Official Report 279KB pdf
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the third meeting of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee. Today, the committee will concentrate on three aspects of the bill. We will hear evidence first on non-rail and rail route alternatives; then on compensation and consultation; and then on funding. It may be useful if I give a brief explanation of what the committee will consider with regard to alternative routes, compensation and consultation.
I will kick off the questions. As we do not have the document comprising STAG in front of us, the committee is relying entirely on your memorandum and on that from the promoter to explain what is advised under STAG and how it has been implemented to date for the project. I see that STAG has only recently been finalised. How has it evolved since the draft version was rolled out and are there any material differences in the finalised format?
The draft document was published in July 2001 as a consultation document. We required a number of practitioners to gain experience of its use and provide us with feedback so that we could develop the document, and that was done over two years. During that time, we received a considerable amount of constructive feedback. The general philosophy of the document has been maintained, but we improved it in several areas and issued version 1.0 on 2 September. It was always our intention that the document would evolve as appraisal guidance and methodologies improved and as other legislation was issued. That is why the document was issued in a loose-leaf format to registered keepers, to whom we can issue updates as and when necessary.
So it is a continuing process.
It is.
Paragraph 43 of the promoter's memorandum on alternatives explains that a part 1 STAG assessment gives an initial view of impacts in relation to the five objectives of environment, safety, economy, integration and accessibility. Paragraph 2.3 b) i) of your written submission does not appear to indicate that and says that a part 1 appraisal is designed simply to minimise wasted effort by testing options against key project objectives. Is some reconciliation required between what you say and what the promoter says?
What the promoter says is correct. The primary objective of the part 1 appraisal is to test various options against the planning objectives that have been established for the project or strategy. However, we require the assessor to consider the Government's five objectives and examine the key impacts that the project would have on those. At the part 1 stage, we do not require the assessor to go into any great depth in quantifying those impacts—it is more a qualitative assessment against the objectives.
My final question is about the options. Is there any evaluation of options against the Government's transport objectives at the part 1 stage?
That will depend on what the promoter establishes as its objectives. We require the promoter to assess objectives against the national, regional and local transport policies and objectives. If there are appropriate national policies, we expect those to be included for that project. It might be that a local issue is being addressed and in that case we expect the promoter to address local objectives and policies in setting the planning objectives.
I am obliged for that.
I refer Mr Clark to paragraph 2.3 b) iii) of the Executive's submission. Is any particular structure or approach advised for an assessment of the five Government objectives under STAG?
All five objectives and the methods of appraising against those objectives are set out in individual chapters within the documentation. No priority is given to any of the objectives. We set out the key issues that must be considered by the transport planner who does the appraisal. I am not sure whether that answers your question.
For example, does STAG give any advice on how to balance any conflicting conclusions in respect of the five Government objectives?
No, I do not believe that it does. It is for the investment decision maker to balance up the relative benefits and disbenefits under each of the objectives. We would expect the appraiser to assess a proposal on its merits.
I want to clarify whether that means that, for example, if there was an option that won handsomely under the criteria on the grounds of economy, safety, integration and accessibility, but was very poor in relation to the environment, STAG would not offer any basis for reconciling that conflict.
No, it would not. However, STAG requires the key issues to be set out in the appraisal summary table, to allow the investment decision maker to make an assessment against the different criteria.
I will move on to paragraph 3.3 of your submission. The promoter has carried out a STAG part 1 appraisal in relation to three variations on the chosen rail option in the bill. Given that the Scottish Executive is providing most of the funding for the scheme, has it carried out a STAG part 1 appraisal?
I am not aware that we have done so. It would not necessarily be for us to carry that out, as we would expect transport planners to carry that out on our behalf.
Even if you have not carried out a STAG part 1 appraisal, you would not expect to do so now.
I am not aware that we would.
Is it the Executive's view that, in spite of what the promoter's memorandum on alternatives says about the clear emergence in the STAG part 1 appraisal of the option that is represented in the bill, there should be a STAG part 2 assessment?
I would expect that there would always be a STAG part 2 assessment of at least one preferred option.
Right. In relation to a STAG appraisal—either part 1 or part 2—how is the Executive satisfied that a rigorous, objective assessment has been made in that exercise?
I do not think that I am able to answer that question, because I have not seen any evidence about a STAG appraisal. At the moment, we do not have a requirement that I, personally, would have to review any STAG appraisals to confirm whether they have been undertaken in a robust manner.
Thank you.
Do you have any brief closing remarks to make to the committee?
No, I do not.
In that case, I thank you for giving evidence to the committee this morning. You are welcome to stay in the hall for the rest of the meeting. There will now be a one-minute suspension while we change witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The committee will now hear evidence on the non-rail alternatives and the alternative rail routes from Mr Nigel Hackett, who is an associate with Scott Wilson Scotland Ltd, and Mr David Reid, who is business centre manager of Babtie Group Ltd.
For clarity, I outline that Nigel Hackett will answer any environmental questions that relate to compliance with the regulations concerning the consideration of alternatives. I will answer any questions on the selection of alternatives.
I am obliged. I will kick off the questions. You say in your submission on alternatives that the attainment of the bill's objectives complements the requirements of, among other bodies, English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd. Will you outline what consultation of EWS has taken place?
I was not directly involved with the consultation, but the promoter's team consulted EWS with regard to the reopening proposals at an early stage—as far back as 1999, when Railtrack undertook the original feasibility study.
What was EWS's response to the consultation?
At that time, EWS was supportive, to the extent that it made some funds available for the reopening of the route.
The committee put it to the promoter last week that—to put it charitably—there had been very little consultation of Scottish Power in relation to the future of Longannet power station. Indeed, the promoter's evidence on need was somewhat at odds with Scottish Power's position on the lifespan of Longannet. In paragraph 2 of your submission on alternatives, you say that the attainment of the scheme's objectives complements Scottish Power's requirements. How do you know that?
I believe that you will receive additional information regarding the consultation of Scottish Power that has taken place which, I believe, is more than may have been outlined previously.
Are you saying that the objectives definitely complement Scottish Power's requirements?
I consider that to be the case.
In paragraph 4 of your submission on alternatives, you say that alternative rail and non-rail solutions were considered during the development of the project and were properly assessed against the scheme's objectives. We have seen assessments of three rail alternatives. Where do we find the assessments of non-rail alternatives and any rail options other than the Clackmannan, Kincardine and Bogside options?
It might be worth while stepping back and discussing the evolution of the project. The project evolved through the requirement and consideration of Railtrack that the route should be reopened. It was not the case that the objective was to have a line between Stirling and Kincardine along any route. The project has always been about reopening the line. As the project has evolved the promoter has set objectives that include, for example, public transport to Alloa, the relief of the Forth rail bridge and finding a shorter, more efficient route between Hunterston and Longannet power station. As far as non-rail alternatives are concerned, it is clear to us that no other mode of transport could meet all those objectives. A bus service could attempt to mimic the rail option to provide public transport to Alloa and it could perhaps do so in terms of journey time, but that solution would not meet the other two objectives. It was clear that the objectives could be met only by a rail option.
I see that you laid out the objectives at an early stage, but I want to clarify why you concentrated on rail. I appreciate that the final version of STAG has only just been issued. Is it not a requirement of STAG that all the options—in the context of the bill not just a rail alternative—should be assessed at this part 1 stage?
If the scheme had been set out from day one as having three main objectives and we had been considering, using the STAG process, any alignment or mode of transport between Stirling and Kincardine to achieve those objectives, that might very well have been the case. However, it might be worth going back through the history of the scheme. In 1999, Railtrack commissioned a feasibility study on reopening the railway at very low speed and at very low volume, purely to re-establish the railway on its old alignment and to provide the opportunity for more flexible traffic to Longannet. The project then developed through the consideration of Clackmannanshire Council, which for a number of years had harboured the objective of reopening the line for a passenger railway service to Clackmannan. It seemed more than reasonable that the objectives of both could come together.
Thank you for that detailed explanation. It is important that the criteria are known to the public.
In paragraph 9 of your evidence you say:
You will hear more evidence this afternoon about the economic benefits of the scheme, particularly in relation to Alloa and Clackmannanshire. I suggest that that question might be more fitting for this afternoon's witnesses. There is more than sufficient general evidence to support the argument that a rail-borne service to particular areas will be more effective than a bus service in encouraging additional members of the public to use public transport. It is akin to the desire of many towns and cities to have light-rail services as opposed to bus services, because there is something more attractive about a rail-borne service. There is more than sufficient evidence to support that in transport planning studies that have been undertaken over a number of years and that opinion is accepted fairly widely. However, given the particular nature of Alloa, I suggest that later witnesses give more information on the specifics of that.
I refer to paragraphs 12 and 13 of your evidence. You say that the choice of delivery port for imported coal for Longannet power station is a commercial matter for Scottish Power. Do you agree that the commercial nature of the decision is subject to the availability of paths on the rail route—whichever route that may be—between Hunterston and Longannet? That is a fairly obvious point, but I just wanted you to confirm it.
I accept that that is the case. Only so many paths are available on the network and they are available at a price.
I turn to the last sentence in paragraph 12 of your evidence. We asked Scottish Power whether it had made a balancing assessment of the holistic environmental impact of the road option against the benefits of the proposed rail option, but it had made no such assessment of the road and rail options. Has the promoter made any such assessment?
We did not make a direct assessment of the impact of every piece of coal at Longannet going by road as opposed to by rail or of the numbers involved in such an equation. My colleagues might put me right and say that some work has been done on that. However, I do not think that an assessment of the all-road or all-rail options was made. Government policy quite clearly points us towards taking as much freight as possible by rail rather than by road. I am sure that the people of Kincardine would agree that there really is not a case for bringing in all the coal by road if that would mean that the number of trucks passing through their village heading towards Longannet and surrounding areas would increase significantly; it is arguable that there are already too many such trucks. As someone who works in transport, I know—and I am sure that most others would agree—that mammoth equations are not required to prove the viability of rail against road in environmental terms.
So basically you thought that it was already evident that the environmental impact of one was much less than that of the other.
That is right. I also refer you to the Government's offer to some freight companies to use freight facilities grants. Freight facilities grants clearly set out an equation that involves proving the economic and environmental benefits of using rail rather than road. If the Government succinctly sets out such things in respect of freight facilities grants, it is reasonable to make the assumption that you mention.
If the rail option is taken, do you agree that there will be environmental impacts on people through, for example, noise and vibration?
Every transport scheme involves impacts on individuals—that is in the nature of transport schemes. However, on the holistic question of road against rail, the rail argument significantly outweighs the road argument.
So you have supported the general principle but have not investigated the particular instance, as you thought that the impacts were so self-evident that investigation was not necessary.
I do not think that anyone could reasonably stand up and argue about the matter.
In evidence to the committee on 27 October, Scottish Power did not indicate that it had considered alternatives to the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail link to achieve its commercial objectives. Given the low level of consultation between the promoter and Scottish Power about the scheme, will you elaborate on what you say in paragraph 13? That paragraph states:
Certainly. I do not wish to discuss whether there has been sufficient consultation between Scottish Power and the promoter—I will leave that matter for others to argue about. However, we are aware that Scottish Power considered the option of continuing with its delivery of coal by rail across the bridge and in through Fife while maintaining the levels of coal transported by road. However, by 1999 to 2000, it thought that that approach was inflexible and did not entirely meet its needs. Therefore, it considered both alternatives and thought that the proposals that we are now considering were more advantageous at that time.
On paragraph 20, can you tell the committee why Railtrack did not proceed with the 1999 scheme?
I was very much involved in the feasibility study in 1999. I have used the word "evolution" a few times. Back in 1999, the proposal was to reopen the line at its most basic standard. That would have required a fair amount of work, but the railway would have been fit for the purpose that was set out.
So you are saying that Railtrack felt that a scheme involving only freight traffic was not viable.
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that, at the time, Railtrack had not made the decision not to go ahead with the scheme. At the same time, or in the interim, Clackmannanshire Council judged that, if Railtrack was considering reopening the railway as a freight line, it should take the opportunity to open the passenger line to Alloa, which had long been an aspiration. That would achieve a synergy between the two schemes and secure a better price and better value for money. Before Railtrack could make a decision on whether to go ahead with the freight railway, the standards had changed against which the railway would have to operate.
Do you have any other information on the reasons why the scheme did not proceed, or have we covered them all?
In essence, the scheme was never at the point of being considered for proceeding, at least not on its initial basis. In some ways, it could be said that the initial consideration facilitated the evolution of the scheme and opened up the discussion to bring us to the wider objectives of proceeding with a scheme that will provide—it is hoped—the best benefit to the country in conjunction with local and regional planning.
Okay.
For people who lived in the local area of the coal mine, there was always a question mark over its life-span. Very quickly, that lifespan became no life at all. It has become more evident that one of Scottish Power's concerns was that the use of the deep coal mine was not going to continue in the long term. The basis of the 15 trains per day was Scottish Power's view—and the view of the operator and the supplier—that that would be the requirement to meet Longannet's coal supply requirements in the longer term, with the coal mine being shut. As it transpired, the coal mine closure came perhaps more quickly than anyone had envisaged.
You are saying that the output of the power station could vary over its life, thus influencing the number of trains that are required.
Yes. Let me make a further point. Once Scottish Power, EWS and Clydeport have considered the detailed assessment of the volume of coal traffic that will be required for Longannet, there is expected to be a requirement for at least 12 trains per day. That figure could rise, depending on Longannet's requirements. We always saw it as a benefit that train paths would also be available for other freight traffic. It has not been assumed that 100 per cent of the freight traffic would be coal traffic to Longannet. The route is a strategic one across the Scottish rail network and could provide for many things in the future, not least that coal traffic.
We will have this information somewhere among our papers, but you might know it off the top of your head. How long is the contract with Clydeport?
I do not think that I can answer that question, for no other reason than I have not been given that information.
I have a feeling that we have been supplied with it at some point, but I cannot remember.
That will be a question for someone else to clarify for you.
I am sorry—that was just an opportunistic question.
I think that we will be able to locate the answer among other material.
On paragraph 45 of the promoter's memorandum, we note what you say about the relationship between parts 1 and 2 of the STAG assessment. Is it your position that the option appraisals are sufficient, including those pertaining to part 1 of the STAG assessment and to the Clackmannan, Kincardine and Bogside options? To put it another way, do you believe that there is a clear justification for the rejection of those options at the part 1 stage?
I will deal with those points individually. I reiterate that the aim behind the evolution of the scheme was to reopen the railway; it was not to address all the options, alternative means of transport or any alternative railway line between Stirling and Kincardine. The view was taken that it was proper to undertake an assessment of the three options that were highlighted during the public consultation process.
I will take that as a simple yes.
Unfortunately, I am not known for simple yesses.
As authors of the STAG document, have you canvassed the Scottish Executive on your views?
I should take care when answering that question. Previously, Alan Clark said that he had not considered the STAG appraisal that we carried out. That is not the protocol that was followed. However, members of the Scottish Executive have considered the reports as they stand and have been satisfied that the conclusions are correct.
I refer you to the Kincardine option as set out in paragraphs 55 to 60 of the memorandum. To some extent, you have already dealt with my question, but can you indicate again why the option should clearly be rejected following a STAG 1 assessment? Why should there be no STAG 2 assessment?
I will deal with the second question first. The alternative alignment would take away a playing field that is currently used by Kincardine Colts and would run through a recreational area that is used by locals for dog walking and so on. It would require the relocation of two power pylons of significant size. Economically, it is up to 50 per cent more expensive than the preferred option.
I have questions on the environmental information. My first question is on the evidence that we heard from Mr Clark this morning. We have heard that STAG does not seek to reconcile competing options in terms of the five objectives that it defines. My concern is with the economic and environmental objectives. Can you clarify the relationship between STAG and the environmental impact assessment that you have carried out?
I refer you to the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999. In particular, if you look at chapter 1, regulation 2 and at chapter 2, regulation 4, you will see that there is a requirement in preparing an environmental statement to report on any alternatives that were considered. That is with respect to the environmental implication of the alternatives, let alone all the other issues that have to be considered to comply with STAG. I was the project manager for the environmental statement and I consider that the alternatives have been properly considered.
Do you feel that the assessment of environmental objectives under STAG is intended to be comparable to that under the law relating to the environmental impact assessment?
The law does not specifically say how one should carry out an assessment of alternatives. However, I am satisfied that STAG is a robust and rugged appraisal for environmental assessment of alternatives and I am satisfied that the STAG methodology is perfectly acceptable for consideration and inclusion in the environmental statement.
Where would one find environmental information in relation to the conclusions in the part 1 STAG assessment?
In the part 1 STAG assessment, that information is normally reported in what are called the appraisal summary tables—the ASTs. That is where one would find the information.
I refer you to paragraphs 51, 57 and 62, in which some environmental information is given about the alternative routes. We found that information to be pretty thin. What assurance can you give the committee that the environmental impact of the alternative routes has been assessed to the same degree as that of the chosen route?
The alternatives have not been assessed to the same degree as the promoter's route. STAG does not require that; as Alan Clark mentioned, the Scottish Executive does not expect a full environmental assessment of the alternatives to be undertaken. However, I refer you again to STAG. The methodology is clear. It provides precise guidelines on how to carry out an environmental assessment—"environmental appraisal" is probably a better phrase to describe the work that is undertaken—and in my opinion that assessment was carried out properly and was based particularly on the promoter's objectives, which David Reid described, and of which I am sure you are well aware.
But if the environmental impact assessment of the alternative routes has been as thin as it appears to be from the memorandum, the environmental statement and the option appraisal documents that were supplied, why should the committee be satisfied with the level of environmental information provided on the alternative routes?
Environmental information has been provided in the various reports that you have and the supplementary memorandums. I refer you not only to those but to the MVA final report, "Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Rail Line Reopening Benefit Study", which was published in February 2002. The study fully and comprehensively reports the environmental implications of the options that are discussed in the reports; the reports followed STAG, which, in my opinion, is good professional practice set by the Scottish Executive and covering a wide range of transport proposals. The particular scheme fits well within the STAG requirements for transport proposals.
I thank the clerks for finding the information that I asked about earlier. Apparently, Scottish Power entered into a seven-year agreement with Clydeport—the agreement commences in April 2004, so it is 2004 plus seven years. I say that because it is relevant to my question. It has emerged in evidence that the promoter seems to be taking a much more optimistic view of the long-term future of Longannet than has Scottish Power, which seems to feel that Longannet may well close, at the latest in 2016 and possibly as early as 2011 or 2012. Would it be right to say that the more optimistic life expectancy of Longannet is what fed into your STAG 1 appraisal? Might it be sensible to revisit the STAG appraisal and feed in a much less optimistic view of the lifespan of Longannet?
That question would best be answered by my colleagues who considered the need for the railway. I do not think that the issue would alter our views on the alternatives. The question relates more to the overall need, which I believe is being reported on separately. I am not clear why the issue would make a difference to the alternatives and the preferred alignment.
Does not STAG 1 take a look at economic aspects of a project?
Yes, it does. However, if the economics of the preferred alignment alter either upwards or downwards, one would expect the economics of the alternative alignment to alter by a proportionate amount. For example, if the Clackmannan bypass is £5 million more expensive than the preferred option, it will remain that much more expensive, no matter what the economic return happens to be and whether it increases or decreases. I suggest that that overall point applies more to the question of need, on which I believe you have received further information.
The proposal is heavily based on and underpinned by coal freight. I think that you partially alluded to my point when you mentioned that the route is a strategic one. Has any consideration been given to other freight options for the line?
The route has always been considered as a strategic one. Indeed, we have underpinned it in such a way because of the potential for significant freight traffic to Longannet, which has the benefit of giving us a decent foundation to build on. That is unlike the situation with many other transport alternatives. The intention behind United Kingdom and Scottish national policy is to transfer as much freight to rail as is possible or reasonable. Certainly, some developments, such as Safeway traffic to the far north, have taken such opportunities.
I seek some clarification of a couple of points that have arisen as a result of your evidence this morning. Perhaps I have misunderstood some things. Mr Reid, I think that you said that Scottish Power and Clydeport have signed a seven-year contract. How could they have signed a contract to use a route that has not yet been approved?
I did not say that a seven-year contract had been signed.
Let us just say that a contract has been signed on a route that has yet to be approved. It struck me as—
Presumptuous.
Well, a bit strange. Any clarification in that respect would be helpful.
The clarification is that there is one form of commercial agreement in case the new route is opened and one in case the route is not opened. If the route is not opened, there is a fallback position, although in commercial terms those companies could not live with that. It would be advantageous for both companies to have the route open.
That explains the matter—a contingency has been built in.
At the end of the report, under what is called the part 2 appraisal summary table, option C is the first option that was considered, option D is the second option that was considered and option E is the third option—option E is the scheme itself.
I am grateful for that clarification.
I would like to clarify that, for both the preferred option and the alternatives, the environmental statement is compliant with environmental impact assessment guidelines and regulations. We have considered the alternatives to the reopening of the line and we remain thoroughly convinced that the preferred option best meets the objectives as set out in the promoter's memorandum.
Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before the committee and giving full and detailed evidence. You are more than welcome to return to the body of the hall for the rest of the meeting.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The committee will now hear oral evidence on consultation and compensation from Gail Jeffrey, who is a project manager with Scott Wilson Railways Ltd; Tara Whitworth, who is a principal engineer with Babtie Group Ltd; and Fiona Stephen, who is a partner with Anderson Strathern.
I remind Tara Whitworth of her solemn affirmation last week.
Fiona Stephen of Anderson Strathern will deal with specific questions on ECHR compliance. I will ask her to summarise that issue briefly; we can provide the written evidence by the end of the week. Gail Jeffrey from Scott Wilson Railways Ltd will deal with questions on Scott Wilson's consultation, which took place between June and November 2002. I will then pick up any other questions.
My understanding is that, during the course of the project, the promoter has considered a number of issues that have an impact in terms of the European convention on human rights. The promoter is aware that, as the bill passes through the Scottish Parliament, the Parliament has to be assured that the bill complies with the European convention. The promoter understands that it would be outwith the Parliament's legislative competence to pass a bill that did not comply. In addition, the promoter comprises a number of public authorities that, under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998, must comply with the convention.
In your view, is the scheme compliant?
I should explain that article 1 of protocol 1 does not give absolute rights under the European convention. Article 1 of protocol 1 gives a qualified right. Committee members should have the terms of that article before them today. Basically, the premise of that article is that people are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and that no one is to be deprived of those possessions except in particular circumstances. One of those circumstances is where the deprivation of those possessions is in the public interest. When one looks at that article, one must consider what the public interest is and whether people will in fact be deprived of their possessions.
Could you tell us the particular steps that the promoter has taken to minimise any interference with individuals' human rights?
Tara Whitworth can probably give the committee the specifics of the particular plots.
I would be grateful for that information.
We have done two main things. First, we have used existing land. The existing railway is owned by Network Rail and by reusing the railway we are minimising any additional land take. Secondly, we undertook public consultation to ensure that members of the public were fully aware of what the project entails. We consulted on the likely time scales for the project and the fact that it will be legislated for through a private bill, which involves meetings such as this one. All of that helps to maintain the two-way flow of information between the promoter and the potentially affected locals. The main thing that keeps us compliant with the European convention on human rights is undertaking that process.
Are you saying that the process allows you to argue that a balance has been struck between the interests of each individual, the promoter and the community as a whole?
I think that it assists in striking that balance. One of the main impacts of the scheme is that it is a strategic route and needs to meet all national, local and strategic policy objectives. We are not just blitzing ahead with a project that we think is best for people in general. We are backing the project up with existing local government, Scottish Parliament and UK Government policies. In our opinion, the scheme is in the best interests of the community.
It would be helpful if you would explain what is meant by "statutory consultees". In a normal planning context, that phrase means the consultees who are required to be consulted on specified occasions. However, in the context of a private bill, the phrase does not appear to have any particular meaning.
That is correct. We have gone back to the previous legislation and made the assumption that the same processes would apply to a private bill as if we were following the normal process for a major infrastructure project.
When was the list of statutory consultees compiled?
The list was compiled in June 2002, at the beginning of the consultation process that was undertaken by Scott Wilson Railways. We came up with consultation strategies for the whole project. One of the things that Scott Wilson did at the beginning was to decide who would become the statutory consultees—I use the term as a generally recognised term. Prior to that, we had been consulting a number of those people for several years. Obviously, there has been a lot of discussion with organisations such as the Scottish Executive and Network Rail, which are key consultees on the project. Although the process officially started in June 2002, a lot of background consultation was done before that date.
Why are Scottish Power and the Strategic Rail Authority not on the list?
Scottish Power would normally be considered a utility provider and so would come under a separate category. We have flagged that up separately. The SRA is also not normally a statutory consultee on major projects. It considers the strategic benefits of a route and the layout of the network, but it is not directly affected by the project and would not normally form an opinion on small areas of the project, whereas Scottish Water, for example, might be able to protect someone's position on a local, licensed extraction point. The SRA is part of the steering group and has been involved in the project for a long time.
I turn to paragraph 27 of your submission. Do you have any information for the committee on the level of cost that might arise in connection with the costs of the utility companies?
We have asked the utility companies to provide a breakdown of their costs in accordance with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 but we have not had sufficient, consistent feedback from them. The 1991 act only affects the utilities where a road is involved. For example, the 1991 act is called into play at level crossings. Where no roads are involved, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is called into play, and that act does not contain a process for obtaining a C3 or C4 estimate—that is the usual terminology that is used for those estimates. The only cost estimate information for utilities is in the explanatory notes in the promoter's estimate of expense. In paragraph 220 of those notes, under contingency costs, there is a public utilities diversions cost of £1.6 million, plus or minus 15 per cent. That has been based on our engineering knowledge of which utilities will be affected, and on a small amount of responses from the utility companies about specific areas of the project.
So that might become more apparent if the bill is given the go-ahead and the works are started.
Yes. The 1991 act has a multistep process for that very reason but, as I said, it does not apply to the whole route in this case. A C3 estimate is basically an outline estimate. C1 and C2 estimates have been done but they are very broad; C3 estimates are slightly more detailed. That is followed by a C4 estimate, which is much more detailed and starts to examine quantities of materials to be used, the known programme of the works and the resources that the utility companies have available to remove or divert utilities. That is followed by a C5 estimate and then, under the 1991 act, the promoter has to pay the ultimate cost of the utilities diversions. Under major infrastructure schemes, it is normal that the utilities diversions costs continue to evolve as the project goes on.
On paragraph 36 of your submission, given that the project requires an environmental impact assessment, you will understand that the committee might get a little nervous when it hears that the scheme has not yet been finalised. Could you give us some comfort by explaining the nature and extent of the works that might yet change?
Yes. As we discussed last week, a design-build contractor is being procured to take the project through a two-phase process using early contractor involvement. It is normal to develop a scheme of this nature through preliminary design, followed by detailed design and then on to construction. The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine route reopening is at the preliminary design stage. Some elements have been developed slightly further, but other elements have not. By virtue of the fact that there is an existing railway with many of the structures in place, the amount of detailed design that has yet to be undergone is less than if we were going through a greenfield route.
That gives grouting a whole new meaning. Thank you.
Perhaps you could inform the committee of the methodology that was used in your consultation with the owner-occupiers of the properties along the proposed rail route. For example, how did you select consultees?
I will pass that question to Gail Jeffrey to touch on briefly as a starting point; I will fill in what has happened since November 2002.
The consultation strategy methodology is outlined in paragraphs 32 to 59 of the promoter's memorandum. However, I shall run through our consultation strategy.
Since November 2002 there has been a lot of on-going public consultation. I have attended quite a number of evening meetings that have been held by members of Kincardine and Clackmannan residents concern groups. We have also followed an iterative process. Early in the bill process we issued notices to all affected property owners. Once the notices were issued, we undertook a review of the maps, plans and sections that accompany the bill and we started to identify where we felt land was surplus to our needs as the scheme evolved.
We will come back to some specifics in a moment. I want to ask two more general questions on the consultation exercise. How does the consultation exercise compare to other consultation exercises on major infrastructure projects, such as the M74 extension?
It is very similar—pretty much the same process and same theories apply. A railway, by its nature of being a linear transport route, is similar to a road project. Major road projects traditionally have public exhibitions, websites and letter drops: all the things that have happened on this project. There was recently a public exhibition in Kincardine for the upper Forth crossing, which used the same type of format that we used in our public exhibitions. The process has been similar throughout the project.
Various objectors have expressed the view that there is a perception that the council is determined to go ahead with the project regardless of the views that objectors might express in the consultation process. Is that a fair comment?
No, it is not a fair comment. We have tried to take on board people's concerns and to do what we can for them. If I give members three examples of where we have done that, it might assist your knowledge. Hilton Road footbridge is a good example; Alloa station is another; and Manor Neuk level crossing is a third.
I will ask about some specifics on the
The date of that letter was 28 August 2002. It is the letter that is referred to in appendix A of the consultation report. The same letter went to all the properties, which are listed in appendix A.
Is the text of the letter contained in the documentation?
Yes.
How many times have you been in written contact with owner-occupiers about the scheme, in addition to that letter?
That varies, depending on the owner-occupiers. Some requested further information, which we supplied at the end of October. Tara Whitworth engaged in further consultation with some people after November 2002.
If you would like us to provide back-up on a specific example, I can do that.
Were all the letters clear about where people could find further information and did they contain details of a designated contact?
Yes—my name, telephone number and website address are all given in the letter, in addition to the details of the public exhibitions and presentations. Those exhibitions and presentations were also advertised in the local press two weeks prior to their being carried out.
My contact details have been given out continually since before June 2002 until now. Gail Jeffrey's input ceased around November 2002, but my contact details have always been available to members of the public and they continue to be made available through our project website and in all the consultation that we carry out.
What was the normal method for delivering the letters? Were they delivered by post? Were they sent recorded delivery?
I hand delivered the first lot of letters.
The other letters were generally sent by first-class post.
Have you had feedback from residents about non-receipt of letters? The residents of 3 and 4 Mill Road, Clackmannan, state in their objection that they and a significant number of their neighbours did not receive any correspondence informing them of the public exhibitions and presentations that took place between 16 and 25 September 2002.
Given that I do not have that correspondence in front of me I can give only a general answer. We reviewed the correspondence files during the objection process. A number of the objectors said that they did not believe that they had received correspondence. That has generally been found not to be the case and we are able to provide evidence that the letters were delivered, either by hand or by first-class post. In certain cases, people have failed to realise that they received a letter on the subject.
How many one-to-one meetings have taken place with the owner-occupiers and what follow-up action was taken as a result of such meetings?
Perhaps Gail Jeffrey will update you on how many meetings she had and I will update you on how many we have had.
I have undertaken one-to-one consultations mainly with those living adjacent to level crossings. Meetings followed the public presentations and people were able to speak to me and other members of the promoter's team in this very hall on 16 September last year. There were opportunities for one-to-one meetings, most of which are recorded on the feedback forms. I do not have the exact number, but I had a great number of one-to-one conversations with people after the meetings.
Were there dozens of such conversations?
Yes.
After November 2002 and specifically this summer, we conducted approximately 30 or 40 one-to-one interviews with members of the public, so we are talking about dozens of interviews.
So you went back for information to people who had more complex requirements or on whom the proposals impacted more heavily.
Yes. Quite often in the consultation process people raised issues on the feedback forms or submitted queries on the website. We then got into lengthy correspondence with them.
I will ask a bit more about the website. Paragraph 59 of the promoter's memorandum states:
I will take your last question first. I am afraid that I cannot tell you how many hits it has had because we do not monitor that. We cannot do that with this particular website.
Has it received a lot of hits?
Yes. It is safe to say that it has received a lot of hits. The website was originally set up—if my memory serves me right—in June or July 2002. We have since then issued press statements, which are generally produced monthly, although we do not do one specifically every month. Our consultation and media strategy is that we aim to issue one pretty much once a month. The most recent one went out at the beginning of October so another is due shortly. The press releases are placed on the website as soon as possible thereafter. I believe that the most recent update to the website was done a couple of weeks ago and that that included the addition of the new press release from October 2003.
How interactive is it when people lodge a request for information? Are queries checked daily or weekly?
Website queries get forwarded direct to me. I think that I get them within about a day, but I could clarify that.
What was the last consultation that you had with the public on the issue? When was it and whom did you consult?
The last public exhibition was held last September, but as I said meetings have been on-going. I think that the last meeting that we had was with the Clackmannan railway concern group. I would have to check the date of that meeting, but its outcome was the Bogside alignment report. Many other one-to-one meetings, which were not part of a specific consultation, have been going on. The release of the information and publication of the report on the Bogside alignment was probably the last major consultation.
Could you say a little more about how you have actively encouraged information to come in from the public?
Yes, if you would like me to do so.
I think that you have covered quite a lot of it.
I probably have. We have always tried to be open and transparent and to get feedback from members of the public. As Gail Jeffrey said, we have always handed out feedback forms, held public exhibitions and attended public consultation meetings. We have had a lot of discussion with the railway concern groups. They have invited us to attend meetings and speak to audiences and we have done that.
How did you deal with the feedback that you received from your public exhibitions and presentations in September?
We tried to incorporate as much detail into the design as possible. However, some people asked for specific information on the individual impact on their property, which we were not able to provide during the consultation. Instead, we tried to reassure people that the environmental impact assessment would address their concerns and that it would examine issues such as noise and vibration. Concern about those aspects was one of the main issues to emerge from the consultation process. I sent a letter to all the people who raised those issues to advise them that the assessment was being carried out as we spoke and that the results would be produced in the environmental statement. People were also given information about how to access that statement and details of the project website, where information would continue to be updated.
I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. At this stage, I suspend the meeting for a lunch break. We will recommence at 5 past 2.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Welcome back to the meeting. We will continue our questioning of the same group of witnesses.
Earlier, the witnesses responded to questions relating to the receipt of letters by objectors. Other objectors have stated general concerns about a lack of consultation, information and letters of notification. How do you respond to those concerns and what evidence do you have that all the people who will be affected by the route were notified and received subsequent letters?
In accordance with the guidance on private bills, we have to issue official notification letters to all directly affected landowners. As that was done by special recorded delivery, we obtained signatures on the receipt of all the letters. We can provide the committee with those if they are required.
I understand from the objection of the Clackmannan railway concern group that no follow-up public meetings were held following the meetings on 16, 18, 23 and 25 September 2002 in Alloa, Clackmannan, Kincardine and Stirling respectively. Will you confirm that? Why was it felt that no follow-up meetings were necessary?
Follow-up meetings were held but they were not of the same format as the ones that had been held before. The four meetings held in September were official public exhibitions: we had display boards in a display trailer, a book, which we encouraged people to sign, and feedback forms. Following those meetings, we undertook further public consultation. For example, the Clackmannan railway concern group and the Kincardine railway concern group invited Gail Jeffrey, me and some other members of the project steering group to attend separate meetings that they held in halls in Kincardine and Clackmannan. I do not have the dates of those meetings to hand but I can provide them. I can also provide a summary of what went on at those meetings. The railway concern groups decided who would attend the meetings, issued invitations and asked the questions. At one meeting—I believe it was the Clackmannan one, but I have been to so many that it is hard to be sure—a member of the Westminster Parliament and a member of the Scottish Parliament were also on the panel. There was quite a lot of follow-up coverage in the public press after the meetings. In their objections, the objectors failed to consider those meetings to be public meetings. However, although there were no specific public exhibitions after September, there were a lot of follow-up meetings with the consultees.
How did you advertise those meetings? Was everyone made aware of them?
It was up to the railway concern groups to advertise the meetings that they organised. There have also been local government meetings. For example, Clackmannanshire Council had to pass a local government resolution and a follow-up resolution to submit the bill. Meetings were advertised in the local press. Copies of advertisements that appeared in the Wee County News and the Stirling Observer can be produced.
How has the promoter assessed and processed concerns that objectors have expressed? What monitoring has been done in dealing with those concerns?
That is a broad question. During the original consultation period, in which Gail Jeffrey was involved, we used a property, engineering, referencing, consultation system—PERCS—form, which is basically a pro forma that is filled in when consultation has taken place. The form includes information on what meetings have taken place and what follow-up action has been taken; it tracks the whole process. Changes were incorporated in the design where that was possible. We touched on a couple of changes earlier, such as at the Manor Neuk level crossing. Since then, spreadsheets have been used to track consultation with all the different bodies. In our office, there is a basic spreadsheet with the consultees' names and all the correspondence with them, which is all backed up by written files with the incoming and outgoing consultation letters.
Paragraph 34 of your written evidence on consultation and compensation states that consultation with the public will continue in an open manner. You have mentioned the website and on-going work. Is the draft consultation strategy that is referred to still in draft form, or has it been finalised? Will you detail exactly how the promoter will engage with people who are affected by the route over the coming months, should the bill progress?
The consultation strategy is still in draft form. We come up with a draft strategy approximately every six to eight months. The project steering group reviews that strategy and decides whether it is an appropriate way forward. I think that the project steering group's next meeting is in two months' time—meetings are held quarterly. There has not been a meeting to finalise the strategy yet, but that is not unusual.
I want to move on to the on-going communication campaign that will be undertaken on behalf of the promoter by the Big Partnership. Based on your experience of consultation so far, will you carry out any aspect of the consultation differently in the future?
There are always things that we should do differently. As we said, the project has evolved over the months and years. One thing that we have specifically targeted to do in the future is to get more input from schools, which will become more important when the route becomes operational. Many objectors have raised concerns about the potential safety impacts of children trespassing on the route. I feel strongly about that matter. We will have to be specific in educating local children, and their parents, to encourage them not to trespass on the route or throw things off railway bridges on to trains. We must take a proactive approach. I cannot think of anything specific that we will change, but we will definitely home in on that matter.
Members have no other questions. Does any witness want to make any brief concluding remarks?
I would like to do so.
As neither of the other witnesses wishes to make a statement, I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee to give evidence this morning and this afternoon. They are welcome to stay in the hall to listen to the rest of the proceedings.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The committee will hear oral evidence on funding from Aubrey Fawcett, who is head of economic development with Clackmannanshire Council, and Tara Whitworth, who is a principal engineer with Babtie Group Ltd. I remind the witnesses that they made a solemn affirmation on 27 October.
Yes, but before I answer further, I would like to make a simple announcement. As before, there is more than one witness, so I will answer questions on the general issues and Aubrey Fawcett will deal specifically with economic inward investment issues.
I am grateful for that statement.
To answer your question, the estimate of expense is still accurate. No further development work on the project has been undertaken, so the figure has not developed since the original estimate. The original figure was plus or minus 15 per cent, so any minor changes to the project would be contained within that.
The second part of paragraph 2 of the written evidence on funding from the promoter addresses the cost of
It is an agreement under which the owner of a piece of apparatus—be it a power line or a water pipe—agrees to lift it up and shift it and to bear the cost. For example, there might be an agreement under which Network Rail can require Transco, the gas authority, to remove apparatus at Transco's cost, not Network Rail's cost.
It is as simple as that. I am grateful for that clarification.
No. As paragraph 221 points out, the figures assume that lift-and-shift agreements would be implemented. The figures do not take account of lift-and-shift agreements because the work would be done at no cost to Network Rail.
I am curious about the £1.6 million under the heading "Contingency costs". What does that figure refer to?
It is for diverting known utilities, including BT utilities across level crossings that we will close and utilities under the Alloa eastern link road—work number 2—which we know will have to be removed to allow the work to proceed.
I am grateful for that information.
I want to pursue the figure of £700,000. People whose land will be acquired under the proposal might be tempted to maximise the value of their land, partly by seeking to demonstrate that an alternative higher-value use would be appropriate if the railway scheme did not exist. How have the promoters addressed the assessment of market value?
We took a range of values for the three council areas—Stirling, Clackmannanshire and Fife—based on expert knowledge of the area. The experts came up with different ranges of land values for different types of land—for example, agricultural land or industrial land. That range of costs was then multiplied against the known land areas that are covered in the maps, plans and sections. That is how the estimate was built up.
Have you taken into account the changes in values that might occur if someone manages to get planning permission for any of the land that you have already assessed?
No.
That is a possibility that might arise and it would lead to an increase in the figures.
Yes. The actual value of the land is assessed by the district valuer on behalf of the promoter when one takes the land. As you know, planning permissions go through several different processes and we have several planning applications in. We knew about some of them when the bill was published and they are covered in the environmental statement; others have been made since then. Until the planning applications are approved and until the bill is enacted, neither party has any power to impact on the other. For example, Taylor Woodrow Developments objects to the scheme on the basis that it has made a planning application for development adjacent to Waterside level crossing. We have been in discussions with Taylor Woodrow to ensure that we are aware of its application and that it is aware of the bill. Until it gets planning approval, it has no consent to build the works. This is a bill, not an act of Parliament.
Are you reasonably confident that nothing will come out of the woodwork and surprise you?
Yes. That is what the notifications are for.
To flush out—
Exactly. One case in particular has already come out. A development in Clackmannan gained planning approval on the same day that the bill was introduced to Parliament. Because the landowner had a notification from the promoter about the bill, he was able to contact me directly and we were able to agree a formal, legally binding undertaking so that he could proceed to build his houses rather than being blighted and having to wait for the bill to come through. Such cases have already come out of the woodwork.
I can understand a promoter being reluctant to give information at this stage on the total compensation that might be payable, but you will appreciate that the committee must satisfy itself that the costs of the scheme, as given in the explanatory notes, are realistic. The total compensation payable may or may not be significant in that context. Is the promoter prepared to give that information to the committee on a confidential basis?
I will need to take legal advice on that question. In our written evidence on consultation and compensation, there is a section that deals with the fact that, as a promoter, we have to be careful not to create an issue by presupposing what someone might be awarded by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. I cannot easily confirm whether or not we can provide the information because I need to seek legal advice, but I will get back to the clerk to discuss that.
We will leave that with you.
It is not quantified there. We have included some of the contingency costs and some of the environmental mitigation measure costs. Those will cover what could be considered to be compensation. For example, we have included the cost of noise mitigation measures in case somebody has a noise problem. That would mean the provision of noise barriers under the environmental mitigation measures. That is not strictly financial compensation, which might be sought. Diageo was seeking £14 million under its objection. That £14 million is not included under the estimate of expense and funding statement, but the cost of some means of mitigating the environmental impact of the scheme and returning the land to its former position following temporary acquisition is included under the "Contingency costs" heading under paragraph 220 of the explanatory notes.
Therefore, anything that you might expect to have to pay out is included under that contingency heading.
Yes, although anything that we would expect to be dealt with by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland is not included, as that would prejudice our case. I will discuss that position with the clerk.
I will leave it for the moment, but I find it hard to get my head round how you will budget for something that you cannot quantify. However, I am sure that there are professional ways of doing that.
There are. It is all to do with risk models. The estimate of expense is used to assess what the budget for the project will be, and we look for funding based on that budget. There are certain costs that, by their nature, must be considered with a leeway of plus or minus 15 per cent. We carry out a risk management exercise to identify where additional costs might appear, and we quantify those in terms of percentage of likelihood. Under that model, we discuss with the potential funders what might happen if something that we consider very unlikely actually occurs.
The plus or minus 15 per cent will give you a reasonable degree of leeway.
Yes. If we were to assume that everything that might happen will happen, then the cost estimate would be prohibitively expensive, as it would be for any project.
Referring to paragraph 10 of your submission on funding, could you say what the £2 million that has been released by the Scottish Executive is intended to cover?
The £2 million that was released by the Scottish Executive covered costs to develop the project through this process. As we have reported under paragraph 221 of the explanatory notes, in the estimate of expense and funding statement, the incurrence of those costs has already commenced. The actual costs of being here today are included under the £2 million of funding from the Scottish Executive.
We would presumably regard the early release of the £2 million as an additional expense, to be inserted under paragraph 220 of the explanatory notes.
No. The estimate of expense covers the whole project. It also covers the cost of the permitted development rights work that is not covered under the bill, which will have to happen to allow the route to reopen. For example, the cost of relaying the track from Kincardine power station to Longannet power station, which is not authorised under the bill, is included in the estimate of expense within the explanatory notes.
I turn to paragraph 11 of the submission on funding. The Scottish Executive has committed £30 million to the project, which comes from the integrated transport fund and the public transport fund. I will ask the Scottish Executive next week about its commitment to the project, but I would presume that the decision to provide such a high level of funding was made partly because of the great benefits of taking Longannet coal off the road and on to the railway and from its existing rail route on to the proposed rail route via Stirling.
Yes, the decision was made partly for that reason. The scheme has much wider benefits, and the STAG appraisal process, which members heard about this morning, tries to identify those. That was discussed in more detail last week. An economic evaluation of such schemes is not the only method that is used to approve them. To the best of my knowledge, the Scottish Executive fully supports the STAG process. Therefore, it has released the money on the basis not only of the scheme's economic benefits but of its environmental, social inclusion, accessibility and other benefits.
When the Scottish Executive was approached for funds for the project, what was it told about the expected length of life of the Longannet power station?
I am not entirely sure. I would have to seek clarification on that.
There was some discussion about a 30-year lifespan.
The Executive has seen the MVA cost-benefit analysis, which assumes a 30-year lifespan and includes a sensitivity test for earlier closure. However, I am not entirely sure about the other information that it has received. As the Executive is part of the project steering group, it has been fully involved in the project for a number of years and would be in a better position to tell you what information it has seen. That said, I can say that it has seen a range of information.
You explain the SRA's funding position in paragraph 14 of your submission. However, paragraph 28 of the SRA's evidence clearly states that it
I believe that the SRA will clarify the matter later, but I will add my comments now, if that is okay.
So you still think that the SRA is a likely source of funding.
Yes.
Presumably paragraphs 16 and 17 of your submission should be read together because the local public sector partnership contribution identified comes from the promoter and other members of the project steering group.
Yes. A local public sector partnership contribution has been identified by the project steering group, although it is not necessarily limited to the group. That said, its funding would form the main part.
Although the committee notes and appreciates the comment in paragraph 18 that it is not unusual for 100 per cent of funding to follow rather than to precede a project's approval, I want to be clear that the only fully committed funds at this stage are from the Scottish Executive and that more than £7 million remains to be secured.
In simple terms, yes. A number of discussions are continuing to ensure that appropriate funding is in place and cover updating expenditure profiles for all the project steering group members and other issues. However, at the moment, we have sufficient funding to take the project forward as far as is necessary. I think that to date the Scottish Executive has released £3.5 million that we can spend on developing the project and taking the bill through this process.
You may have covered some of this issue already, but you said on 27 October that advance work on accelerating the contracting process and other preparations should enable early implementation of the scheme following the passing of the bill—if that happens. It would be helpful if you could provide some explanation of how the promoters will be able to commit to the early implementation of the bill if the scheme is not going to be fully funded on the date that the bill is passed. What process will be involved and at what stage will the promoter have a sufficient level of confidence to authorise the commencement of work?
As I mentioned briefly last week, to let the second stage of the design-build contract, we need to do two things. One is to obtain a bill and the permission to proceed with the works and the second is to obtain the necessary funding. We would not commence construction without 100 per cent of the funding being in place.
Right. So, if at the date that the bill is passed, the scheme remains less than 100 per cent funded, does that mean that the works will not commence?
That is correct. They will not commence until the funding is in place.
I have one additional question. A figure of £4.5 million has been allowed as a contingency cost. What is the basis for that allowance?
That is a normal engineering contingency fund that is put into any estimate. Estimates are what they say they are—they are an estimate of expense. We have identified the level of certainty. However, there are always a number of works that we expect might happen but might not be sure enough about to be able to include them within the estimate of expense.
The committee has no further questions. Does either of the witnesses wish to make any brief closing remarks?
I reiterate that the project has 80 per cent of the necessary funding in place, which shows that there is a very strong level of support for the scheme. Furthermore, the promoter is actively seeking to ensure that the remainder of the funding is put in place so that, should the bill be passed, construction can commence at the earliest opportunity.
I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today. I can see that you would like to say a few words, Mr Fawcett. I think that it would only be fair to let you do so.
The committee has heard and read evidence of the potential benefits that will result from the development of the new rail link. It is important to recognise that we need to put those benefits into the context of Alloa and the wider Clackmannanshire area. At the previous committee meeting, I said that we have one of the highest unemployment levels in Scotland. We also have among the highest levels of deprivation and poor educational attainment. That is the background to the work that we are undertaking, especially for the public sector partnerships that are involved.
Thank you, Mr Fawcett. For the record, the committee will not decide one way or another; the Parliament will make the decision.
Meeting suspended
On resuming—
The committee will now hear oral evidence on funding from Mr Brian Ringer, freight operations manager, and Jonathan Riley, executive director of freight, at the Strategic Rail Authority.
I welcome Mr Ringer back to the committee and remind him that he is still under oath, as he took the oath at the meeting on 27 October.
You will have seen the evidence from the promoter that states that discussions have progressed with the SRA in respect of funding from the rail passenger partnership fund. However, in paragraph 28 of your written evidence, which we considered on 27 October, you stated:
One of the previous witnesses, Tara Whitworth, helpfully talked about that, and what she said described the position exactly. I do not think that there is a difference between the two pieces of evidence. As we stand today, the promoter has not applied to the SRA for RPP funding—that information is factually correct in both pieces of evidence. The promoter could not apply at the moment because, as the promoter points out in paragraph 14 of its written evidence on funding, RPP funding is currently suspended as a result of the budget cuts that the Secretary of State for Transport made in December 2002. As and when we are in a position to reopen the rail passenger partnership scheme, the promoter of the scheme would be perfectly entitled, as would the promoter of any other scheme, to apply to the SRA for funding.
There is just one more question on which I seek clarification on behalf of the committee. I refer you to paragraph 16 of your evidence, in which you state that the proposal would make
The disparity, if there is one, comes from the calculation, quite simply because that is still one of the largest single flows of freight that could be captured by rail. However, in terms of tonne-kilometrage, which is how—for better or for worse—the growth figure is measured, because we use a shorter route for the first figure, which shows an increase of 0.1 per cent, that has the perverse effect that, if we open a more efficient route that is shorter, all the existing coal actually runs over a shorter route and therefore decreases the overall tonne-kilometrage. So, even though there is a potential gain of an extra million tonnes, that is offset by the fact that the existing tonnage runs over a shorter route.
I am grateful for that explanation, Mr Ringer. I did my best to follow it and I think that I followed it. At this stage, the committee has no further questions. Does either, or both, of the witnesses wish to make some brief closing remarks?
I have some brief closing remarks. We certainly welcome the opportunity that the promoter has created by taking forward the scheme for improving access to rail both for passengers and for freight. The scheme sits extremely well alongside Government objectives for modal shift and improving access to rail.
I want to make a small addition to the rather convoluted statement on the increase. The computer calculation that assesses the increase also takes account of the timing of when the increase in tonnage comes on to the network. The calculation is made over a decade, such that a similar scheme that had started in, say, 2001-02, would have made a larger contribution towards the total tonne-kilometrage than this scheme, which is due to come on stream in 2006. Our decade lasts between 2001 and 2011. The scheme that is coming in will actually make a big input, even though it comes in halfway through the decade.
I am grateful for that supplementary explanation. I thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us today to give evidence. You are more than welcome to return to the body of the hall to listen to the last section of evidence. I suspend the meeting for one minute so that we can change over witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The committee will now hear evidence on funding from Mr Graham Smith, who is planning director for English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd.
I refer you to paragraph 3.3 of your written evidence, in which you say that travel time will be shortened by some 1.5 hours through the implementation of the bill. Does that refer only to distance or does it take into account the increased speed that would be possible for trains on the new route?
Both.
Okay, that is a very straightforward and clear answer.
We have a contract with Clydeport. The contract length is seven years.
It would be helpful if you could explain to the committee the contractual arrangements under which EWS is able to use the railway network between Hunterston and Longannet via the Forth rail bridge. By that, I mean the pathing arrangements.
EWS has a track access agreement with Network Rail. By virtue of that agreement, EWS has rights over the network that are contained within the agreement. Those are firm contractual rights, which we bid for in each timetabling period and which have a high priority. The charges for those rights are contained in the agreement and are in accordance with the rail regulator's determination on freight access charging.
If the bill is passed and implemented, presumably EWS will surrender its pathing rights on the route over the Forth bridge in favour of the new rights to Longannet via the new railway.
If we have no commercial need for rights over the Forth bridge for freight traffic—and we do not anticipate that we would have—under the terms of our track access agreement we would be obliged to surrender those rights back to Network Rail, which could sell them to another operator for other purposes.
You do not envisage circumstances in which you would retain those rights?
We would retain them only if there were a significant amount of unforeseen traffic moving over the Forth bridge. My colleagues and I do not anticipate that and therefore we anticipate, as we said in our evidence, that those rights would be available to enable the Scottish Executive to pursue its objectives in relation to increased passenger services.
You are not seeking contracts to haul something other than coal, which could be used on the paths?
I am not aware of any rail freight business that would require the paths over the Forth bridge.
You referred to the timetabling period. I just wanted the idiot's guide to what that means. How long is that period?
Every 12 months we are obliged to bid to Network Rail for paths. If we have rights to those paths within the contract, Network Rail would have to grant us them. There is a process by which Network Rail in effect manages the railway timetable for all users of the rail network.
Paragraph 15 of the promoter's memorandum, which is on funding, describes your company's commitment to £250,000 expenditure on the project, which you mention in paragraph 4.1 of your submission. Is it the intention of EWS that the £250,000 be used for any particular purpose in connection with the project?
No. The £250,000 was put forward by EWS in 2000 as a demonstration of faith and belief in the project at a time when the concept was still being developed. We recognise that it is not a significant sum, but we felt that it was politically useful at the time. We do not invest in infrastructure as a matter of course, as we say in our submission. Our £500 million investment in rail freight has been primarily in rolling stock. We felt that the sum was large enough to draw attention to the fact that the project was important and we wanted to be associated with it.
The promoter acknowledges that your company is not yet legally committed to the £250,000 contribution. Is that correct?
That is correct. We have said that provided that the line is reinstated in such a way that it can convey coal traffic to Longannet power station, we are prepared to make that legal commitment.
Is EWS irrevocably committed to a contribution of £250,000 towards the cost of implementing the works for which the bill seeks authorisation?
It is irrevocably committed provided that the line is reinstated in the manner in which the promoter describes, which allows the movement of coal traffic to Longannet power station.
Those are all the questions that the committee has. Do you wish to make brief concluding remarks, Mr Smith?
Yes. EWS supports the bill and the growth in rail freight. We welcome the Scottish Executive's support and we support its objectives on rail freight, as well as those of the promoter.
I am grateful for those remarks and I am grateful to you for giving evidence today. I thank everyone who attended today and made the meeting possible. The fourth meeting of the committee will take place at this venue on Monday 10 November at 11.15 am.
Meeting closed at 15:04.