?
I cannot comment on that.
We have not carried out the commercial exercise that that would involve because we do not have the facility to do that. In Northern Ireland, there is the George Best international airport, too. I venture to suggest that those airports are following a trend that started in America. I do not think that Sheffield airport changed to Robin Hood airport for any other reason than that it felt that it was the right thing to do in terms of where it is and how the name sits with its heritage and culture, particularly its history, in the framework of what people are trying to do in that area. The bottom line is that, although the commercial argument takes precedence, there are times when you have to ask yourself, “Is this the right thing to do?” I venture to suggest that this is the right thing to do because it tells the world who Scotland is.
Good morning. This is a difficult petition for me to address because, after years of publicly seeking to achieve the objectives of the petitioners, I should be sitting where they are sitting. You will have to curb my enthusiasm, convener. I have contacted the chief executives of Liverpool and Belfast airports. On the day that Belfast airport announced the change of name to George Best airport, more than 1,000 people came to see the rebranding.
As the witnesses will know, an exercise is going on with a management consultant who is a key player in all this. I met him two weeks ago to talk about various things. Have you spoken to him or do you have any plans to speak to him?
I know who he is—I did some background research. We have not spoken to him yet, but if that would be acceptable I would certainly go down that route.
It might be worth while.
Have you made any contact with the airports that have rebranded, such as Belfast, Sheffield and Wick—which I did not know about?
I had no idea that Wick airport had changed its name, either.
Have you contacted those airports, or do you plan to do so, to find out the impact that rebranding would have?
If our suggestion was an option, then yes, we would do some further research and find out more information from them.
How many languages is Burns translated into?
His poems and songs are translated into 52 languages, but there is more depth to it than that. For example, in universities from Tokyo all the way to San Francisco you will find Scottish literature departments. Places such as Singapore promote Scottish literature better than we do in this country. Scottish literature is not just Burns; there are many other great Scottish literary figures. We are sitting quite near the tallest non-military statue in the world, which is of a literary figure.
Scotland venerates its literary heritage, but other countries value it as well. There have been more than 2,000 prints of Burns’s works worldwide and countries such as Russia have produced stamps with Burns’s head on them—Russia was the first country in the world to do that. Burns is an international staple.
If you went to Harvard University, you would be required to study the Harvard classics. To this day, one volume of Harvard classics is the works of Robert Burns.
It was a rhetorical question. You say that Burns is translated into 52 languages and, last week, I heard that Burns’s works are sold in 195 countries. Clearly, the brand is very important.
Have you had any contact with Ayrshire College and the engineering companies? I would say this, but Prestwick is a unique airport because it has significant engineering support behind it, through the college, and great experience of maintenance—both repair and overhaul—which makes it attractive to large-body jets. Worldwide, it is difficult to find any airport to carry out maintenance of large-body jets.
Have you had any contact with the college or with Spirit AeroSystems?
I know the principal of the new Ayrshire College, Heather Dunk, and I am in contact with some of the aerospace firms because of my involvement with Young Enterprise Scotland.
I have one last question, although I could go on until 12 o’clock. Far be it from me, with my limited business experience, to challenge what was said at last week’s Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee meeting about what would give the airport the best chance of growing its business and returning to profit. Branding was not mentioned particularly. You market the Robert Burns World Federation very well, but have you had any contact with people who might be involved in marketing of this nature?
No.
Can I encourage you to do so?
Yes, certainly. Thank you.
Thank you. I am tempted to say that, at some stage, the airport will be named as you wish, but that is not in my gift.
10:15
I am sorry, but this is the good cop, bad cop routine. Like the Deputy First Minister, who gave evidence on the airport last week, I am agnostic on the issue. I represent West Scotland and, until recently, had lived for several years in Troon. Therefore, I am well aware of the downturn in traffic at Prestwick airport and am very keen that a business case be put together that will allow the airport to survive.
I want to test some of the concepts that are involved in this. For me, this is not about promoting Robert Burns, but about securing the future of the airport. That is what underpins my concern. Is your argument that calling the airport Robert Burns international airport would make more people want to come and holiday in Ayrshire?
That is part of it, yes. The name would make the airport more recognisable and would pinpoint its geographic location. We would like to encourage more tourist traffic to Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway and the surrounding districts. There are many issues involved.
Therein lies my concern. Until now, the airport has been seen as a secure gateway into broader Scotland. Is there a sufficient additional market out of Burns within Ayrshire to secure the viability of the airport?
I do not think that the Burns traffic alone would secure the viability of the airport. There are lots of issues involved, of which you are probably more aware than I am. In a previous life, I had a lot of work and contact with the airport. Without doubt, the biggest issue for the viability of Prestwick airport has been its absentee managers. The landlords have been on the other side of the world and, as a result, investment has not taken place. When I think back even 15 years to the stature that Prestwick airport had once, compared with its stature today, I doubt that the Burns name on its own would bring that investment. Nor would it more than double the footfall from 1 million passengers to 2.4 million passengers.
However, the Robert Burns birthplace museum, which opened only 18 months or two years ago, is well past 1 million visitors. To say that there is no Burns tourism would be misleading but, on its own, it will not make Prestwick airport survive.
That sounds realistic, for which I am grateful.
We have talked about people coming into Scotland, but the airport also depends on people flying out of Scotland to justify the investment that airlines would make in routes. That brings us back to pricing, location and all the more complicated issues that underpin the success and viability of any airport. That is where I am unsure that I understand your argument. Would somebody from Glasgow or elsewhere want to fly from Prestwick airport because it was called Robert Burns international airport rather than fly from any other airport that was more convenient or price competitive? I cannot believe that they would.
I wonder whether the new name would be helpful in the event that everything else could be put right. Is that where you are coming from, as opposed to believing in putting the cart before the horse?
Yes, you are right. People will come to Prestwick from Glasgow or the outlying districts only if the flights are going to the destinations that they are looking for.
My final points reflect what the Deputy First Minister said last week. The Government has taken over responsibility for the airport not because it wants to, but because it feels that it has to. There is no pretence that the Deputy First Minister is an airport magnate with the ability to manage such a project herself. The Government will require, at the very least, a management team to do what is required to turn the airport around, possibly with the Government’s support. Everybody thinks that this surely must be its last chance—and possibly its best chance in recent years—to make that happen. Therefore, I wonder whether this is really a matter for MSPs and the Scottish Parliament. If the management team that is undertaking the exercise on behalf of the Government believes that it is the right thing to do, should we not respond to that initiative rather than try to advocate a route that the team might not have the evidence to support?
There are several arguments in there about what should come first. On the management of the airport, we simply say to you that Luton and Stansted airports work perfectly profitably in the shadow of Gatwick and Heathrow airports. Glasgow and Edinburgh airports are both successful, and Prestwick airport can work equally successfully in their shadow.
I do not think that it makes much odds whether the name is important to the managers. It is more an issue for the Parliament and how it wants Scotland to be seen, not only within Scotland but abroad. I suggest that, although the management team’s views and ideas should be taken into consideration, the decision on the name of the airport lies with the Parliament.
Good morning, panel. I have read that Facebook and social media sites have been involved. Could you explain what you have done before arriving here today?
The amount of support through Facebook was the reason why we decided to bring the official petition. The petition got only about 260 signatures, but the Facebook site continues to gather support, which is pleasing. This has come about because of the social media support.
Have there been any other campaigns involving local people?
There was an unsuccessful campaign, possibly about 10 years ago, before my involvement with the federation.
There have been repeated attempts by various groups to try to influence the previous management, or owners, to rebrand the airport away from “Pure Dead Brilliant”—all that sort of thing. I can understand why they did that and do not have an issue with it. It is just that everything has fallen on deaf ears, because the owners did not see any value in taking a Scottish poet and saying to the world, “This is important to us.”
I have some wider questions. We have talked, rightly, about the rebranding exercise and I understand the points that you are making. A key issue in the development of airports in Scotland was the use of the route development fund. Labour brought that in initially and, in fairness, the current Government is looking at a form of funding to ensure that local airports have marketing support to develop companies to take an interest in them. Would that be useful for Prestwick airport in the longer term?
Yes, it certainly would be. There are a number of businesses in the area already, but the more we can attract, the better.
I am sure that you have picked up from your supporters and their organisations that many tourists and, indeed, the business community might well drive or take the train to London for flights, rather than use Scottish airports. I would encourage a general strategy for the development of many more direct flights from Scotland, irrespective of the airport. As you say, Edinburgh and Glasgow have done particularly successfully on that.
Ryanair is an excellent company and has used the base at Prestwick. In general terms, it is important to try to develop a range of carriers. The danger of being dependent on one carrier—as I know from my own experience in Inverness—is that people are very reliant on it. If that goes wrong, there are real problems. Dundee in particular has found that to be so. I know that Oska Travel has looked at charter flights for the long term. Do you know whether any other carriers have been encouraged to come to Prestwick?
Yes, I imagine that some have been. The more we can attract, the better. Prestwick airport did so much better a few years back, when it had lots of different destinations. It was wonderful to see the airport busy again. Unfortunately, it has taken a dip at the moment, but I am sure that, with the right partners in place, we can get back to where it was.
The key, of course, is to encourage other partners to come in that will not alienate the existing partner, which we do not want to do. That is a delicate balance.
It is, but we do not want to have all our eggs in one basket. It is better that we widen the set of people with whom we work.
I have picked up from talking to the business community that it is interested in full-service airlines, which, in the past, meant airlines such as British Airways. That would give us the advantage of through-ticketing and interlinking—the ability to go directly to cities around the world. Do you know whether Prestwick has considered that as well?
It should.
The only Scottish director I knew who worked at Prestwick under the previous company from New Zealand was Bill Barr. When I spoke to him about that, he told me that the company was not interested. I mentioned through-ticketing to him, because it is a big issue. For example, if somebody wants to go on holiday to anywhere across the Atlantic, they require to go via a hub airport. Whether that hub airport is in the United States or the United Kingdom is irrelevant to the flyer, but they cannot do that from Prestwick and have not been able to do it for quite a number of years.
The people from Pittsburgh made that point clearly to me when they came here last year. They would have preferred to fly into Prestwick via through-ticketing from their take-off point.
I realise that that is not within your gift, but it is part of the wider arguments. Access to London is crucial, but we all know that, in effect, Heathrow is full and Gatwick is not far off full. For those who are going to a European destination, it is a great advantage to have direct flights to Europe. We will still, obviously, need access to London but, with the best will in the world, it will be a long time before the plans to develop Heathrow result in any increased capacity. Also, Heathrow will be more interested in lucrative long-haul destinations. Short haul has been cut dramatically within Scotland—flights have been cut from Inverness and Belfast, for instance—and that will continue because the money is in long-haul flights, not localised flights.
Do you agree that, because of those factors, the strategy should be to go directly from Scotland to European destinations?
If somebody wants to fly from Scotland direct to a European destination at the moment, they can go from Aberdeen but the choice is basically Glasgow or Edinburgh. Jet2, for example, flies daily from Glasgow and Edinburgh to the points of high interest on the European continent—Majorca and the Algarve, for example—and I do not see why some of that business cannot come to Prestwick, to be honest. There must be some kind of drop-off. Five years ago, we did that and it worked. I am not blaming anybody, but absentee landlords perhaps do not make the best managers.
When new carriers have come in, such as the Virgin Atlantic little red service, which got the slots at Heathrow that BA had to give up because of competition regulations when it bought BMI, the flights have gone to Edinburgh and Aberdeen but not to Prestwick. There is an argument about where companies wish to fly to.
All that you just said, convener, highlights the uniqueness of Prestwick. I will bring us back to the branding. We did not talk about some of the changes that are needed not only for Prestwick but for other airports, such as changes to air passenger duty.
Prestwick is the only airport in Scotland that has a railhead next to it. I have had conversations with Network Rail and I wonder whether the petitioners have had discussions about improving the railhead and how it might be better applied in relation to the airport. They could call it Tam o’ Shanter railway if they liked; I do not mind.
As Prestwick improves under new management, the rail links will improve as part of the plan. There are also plans to link up Prestwick with Kilmarnock and Kilmarnock with Edinburgh. Lots of things are being discussed at the moment and such improvements will probably come as part of the bigger parcel. As such things progress, the airport and the rail links will all improve, I hope.
10:30
As it stands, the rail link is a pretty routine, regular, well-contrived service on an electric line, and it does not need a lot done to it. There is already an overpass from the airport to the station. The station facilities could probably do with being improved if the footfall is going to increase, but I see that as quite minor in the context of how the rail operation would work in conjunction with the airport.
I think that that is going to happen. Let us return to the uniqueness of the airport. If I was selling brands abroad—we know that Scotland’s exports are growing quite rapidly—I would not mind branding my products as having been flown out of Robert Burns international airport. Discussions are being held about what might happen if cargo traffic was pulled up from the north of England to Prestwick instead of being sent through Heathrow, which is currently bordering on inoperable. Have you talked to any large companies that export and that might look to use the brand as a means of increasing their visibility abroad?
There are a fair number of exporters in Ayrshire. Having worked previously with Ayrshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which is based at Prestwick airport, I know that such discussions are to be had with companies that may be interested in using the brand. We have links with Isle of Arran Distillers, which uses the Robert Burns brand, and in the past year we have established links with the Robert Burns transport company. As part and parcel of what we are doing to advance the federation as an organisation, there are lots of discussions to be had with various organisations and companies.
Prestwick airport is unique in the length of its runways and in its weather. It is also a backstop in the event of any—unlikely, I hope—terrorist activities. It also has a railhead and a huge engineering backdrop. I expect that I know the answer to this question, but with proper branding could it not be an exceptional and unique airport that supports the other passenger airports in Scotland?
Absolutely.
I think that this is a unique opportunity as well, Mr Brodie. Scotland has a great opportunity to say something to the world about who we are, what is important to us as a nation and what heritage, culture and history mean to the people of Scotland. I see it as a fantastic opportunity. It may well be passed up for all sorts of good, positive reasons—I would not be critical if that happened; I would just be disappointed.
You and me both.
I will give a sentimental point of view, although I know that this is not about sentiment. I had the honour of laying a wreath at the foot of Burns’s statue in George Square, Glasgow, on 25 January. When I looked around the square, I saw all the statues of the worthies with letters after their names and accolades written on their plinths telling of everything that they had done. I laid the wreath, bowed my head and stepped back. When I looked up, I saw that there was only one word on the plinth before me—Burns. That is all that needed to be said. Around the world, everyone knows what that means.
That is the sentimental view—that is what I am here to give, as I am passionate and sentimental about the issue. Everyone would know that Robert Burns international airport was in Scotland, near his birthplace. East Ayrshire Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council recently worked hard together to create a Burns trail, so that anyone who arrives at Prestwick will start in Alloway, where Burns was born, and make their way to where he died and where he is buried. It is great that that work has been undertaken by the two councils. It used to be “them and us”, but they have now joined together. It is a good step in the right direction, and anyone who came as a tourist would get information about it straight away. It is another wee string to the bow.
That is an interesting point.
It is a very good petition. The next step is that the committee will look at where we want to go with the petition. I think that we have gone beyond the branding and the name, and you have given us some interesting answers. Whatever happens with the name, we need the airport to succeed, and a series of other factors come into play, including route development and the development of current and new carriers. We also need to think about our general philosophy about whether we should fly from Scotland or elsewhere—that will be key.
My view is that we should continue the petition and undertake some further investigation. Members will be aware that there was a discussion at the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee involving Adam Ingram and Nicola Sturgeon. That was a useful debate, and I think that it is worth taking advice from that committee.
Are we agreed to continue the petition and await any relevant recommendations on the issue to the holding board and ministers by the recently appointed senior adviser? We would need to continue the petition to get that technical advice from those key people. We could then debate the petition again, at a later stage, once we have got that key information.
We will keep the petitioners up to date with progress. All the committee members have shown a big interest in the work that you are doing. I ask you to stay for a second while I confirm whether the committee is agreed on that course of action or whether there is any other course of action that members would like to follow.
I agree that the petitioners have made a strong case this morning, and I would be content to continue the petition. It would be worth waiting to see the recommendations that come from the recently appointed special adviser, who has been in post for less than two months. I agree with the course of action that you suggest, convener. I presume that we will ask that the committee be informed at an early stage when the special adviser has come up with those recommendations.
Definitely.
I agree absolutely. It might be helpful if the petitioners contacted some of the people whom we have suggested to broaden and deepen the petition, if that is possible. That might bring a totally different perspective to what was discussed last week at the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee.
I agree that we should continue the petition and follow the course of action that has been suggested.
I endorse the view of other members that we should continue the petition while the management consultant is looking at the commercial viability of Prestwick.
I am content.
As you will have picked up, all members are keen to follow the course of action that has been identified. We will keep you up to date with developments. I thank all three of you for coming along and participating so helpfully.
I suspend the meeting for a minute to allow our witnesses to leave.
10:37 Meeting suspended.Aberdeen to Inverness Rail Improvement (PE1509)
The second new petition is PE1509 by Lee Wright on Aberdeen to Inverness rail travel improvement. The committee invited Mr Wright to give evidence, but unfortunately he could not appear today because of work commitments. Members have a note by the clerk, a SPICe briefing and the petition.
As members will be aware, there have been some developments with regard to the petition. On Friday, the Government announced a new package for the route. I am not sure whether that was in response to the fact that we were going to consider the petition today—if it was, I am grateful.
Never underestimate the power of this committee.
Thank you, Mr Eadie.
In summary, the press release mentions a £170 million investment, the redoubling of the track between Aberdeen and Inverurie, the extension of the platforms at Insch and Elgin and some signalling improvements. The petitioner is very concerned about the service’s poor frequency and the time that it takes to travel between the two cities—one of which, as members will know, I have a certain affinity with—but I note from the announcement that an hourly service and a reduction in the time taken to travel from Aberdeen to Inverness are planned.
A big difficulty is that much of the route is single track, which causes problems with service frequency. I note that a longer-term aspiration is electrification of the route. I certainly support the development of new stations, such as the one at Dalcross. Given that a station existed there many years ago, that development would make a lot of sense, particularly as it would tie into the Inverness airport route.
The petition makes an interesting point about ensuring that train tickets are sold on a seated passengers only basis. I do not know whether members have a view on that. The petitioner’s point is that passengers should not be allowed to stand on any train in Scotland that happens to be too busy and that capacity should be based only on seated passenger numbers.
Do members have any general views about the petition, particularly the latter point?
I observe only that Network Rail’s fortuitous announcement directly addresses a considerable number of the petitioner’s issues. Extending platforms at stations to allow six-car trains to stop will increase capacity, and the dualling of the line will increase service frequency and shorten journey times.
People shake their head in bewilderment at a number of key journeys that have to be made by either road or rail in Scotland, as anyone trying to get to Oban by road or between Inverness and Aberdeen will know. We have all experienced some of those journeys, and those of us who do not have to live daily with them should count ourselves very fortunate.
Although long overdue, the investment programme is very welcome, and, as far as meeting the petitioner’s needs is concerned, I suspect that that will be as much as can be hoped for in the suggested timeframe. I hope that he will feel that the programme meets those needs. I must say that I was surprised; I was not expecting that announcement from Network Rail, but I welcome it.
I agree with Jackson Carlaw’s comments. I, too, welcome Network Rail’s announcement. When I read the briefing paper, I was struck by the time the journey takes. Two hours and 28 minutes seems excessively long for a 108-mile journey, and I am therefore sure that the petitioner will be pleased to note the proposed reduction in journey times and the introduction of two new stations at Dalcross and Kintore.
I am curious to know whether any other UK rail companies have a seated passengers only ticketing policy. I am not sure whether that policy operates anywhere else in the country, but it might be worth finding out.
I am not sure how feasible a seated passengers only policy would be or whether it has been done before. We would need further information on that before making any recommendation.
That is a useful point. If members agree, I will ask SPICe to research the policy across Scotland and the UK; in fact, I am interested to find out whether there are any European experiences of such policies. The argument is that the passenger’s contract with the company is that they will have a seat; that is the company’s obligation. Of course, such a policy would create massive problems at peak times, but the petitioner will argue that that is the company’s problem and that it is obliged to ensure that customers are well looked after on trains.
This does not hugely apply in Scotland, but when I lived in the south-east, I was struck by the amount of standing on trains. Do the operators comply with health and safety regulations?
That is a very interesting point that I will also ask SPICe to look at. In an accident, anyone who is standing on a train is more vulnerable, although I know that seats on trains do not usually have seat belts. I would have thought that there would be health and safety issues to consider. Does the committee agree to ask SPICe to look at that issue, too?
10:45
I am slightly concerned about straying into that area, because it is quite a big topic. In circumstances of force majeure, when signalling causes trains to be cancelled and people have to get on to one train, my experience is usually that the train goes much slower to reflect the fact that there are standing passengers on board.
I do not want such a policy to be enforced in a way that produces unintended consequences, with passengers unable to get on trains and having to stand in the station for another three hours because they are not allowed to get on a train until there is a free seat. I am not sure how one would apply any sort of compensation scheme. After all, how would someone be able to demonstrate to anyone’s satisfaction after the event that they had been sitting or standing?
We need to be careful that we do not wander into territory that would require us to take considerable evidence and where we might stray beyond the petition’s brief. I am slightly anxious about that for various reasons, but I understand what you want to do, convener.
Jackson Carlaw is wise to caution the committee against not extending the brief too far. However, I understand from the committee that we could ask SPICe to carry out some brief research into whether a seated passengers only ticketing policy exists anywhere. That work should be fairly straightforward, and I will report back on it at a future meeting.
It is recommended that we write to Transport Scotland and Network Rail to request their views on the petition, but, as members have hinted, Friday’s announcement effectively provides that information. Do members still feel that it would be useful to get a categoric report from those companies, or has the issue been covered by the release that I summarised earlier? Do members feel that we need to do further work in addition to addressing the points identified in the petition? We would report back on that work at a future meeting.
It might be worth while asking Network Rail to provide a timetable for the next five years on when it expects to undertake the work. The press release was part of a broader package of announcements covering the whole five-year period, but it did not specifically state how and when this particular project would be advanced.
Do members agree that we should do that? I will get SPICe to address the other point.
Members indicated agreement.
We will continue the petition and ask further questions of Network Rail and SPICe, and I will report back to the committee at a future meeting.
Previous
AttendanceNext
Current Petitions