New Petitions
Lancastria Commemorative Medal (PE1062)
We have a particularly full agenda, with nine new petitions and 11 current petitions for consideration.
PE1062, by Mark Hirst on behalf of the Lancastria Association of Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament
"to commission a commemorative medal to be awarded to all those (or the relatives of victims, or relatives of survivors who have now passed away) who were aboard the troopship Lancastria on 17th June 1940 when she was sunk by German bombers, claiming the lives of an estimated 4000 people, mostly troops of the British Expeditionary Force, and which resulted in Britain's worst ever maritime disaster and worst single loss of life for British forces in the whole of World War 2, in recognition of the sacrifice of the victims and the endurance of those survivors who have tried to keep the memory of their fallen comrades alive for the past 67 years."
The petition was hosted on the Parliament's e-petitions system, where it gathered 313 signatures.
To speak to the petition, I welcome petitioner Mark Hirst, Fiona Symon and Lieutenant Commander Chris Walsh. I understand that all three of you will contribute to an opening statement. Mark, do you wish to go first?
Mark Hirst (Lancastria Association of Scotland):
Thank you, convener, for giving us the opportunity to say a few short words. The journey that brought our association to Parliament today began 67 years ago, when many ordinary men volunteered to fight fascism and defend democracy. For many, the journey ended in the most horrific events aboard the Clyde-built Lancastria. Although it was acting as a troop ship and was heavily loaded with airmen and soldiers of the British expeditionary force, the Lancastria was also carrying about 200 refugees of various nationalities. In the 20 minutes that it took for the liner to sink, an estimated 4,000 people were killed and many hundreds more were wounded.
As members will have seen from the briefing notes, on hearing of the scale of the tragedy, Churchill issued a D-notice, banning all publicity. As a result, the story of the Lancastria and the extraordinary sacrifice of the thousands of victims have been forgotten, as has the endurance and determination of the survivors, whose strong feeling was that their comrades and friends died without formal acknowledgement.
Successive British Governments have consistently chosen not to mark or commemorate the incident formally. In Britain—although perhaps not elsewhere—the custom is not to commemorate a crushing blow. The association's view is that those who took part in this forgotten event deserve a level of official recognition that has, in large part, been afforded to numerous other so-called worthy examples. Such recognition has been denied the people who were aboard the Lancastria on 17 June 1940.
We firmly believe that the sheer scale of the sacrifice that was made on that day, combined with the officially sanctioned censorship of the disaster, sets it aside from all other events involving British forces and refugees in world war two. Our plea to members of the Public Petitions Committee is that you correct decades of silence and reverse the sense of ingratitude that survivors and relatives of victims feel to this day. We call on Parliament to commission a commemorative medal in recognition of the ultimate price that the victims paid, and of the endurance of the survivors who continued to fight on long after the sinking of the Lancastria. I hand over to Fiona Symon, whose father, Andrew Richardson from Kirkcaldy, was one of the victims.
Fiona Symon (Lancastria Association of Scotland):
As Mark has said, the sheer magnitude of the loss of life in the worst disaster in British maritime history cries out for acknowledgement. My mother died in 1992, still very bitter and sad that the country seemed to regard my father's life and the lives of the thousands who died with him as being of less value than the lives of others who died in world war two and who are remembered with honour.
In many cases, the survivors suffered more than any of us. They had to live out their lives with horrendous memories and nightmares. Today, they would have been offered counselling; instead, they were forbidden to talk about the sinking. As a result, they are forgotten and ignored. Recently, I spoke to a survivor who described the disaster as "hell on earth". He recounted how he had to swim for three hours in the oil spill from the liner, with some of it on fire and tracer bullets landing around him. He had to push dead bodies out of the way as he struggled to reach the rescue boats 5 miles offshore. That is what those men had to live with.
The sinking of the Lancastria and the resulting colossal life of life is unique in our history—no comparison can be made and 67 years is far too long to wait for recognition of the sacrifice of thousands of men who gave their lives for their King, country and the freedom that we enjoy today. No shame was involved in the disaster: it did not have to be covered up, but desperate times called for desperate measures. The shame is in the silence and cover-up of the past 67 years. As President Theodore Roosevelt said:
"A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have."
Unless someone has walked in the footsteps of the victims, survivors and their families, they cannot even begin to understand the depth of the human tragedy involved, the effects of which continue to this day. I am here today to represent not only the association but the many people who, like me, never knew their fathers. I was 10 months old when he died—the only child. My heartfelt plea to the committee is that Parliament acknowledge the sacrifice that was made 67 years ago by commissioning a commemorative medal and putting the record straight. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk to you today.
Lieutenant Commander Chris Walsh (Lancastria Association of Scotland):
Good afternoon. I am a member of the Lancastria Association of Scotland. However, unlike the other two petitioners, I have no blood link to the Lancastria incident.
I learned about the Lancastria as Mrs Symon discovered the fate of her father. I knew nothing about it prior to that, although I had always known about military campaigns that had been lost and won. Arnhem and Dunkirk, for example, have been immortalised in thousands of feet of newsreel, numerous books and movies, but public awareness of Lancastria is nil by comparison. At 11.40 on the morning of 14 April 1912, the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank and 1,635 lives were lost. The Lancastria's death toll was three, perhaps even four, times higher than that.
After Dunkirk, 140,000 soldiers and airmen were stranded in France. They retreated across several hundred miles to St Nazaire in the north-west of France, pursued all the way by the German army and the Luftwaffe. Imagine their relief when they were offered the chance to escape on a luxury liner. They were crammed on to that liner—many thousands more were on it than should have been; the crew simply stopped counting. The ship set sail, suffered direct hits and began to sink. As a Royal Navy engineer officer, I am well trained in damage control. I know what it is like when the lights go out, the water starts to flood into a closed compartment and the ship begins to list badly—it is frightening even in a controlled training environment and one quickly becomes disoriented. What must it have been like for the men and women on that liner, who were in totally alien surroundings? Many thousands drowned in fear and panic.
Those who made it to the surface found themselves clinging to bits of wreckage and choking on heavy fuel oil from the ship's tanks. Even then, hundreds survived and were delivered back to Britain. If that was not enough, they arrived home to be told that Mr Churchill had forbidden their mentioning what had happened. The able bodied among the survivors were cleaned up, kitted out and sent off to fight the rest of the war. Guided by a sense of patriotism, integrity, loyalty or simply blind obedience, many of those men took their experience to the grave. I believe that they deserve a medal.
Thank you very much. We have received a request from Christine Grahame MSP to contribute to the debate. Committee members may ask questions first before I invite her to say something.
I have a comment to make rather than a question to ask. I doubt that anyone around the table failed to be moved by what we have just heard about people's personal experiences. It is particularly appropriate that the committee consider the petition in armistice week. I have huge sympathy for the petitioners. We must seek a way forward.
My understanding is that legal advice has been sought and that it appears that commissioning a commemorative medal may not be within the Scottish Parliament's competence. If that is the case, how should we progress the matter?
The model that we are looking for Parliament to adopt was adopted when Dunkirk municipal town council in France issued a commemorative medal to British veterans who defended Dunkirk. I have seen some of the legal advice that has been provided to the committee and think that there are probably issues with it, if not confusion surrounding the matter. The Ministry of Defence is clear about the distinction between commemorative medals and war medals: only the MOD can issue a war medal, but it says that any competent body can issue a commemorative medal. Therefore, we are asking the committee to answer a question: if French municipal town councils can issue commemorative medals to British veterans, why cannot the Scottish Parliament do so? I do not know whether it would be possible to seek a second opinion on the legal advice that the committee sought, because the advice that we have received is that Parliament can commission a medal.
I seek clarification. What advice have we received about commemorative medals, especially about whether we can issue them?
The advice that was given before the petition was lodged was that the matter would be outwith the competence of the Parliament. However, that is only advice, and members can reflect on what recognition we give to that advice.
Where did that advice come from?
It came from the Parliament's legal advisers. It is appropriate for clerks to seek advice for clarification from Parliament's lawyers in consideration of such petitions where there is an issue of competency.
Have the petitioners made any representations to the MOD about the matter, or have they spoken to anyone at the Westminster Parliament?
The issue has been raised—we wrote to the previous Administration to ask about a commemorative medal, but the matter was passed immediately to the MOD. The MOD sent back a rather terse response saying that veterans' issues were devolved to the Scottish Parliament. There is a precedent with regard to commemorative medals in that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—as I understand it from the September 1999 business bulletin—issued a commemorative medal for MSPs. Although that was an unfortunate precedent as it attracted a bit of unfortunate publicity, there is, nonetheless, a precedent for commissioning a commemorative medal.
Was the MOD's response that this Parliament could do something?
It said that any competent body can commission a commemorative medal, but commissioning a war medal is reserved to Westminster, and specifically to the MOD.
The question that I was going to ask regarding representation to the MOD has already been asked. As a committee, we have to express some disappointment in response to the MOD's decision. Based on what we have heard today, the majority of those who died and were injured were clearly in the service of their country at the time. That the petitioners are asking the Scottish Parliament to pick up where the MOD is failing to deliver concerns me—I hope that it also concerns other members of the committee.
The committee should make a representation through the Government to the MOD that, although the MOD previously decided not to mark the event, we urge it to do so. Although I do not want to get into the numbers game in terms of how many people from outside Scotland were killed or injured during the incident, the Scottish Parliament could end up being liable for striking commemorative medals for a large number of people who are not covered by its jurisdiction. It is an issue on which the MOD has failed to deliver. Although I accept the comments that have been made, we need to make the strongest possible representation through the Government to the MOD, to urge the MOD to mark the event and recognise it not by issuing just a commemorative medal, but a medal that is recognised as a war medal.
Are there any other questions from the committee at present? I know that Christine Grahame has expressed an interest.
The MOD route has been exhausted. I am quite affected by Mark Hirst's question: if a municipal authority can issue a commemorative medal, what on earth is to stop the Scottish Parliament doing so? I challenge the legal advice and am quite happy to do so on the record. Parliament has set precedent by issuing a commemorative medal to frankly unworthy MSPs—I was one of them—who had done nothing, so we ought to challenge the suggestion that it cannot strike a commemorative medal for people who were much more worthy than us. The matter ought to be pursued.
We know that the matter is not reserved, because the MOD website asks the question:
"What is the difference between ‘official' and ‘commemorative' medals?"
In response it says:
"The term ‘official' could be used to describe any medals for which Her Majesty, or her predecessors, has given approval. Only these medals are permissible for wear on a service uniform. Commemorative medals are those which have been produced by organisations or private medal companies to commemorate particular branches of service or areas of operations."
It seems odd that some town council or company can produce a commemorative medal but the Scottish Parliament cannot.
On funding, which might be an issue, I know from shadowing a former minister who had responsibility for communities that that post has within its remit responsibility for taking up veterans' issues. Indeed, the previous Government contributed funds to various commemorative events. It gave £9,500 to the Dundee Combined Ex-Services Association, £5,000 for national veterans day and £5,000 to another war-associated commemorative event.
I have campaigned on the issue for a long time—although not as long as the campaigners—and I would be very disappointed if the matter were not pursued with vigour, even if the aim were simply to test the legal opinion. MSPs have commemorative medals in our houses, so we should pursue the case of people who are much more worthy of medals than we are.
The Government at the time said that acknowledging the event would be bad for the morale of the country. What about now, after so long? Why cannot they acknowledge it after 67 years?
I have a lot of sympathy with the petitioners.
Do we have a comprehensive list of the names of people who were on the Lancastria? I know that there are varying estimates.
We have a list of people who have come forward to contact the association over the years. We also have a list of 103 units that we know were aboard. The retreat in the face of the German advance was shambolic—in May in particular—and the British forces were just trying to get out any way they could. However, we have a list of casualties, which has been compiled by a British Commonwealth organisation, and we have lists of survivors.
Realistically, we might be looking at having to produce about 500 medals, initially. There are many members of our association who are from the same families: our proposal would be that each family who had a relative that was killed on the Lancastria would receive one medal.
Is there a reasonable approximation of what that would cost?
We have sought a couple of quotes already. We would be happy to work in conjunction with procurement officials to ensure that best value was guaranteed. The cost will depend on the sort of metal and the die that is cast. The question that I ask in return is this: What price would you put on the ultimate sacrifice?
It was more a practical question to ensure that if, during investigation of the issue, people suggest that the cost would be prohibitive, we can say that we have been given a reasonable ball-park figure. I do not want to get into a discussion of how we value people who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Clearly, the family members and others are concerned with the commemorative value of the medals.
The issue is to do with symbolism and the formal acknowledgement, at last, of what happened. That is what is important. The commemorative medal would be a symbol of that and that is what we all desperately need.
I will try to summarise the views that have been expressed. If my understanding of what has been said is wrong, members can put me right.
It strikes me that there are three issues. The first is the issue of the MOD fully recognising events that have taken place during conflicts. I get from the committee a sense that, even although there has been an exhaustive process, we should raise the point again with the MOD.
The second issue is how, if we cannot get the MOD to do what the petitioners are seeking, we can commemorate the incident, if that is appropriate, and which body makes the decision. Again, if I am wrong, members will tell me, but I believe from their contributions that Parliament's corporate body or the Scottish Government could explore that option with the remit to issue commemorative medals, if what Mark Hirst has said is accurate.
The third question is how to raise the issue with those who are responsible. Obviously, the Public Petitions Committee cannot issue commemorative medals, but we can raise the debate. It is a given that we can still raise with the MOD whether it can recognise the incident through a war medal. That is an on-going process, and I am sure that the Lancastria Association is working on that as well. Christine Grahame mentioned that the Minister for Communities and Sport has some responsibility for commissioning medals, and we could write to the corporate body to seek its views on whether Parliament could recognise the incident.
Are members comfortable with those next steps? There seems to be a general consensus to try to move the issue on—we have heard powerful testimony this afternoon.
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Mark Hirst, Fiona Symon and the Lancastria Association for the petition. We will raise the matters directly with the responsible ministers and the corporate body, giving them a copy of the Official Report of today's discussion. We will also raise directly with the MOD that we have heard a powerful testimony this afternoon and that we hope that it can reconsider its views.
I am conscious that there was a debate around a legal interpretation—Christine Grahame is a lawyer, so she obviously has a special interest in those matters—but I do not know whether anyone wants still to explore that. The three steps that we will take are positive.
I thank Fiona Symon for her personal testimony. I know that Mark Hirst and Chris Walsh have been involved at administrative and organisational levels, as well as feeling strongly about the issue, but Fiona's submission encapsulated the challenge in trying to address commemoration. I hope that the committee might be able to move things forward. We cannot guarantee it—that is always my one caveat as convener—but the committee will certainly explore the issues on your behalf.
By 2040, when the D-notice will be lifted, I will no longer be around; neither, possibly, will my children. We are already into the third generation of families since the disaster, so it would be so good to feel that at last I had been able to do something positive for my father and all the others. Thank you.
That is a strong message to end on. Thank you for your time, and good luck.
I propose a slight change to the agenda. Under item 4, which is consideration of current petitions, we are due to consider PE765 and PE795, on the future of fire control rooms in Scotland. I have had a request to bring forward that discussion from the petitioners, who are conscious of the time; firefighters were out until the early hours of this morning—I appreciate their work in my area, where they had to deal with the wonderful sight of teenagers who thought it appropriate to set gas canisters on fire on bonfire night. Therefore, if members agree, we will bring forward consideration of those two petitions and deal with them after PE1080.
Members indicated agreement.
Edinburgh South Suburban Railway (PE1080)
PE1080, which was brought by Lawrence Marshall on behalf of the Capital Rail Action Group, calls for the reintroduction of local passenger services on the Edinburgh south suburban railway. Before the petition was formally lodged, it was hosted on the e-petitions system, where it gathered 1,923 signatures. I welcome Lawrence Marshall, Andrew Robb and Patrick Hutton. You have three minutes in which to make an opening statement.
Lawrence Marshall (Capital Rail Action Group):
Andrew Robb is from E-Rail, a company that is involved in trying to get local passenger services back on the south suburban line in Edinburgh. Patrick Hutton is the secretary of the Capital Rail Action Group, and I chair the group.
I thank the committee for its time. We brought the petition because we are aware that ultimately the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have responsibility for determining whether the south suburban railway is reopened to local passenger services, both because control over Network Rail has been devolved and because the Scottish Government is responsible for the franchise that is currently held by First ScotRail. The Parliament is therefore the appropriate body to consider the issue, although other bodies are involved. The City of Edinburgh Council and the south-east of Scotland transport partnership are supportive and include the reopening of the line to local passenger services in their transport strategies—in SEStran's case, the regional transport strategy. We welcome that support from the statutory bodies.
There is not much to say but, as I perhaps know more about the line than other people do, I will give committee members a few facts. The south suburban line exists and the passenger services that currently run round it are either diversionary services, which operate when work is going on at Waverley station, or Virgin train services, which are timetabled to use the line—some of you might have used the line. A map, which was attached to the petition, is in members' briefing papers and is available online. The map can give you an idea of where the line runs in Edinburgh.
No parliamentary consent would be needed to reintroduce local passenger services, because the line is operational. No tunnelling work or level crossings would be needed, but a little upgrading of infrastructure might be needed—or rather, the putting back of infrastructure that was taken out during the past few decades. Other than that, the line is up and running and we just need stations and the money to make it happen. The issue has cross-party-political support in the City of Edinburgh Council and the Parliament—I am pleased that Mike Pringle has attended this meeting.
If an idea is good, one signature on a petition is enough; if it is bad, 2,000 signatures are not enough. The petition gathered a fair number of signatures from people throughout Scotland—about 2,600, if we include signatures on paper as well as on the e-petitions site. People understand that mobility in the capital city benefits not just people who live here but people who come as tourists, businesspeople or visitors for the day.
The line is a useful facility. It will not solve Edinburgh's transport problems, but it will be a big help. Reintroducing local passenger services would be worth while under the Scottish transport appraisal guidance criteria, because the benefit-cost ratio is more than 1—it is considerably more than 1. It would not cost much money. E-Rail has negotiated a contribution from the private sector, which would help to reduce the contribution from the public sector.
Perhaps I can explain who we are. E-Rail was set up in 2000 with the explicit remit of raising private funds for public transport initiatives—heavy rail, light rail, tramways or whatever. We are involved in a number of projects throughout the United Kingdom and through our joint venture partner in Canada. In essence, we seek to tap the additional marginal profit that a developer will make if his development—mainly private housing in this instance—is within 800m of a halt on a new public transport service. It is evident to them and, subsequently, to people who have houses near such places that they can command a higher price if they can advertise that the property is within a five-minute walk of a station. In property advertising in London, we certainly see mention of the fact that a property is within five minutes' walk of a tube station.
We have been negotiating with property developers who have sites along the length of the south suburban line and we have entered into voluntary contribution agreements with some of them—some are still in negotiation—for them to make contributions from the projected additional marginal profit that they expect to make from the existence of the service. Those agreements have been signed and lodged in a discrete trust, which is tasked with demanding the money when the line is contracted and paying it out to the project sponsor, be that Transport Scotland, the City of Edinburgh Council or whoever.
What would it cost to reinstate the line? Would there be an on-going subsidy cost to keep it running?
Over the past 15 years or so, there have been three different reports on reopening. By far the most definitive is the Atkins report—WS Atkins is a pretty famous consultancy in transport—which reported just over three years ago in March 2004. The report is on the City of Edinburgh Council's website and available through the reopen the south sub website. I do not want to bore you with figures, but all the costs are in the report—value of time, staff cost, decongestion, economic appraisal.
In brief, according to the Atkins report, if the line were to reopen to Newcraighall—which is a park-and-ride site in south-east Edinburgh near the new Queen Margaret University—the capital cost would be £18 million for just over 2 million passengers a year, with a benefit cost ratio of 1.42. I think that the report stated that the subsidy for a service to Newcraighall would be about £1 million a year, whereas the subsidy for a service to Niddrie, which would require fewer trains because it is possible to get there and back a bit quicker—that is basically the E-Rail proposal—would be about £500,000 a year. Consequently, the benefit cost ratio for a service to Niddrie—that is, to a station by the Asda site near Fort Kinnaird—would be higher, at 1.64.
Tavish Scott asked for an update from Halcrow when he was Minister for Transport in January this year when an all-party delegation from the City of Edinburgh Council went to him. We had hoped that Halcrow might have reported by now, but it will not report until January. As I understand it, various other options are being considered as part of the Halcrow update—as well as looking at the options of just running services to Newcraighall or doing the full south sub circle again, it is examining some cross-city options. The line connects with every railway line in the area, so it has wider potential.
Will there be enough capacity at Waverley to cope, given that it is expected that the Airdrie to Bathgate line and the new Borders rail link will result in an increase in the number of services into the station?
That has probably been the crucial reason why the reopening of the south sub railway has largely been dismissed as an option. If you visit the reopen the south sub website, you will find a paper by me that analysed the bible of railway operation, the working timetable, for the second half of last year, up until December, when the present works at Waverley started.
The capacity of Waverley for trains travelling west to Haymarket—I will come to the capacity for trains travelling east shortly—is 24 per hour. The works at Waverley will take that up to 28 trains per hour. The finite capacity is 32 trains per hour, but that would require further redevelopment at Waverley. During peak periods, 21 or 22 trains per hour use Waverley. Off-peak, when between 16 and 18 trains per hour use the station, there is no problem. The situation gets a bit tight during peak hours.
The proposal to run North Berwick services through to Newcraighall is a good one, in that it relies on the use of existing train paths. From December, when the works at Waverley have been completed, peak-period trains from North Berwick will again go through to Haymarket and then sit at Slateford, or go on to Glasgow Central. Our proposal is that, instead, those train paths could be used for services on the south suburban line, which would mean that during peak periods we would demand no extra train paths. There is plenty of capacity at Waverley during off-peak hours.
I have been a supporter of reopening the south sub railway since my son was nine. The fact that he is now 33 shows how long the campaign has been going on. I think that Lawrence Marshall underestimates the number of exercises on reopening the line that have been conducted. Back in those days, David Begg at the University of Edinburgh was involved. He is now a professor.
There is no doubt that reopening the south sub railway would take pressure off the roads and that the environmental impact of cars is now far greater than it was when we first got involved in the campaign to reopen the line in 1984. It is time that the Scottish Parliament addressed the issue, which has become more pressing. Perhaps Lawrence Marshall could tell us how many car journeys would be taken off the roads if the line were used by 2 million passengers. My prediction is that even if the reopening of the line does not happen soon, it will happen sometime—it is bound to—so why not bite the bullet and do it now?
What have been the obvious obstacles and, if they still exist, how do we overcome them?
To an extent, the obstacles have probably come from the higher echelons of Railtrack and Network Rail, where there has been concern about the pressure that is caused by trains using a limited number of tracks, which Nanette Milne mentioned. I think that they have thought that it is not appropriate to have local trains in a city the size of Edinburgh. I have never felt that. The statistics for the use of the line that have been obtained from surveys have always been quite positive. The pinchpoint is between Portobello and Haymarket.
There are ways of fitting the trains in but, eventually, I would not rule out the use of tram-trains, such as those that operate in Karlsruhe in Germany, which Network Rail is very slowly getting round to having a look at. They have been running in Germany for 10 to 15 years; they run on the railway tracks and then go into the city centre. That is being considered in the Glasgow area, for example for the Hamilton circle. There are possibilities with that, and it would not take up existing capacity.
Even with our proposals, we will not take up capacity that Network Rail cannot afford. Even with the Airdrie to Bathgate service and a doubling of the frequency of trains coming in from Bathgate to four per hour, even with the increased use of the Caledonian express line, and even with the non-stop service to Dundee, which take up all the extra capacity that is currently being built in at Waverley, we can still run our proposed service.
That covers the main reason why the scheme has not yet happened. Over the years, politicians have been favourable towards the proposal. It is not the sexiest project in the world—it is not like the rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports or the line to the Borders—and it does not cost all that much. I suspect that those are among the reasons why the project has not thrust itself forward as the best thing to do. It will make a contribution, although it will not be a solution. Sometimes, politicians just look for solutions.
An unsexy but effective rail link—that could be the tagline.
Patrick Hutton (Capital Rail Action Group):
I would like to give a sense of the potential benefit to the traffic situation in Edinburgh. As we said in our paper, it takes half an hour to get the number 30 bus from Niddrie to Haymarket in the west end. In 1962, it was possible to go by train from Duddingston to Haymarket in 19 minutes.
Things have changed, and the roads are filling up. People need to be able to move efficiently from their home to work or to places of leisure. A station at Niddrie is seen as vital to the regeneration of Craigmillar, Niddrie and Bingham, which is a big project in the south side of Edinburgh. The Atkins report of 2004 predated large parts of the Niddrie project and the movement of Queen Margaret University—which has in excess of 8,000 people—to Craighall. I believe that the car parking there is limited and is heavily charged nowadays. The university is looking for 24 per cent of its staff and students to travel by train. At the moment, they use a half-hourly service to Musselburgh. The personal assistant to the principal told me this morning that her train was packed every morning between Waverley and Musselburgh. We need a scheme such as the south sub as an alternative method for people to travel around the south side of Edinburgh.
In the past, journeys in cities were always regarded as radial. All the main roads coming in ended up in the city centre. Anybody who is involved in transport these days knows that that is no longer the case. Obviously, there is still a preponderance of people trying to come into the city centre. Increasingly, however, as developments such as Queen Margaret University and shopping centres grow, traffic is generated at locations around the city. People therefore need to move across the city, as well as into the city centre.
The south sub delivers people to the city centre—with a journey from Morningside to Haymarket taking something like eight minutes, for example. It also delivers people round the city, for instance from Morningside to Portobello or Newcraighall. Both those functions are to the scheme's advantage. The city's roads have not become less congested since the railway line was closed in 1962. When it was closed, it was basically felt that the bus service could take over.
Just the other night, there was a piece in the Evening News about Barbara Castle's decision regarding the Corstorphine branch line. When that line was shut, it was assumed that the bus services could take over—that was the attitude at the time. Ironically, the line was closed on the casting vote of the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, who was sitting on the transport committee that had the remit of determining whether to close lines or keep them open. Times have moved on, and the roads of Edinburgh have got a lot more congested since then.
You mentioned in your opening remarks that discussion with the Government was on-going, and that you were awaiting an outcome or evaluation. If I have picked you up correctly, you are saying that you expect that in January. Is that correct?
I am not an expert on the matter. The City of Edinburgh Council, Transport Scotland and the regional transport partnership, SEStran, have all put £25,000 into the update study by Halcrow, which I understand will report in January.
Will the Government and Transport Scotland consider the worth or otherwise of the project at that stage?
When the City of Edinburgh Council looked at the benefit cost ratios in the Atkins study, it took the view that, although the report said that the case for reopening the south sub line was weak, if the case for that project was weak, the case for quite a number of other projects in Scotland would be weak. On that basis, it decided that the project was well worth pursuing, which is why it met Tavish Scott in January.
I guess that some new benefit cost ratios will come out of the Halcrow study, given that it is looking at other options, but I do not think that the passenger use figures will change fundamentally. If they do, I suspect that they will go up rather than down, given what has happened recently. We must wait for the Halcrow study. We had hoped that the committee's consideration of our petition would coincide with the publication of that study, but we will have to wait until January.
Okay. Do members have any suggestions about how we should deal with the petition? I have a few.
There is nothing to prevent us from taking soundings from other bodies while we wait for the publication of the update study in January. At least we would have that information, which could be updated once the update study has been completed. I suggest that we ask the Scottish Government, Network Rail and Transport Scotland for their views.
It might be an idea to speak to organisations such as the council and Lothian Buses, because the proposed rail services would run in a totally different way from the city's bus services. The bus services come out from the centre, whereas the railway line goes round the city, almost like a bypass. I can see that the proposed rail services would tie in well with bus services, because people from outside the city tend to have to go into the centre before travelling back out. The south sub line might mitigate that and work alongside the buses. It might be good to get a view on how bus and rail services would work together.
I support Rhoda Grant's suggestion about getting Lothian Buses involved, because it would be useful to find out what it thinks about a potential competitor delivering the proposed services; perhaps it could even deliver the services itself, if the capacity was there. It might be also useful to get the opinion of the rail operator, First ScotRail. We are not talking only about the opening up of a railway line; other factors must be brought to bear, such as the provision of rolling stock, staffing and the reopening of stations, so First ScotRail should be asked to comment on the proposal as well.
We would still want additional submissions from the likes of E-Rail and the Capital Rail Action Group to supplement that information. I am sure that new information is popping up every month that is of added value.
I forgot to mention that when the Atkins study came out and officials said that there was a case for reopening the line, albeit a weak one, the City of Edinburgh Council put the Executive's decision under scrutiny and whole-heartedly came in behind the south suburban line. That was one of the few occasions on which a scrutiny panel made a difference—the council has now got rid of scrutiny panels.
As part of the scrutiny process, it was necessary to consider how tramline 3—members may remember that tramline 3 was proposed at that time in addition to tramlines 1 and 2—might interact with a reopened south suburban line. The council was worried about the proposal's relation to the reopening of the Waverley route and the proposed tram to Newcraighall, so an additional piece of work was commissioned from Atkins. Even though the original study is only three years old, a slight update was carried out back in the summer of 2004, which concluded that the south sub line was complementary to the trams rather than in competition with them. I put into the equation the fact that some of that work has already been done.
The south sub line forms part of a complicated city structure. We should ensure that we get advice from the City of Edinburgh Council on its modelling of car and other road vehicle traffic. I do not know what that council does, but I know that Dundee City Council would certainly be able to give us a view on the issue in its area. We should also check how the reintroduction of services on the Edinburgh south suburban railway would interact with the proposed tram schemes. It is a big model.
I thank Lawrence Marshall, Patrick Hutton and Andrew Robb for coming along. We will continue to explore the issue. The petition will return to the committee once we have received the information that we are seeking. We will then make further recommendations. Thank you for your time.