Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 16 Dec 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Official Report 286KB pdf

---

High-speed Rail Services Inquiry

Item 3 is our inquiry into the potential benefits of high-speed rail services. We will take evidence from Stewart Stevenson, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change—long time no see, minister, and thank you for joining us—Malcolm Reed, chief executive of Transport Scotland; and Claire Keggie, head of rail policy at Transport Scotland. I welcome the officials to the meeting.

We will kick off with a fairly general question. Does the Scottish Government support the development of a high-speed rail network for the United Kingdom and, if so, why?

Yes, we support that, because we believe that it would have substantial economic benefits and key climate change advantages.

It has "key climate change advantages". Perhaps members will ask you to expand on that. What discussions has the Scottish Government had—either you or your officials—with counterparts in the UK Government about the issues that might need to be addressed in the development of a high-speed rail project? How will any future dialogue be progressed?

I am pleased to say that, within a few days of coming into office at the Department for Transport, Lord Adonis arranged to speak to me. It is clear that there is, perhaps for the first time, a sense of common purpose on the development of high-speed rail. He will come to Scotland for discussions with me in January, I think—the dates have yet to be fixed. He has already told me that he is taking a keen interest in the deliberations of the committee and I think that he plans to make an appropriate contact during his visit. Discussions of substance are at a very early stage at ministerial level, but now that we have a shared sense of the need to create further high-speed rail within the UK and for that to benefit Scotland, we have a way forward. I will ask Malcolm Reed to tell you about the discussions between officials.

We have regular contact with the DFT—my colleague Claire Keggie manages that on a day-to-day basis. In common with a DFT counterpart, I have observer status on the Greengauge21 public interest group. We are well aware of what the Greengauge21 campaign is proposing in relation to high-speed rail. Across the piece, we are well advised about what is happening south of the border. I echo the minister's comment that it is early days and quite a lot of dialogue is still to be had.

Minister, you said that there was a shared sense that further high-speed rail is required. Many of the witnesses who support the development of high-speed rail spoke about the need for a shared vision to be spelt out clearly by both Governments. They expressed concern that that simply was not the case, or had not been the case until now. Do you agree with that assessment? Is the position likely to change in the near future?

I think that the vision has been clear. It really is not for me to speak on behalf of the DFT or the Administration at Westminster, but I think that they would acknowledge that their key rail issue has been easing the commute into London and other major cities in England and Wales. That has been the focus of their interest and their rail engagement. Faced with a number of challenges, they have also sought to manage costs tightly, and only recently has there been a change in emphasis with regard to the value of making investments in railways. The comments from witnesses that you mention are probably not unrealistic—a shared sense of vision has not been developed.

In a strict sense, I do not have responsibility for the rail tracks or for cross-border services. When the opportunity has existed, we have made clear our desire for faster rail links between central Scotland and London, involving a reduction in journey times to around the three-hour mark, which is the tipping point for getting real modal shift in people's journey plans to the south.

Other things can be done. Yesterday, the first Virgin train left Glasgow for London on a service that is a bit faster but, more fundamentally, has been rescheduled to get people to London in time for the business day. I hope that a range of interventions will continue to be made in the meantime but, in the long term, I want to develop a sense of shared vision. I will discuss that with Andrew Adonis, and I have a reasonable expectation that we will be able achieve it.

You mention the three-hour mark as an aspiration. A number of witnesses have said that the three-hour mark is a theoretical tipping point, as journeys that are shorter than three hours are more likely to attract a modal shift from aviation. We have heard that, with improvement of the existing west coast line, the current journey time of a little over four hours could be reduced to three hours and 45 minutes. If that was achieved, as it might be, would there not be concern among users of suburban rail routes and stations around Scotland about the commitment of a substantial amount of money—people have suggested £20 billion or £30 billion—and of a substantial amount of time in order to shave 45 minutes off the route to London, while other services might be crying out for such an investment?

You are right to identify that tension. I would add to that the need to ensure that we have good facilities for freight services. By getting more freight on to our railways, we can make substantial changes to the carbon agenda. Although we need to try to persuade people to make fewer journeys in certain respects, we do not necessarily have to reduce the amount of freight; we have to ensure that it moves in a way that is more efficient and effective. The railway is the way to do that.

I referred earlier to my routine meeting yesterday with Iain Coucher, the chief executive of Network Rail. Network Rail's early thoughts are that, in order to deliver, we need to build a different and separate railway, rather than improving the current railway system, because there would otherwise be operational conflicts between suburban needs—and, for that matter, goods traffic needs—and the needs of a high-speed network.

In financial terms, you are right that there is a tension relating to whether making investments in high-speed rail will come at the cost of making investments in the commute, opening new stations and so on. That fundamental discussion needs to be held. High-speed rail is probably still a little further up the Scottish agenda than it is in England and Wales, but we will meet Lord Adonis and find out what he thinks.

It is worth making the general point that, as far as funding is concerned, Network Rail is seeking to be less dependent on Government and more dependent on the market. Although that will allow it to get the capital needed for investments, it still very much falls to Government to provide—through support for the rail operating companies and hence payments to meet track access charges—the revenue that eventually repays that capital investment. Such an approach does not get the issue entirely out of the in-tray of whatever Government might be power, but it might show that Network Rail has the financial capacity to make these major investments which, I should add, will happen over quite a long period of time.

The minister has already made much mention of discussions with Network Rail. Have the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland had any more formal involvement with Network Rail's new lines programme?

I have been attending meetings of the new lines study group on behalf of Transport Scotland. Only a couple of meetings have taken place and Network Rail is still at a very early stage of the process, but we are engaging in it.

Earlier, the committee examined the minister and his officials about the strategic transport projects review. Was any consideration given to high-speed rail development in that process?

For me, the issue is ultra vires as it concerns cross-border services. However, we are starting to engage in parallel.

Because of the difference of priorities up to now, the subject has not received a particularly warm welcome. However, now that we have reached the end of consideration of the strategic transport projects review, the climate has changed materially. I hope that that will be sustained.

I should remind the minister that he has responsibility over some cross-border services—the ScotRail sleepers, for example.

Okay.

Moving on, I will not read out the original question that we were given, because it has been drawn to my attention that high-speed rail is referred to in the new version of the national planning framework. Indeed, it is worth highlighting paragraph 121 of that document, which mentions the possibility of making a rail journey from Inverness to Marseille in the course of a day—now there is a suggestion for a committee visit; of course, we should take our sandwiches. However, the last sentence of paragraph 121 says:

"The Scottish Government will pursue discussions with the UK Government on the development of a high-speed rail link to reduce journey times between Central Scotland and London to under 3 hours and provide direct rail services to the Continent."

In our discussions in the previous item, it was a moot point whether certain things had been made explicit in the new version of the national planning framework. However, I am very encouraged to find this reference to high-speed rail. Presumably, you are at one with the committee in genuinely trying to find ways to push forward this concept.

Very much so. In fact, I believe that our diary shows that, over the coming months, either I or my officials will speak on this subject at two or three conferences.

We have raised the issue in a series of different forums. For example, I mentioned it at this year's annual dinner of the Rail Freight Group in London; I have raised it with Deutsche Bahn which, as the owner of English Welsh & Scottish Railway and Chiltern Railways, is interested in the matter; and I have also spoken to the all-party parliamentary rail group at Westminster. There has been a series of engagements on this subject and our assessment of the committee's work is that we see things pretty much as the committee appears to. It is not for me to anticipate the committee's conclusions, but I would be somewhat surprised if you do not come out with a ringing endorsement of the idea that high-speed rail should form part of our way forward. If that was the case, the Government would be very pleased and would draw on the committee's useful work.

The minister anticipated my supplementary question. After today's evidence session, the committee will turn its attention to the contents of its report. Could the committee's work add value and dovetail effectively with the direction in which, according to the national planning framework, the Government appears to be going?

I am not privy to what the committee is going to put into its report, but I would be surprised if it does not add value. I repeat what I said in my conversation with Andrew Adonis, who is also taking a close interest in the committee's work. The committee's report will not simply inform the Administration in Edinburgh; there is every chance that it will inform the Westminster Administration. It is not for me to guide the committee in any way, but I hope that, when you are drawing up your report, you will be conscious of the widespread interest that goes beyond this Parliament and Government.

I will pursue the idea that we need to be a little bit more specific with our proposals. Should the development of high-speed rail feature in the next Scottish high-level output specification?

We have already started work on the next HLOS for the strategic control period from 2014 to 2019. The strategic transport projects review will feed into that.

We should certainly think about high-speed rail. The HLOS is essentially about funding. I suspect—although it is not for me to overanticipate at this stage—that, in the period to 2019, we will still be some way short of making the substantial capital investments that will materially influence the HLOS. I would dearly love it to be otherwise, by the way, but substantial planning issues will be associated with it. We would be entirely content if there was something about high-speed rail in the HLOS.

Of course, we contribute to the HLOS, as does the DFT. Last time round, our contribution contained three tiers of work to identify flexibility and give us room for manoeuvre, or a pot of money, if you like, that we could spend in smaller amounts as it became available. Of course, when we were working on the HLOS that went out last year, we were looking at the period until 2014. I would welcome it if planning for high-speed rail could be brought forward to enable capital sums to be spent.

Improvements in the south of England would benefit us, but improvements in Scotland would be even better. I hope that there is a shared sense of purpose between the Westminster and Scottish Administrations. We can look across the Irish Sea to see the successful working partnership to improve the railway between Belfast and Dublin, although that is not a high-speed railway. We should be able to achieve the same sense of common purpose.

Is there any possibility of putting the high-speed railway line in the Scottish Government's list of priorities for transport investment?

The bottom line is that we need to have a plan, even if it is a high-level plan. Will the line be on the east or west coast? Will it stop at Leeds, as certain people have suggested?

On the way south?

Indeed, on the way south.

That is exactly the point. I genuinely believe that we have a range of practical issues to sort out. Is high-speed rail to be an improvement of existing lines, or a new line? That fundamental issue must be sorted out quite early in the process. At this stage, I am not sufficiently well informed to have a view; I may have a view instinctively, but I certainly do not have a reasoned answer to the question. However, I can see some of the reasons why Network Rail is steering politicians towards having a new railway. There may be a slight danger of getting ahead of ourselves and making decisions before we have sufficient information to ensure that they are robust enough to take forward. Ultimately, we must always make decisions with imperfect and incomplete information but, at the moment, the amount of information that we have is well short of allowing us to make decisions.

We heard evidence that the cost and disruption of the west coast main line upgrade could not be countenanced on the east coast, and many witnesses strongly recommended building a new line. In the strategic transport review, you refer to improvements to the line between Carstairs and Glasgow that might help that process. You say that a plan is needed, but do you not think that we need to have an idea of what the route should be? The speeding up of the line between Glasgow and Edinburgh will take care of a local issue, but the need to get from Glasgow to the south in a reasonable time, without adding on time by going through Edinburgh, seems to point to a route from a central point between the two termini, possibly at Carstairs. Would it not be useful for us to firm up that plan, if it appears that that is the best way of getting a new railway built?

I would certainly want any high-speed rail link to connect our two major central belt cities to the south, by whatever means. Carstairs is a logical place to do that, in terms of the existing rail network—we certainly need to have a plan.

You mentioned the impact of works on the rail network. One of the challenges that Network Rail faces—it has heard this from the Office of Rail Regulation and others, as well as from me—is to move to true seven-day working that does not involve shutting the railway. If we have two-way signalling on a lot of the rail network, trains can be run on the wrong track. Many other railway authorities in Europe are able to keep lines open through single-line working. There are huge opportunities for Network Rail to change the way in which it does engineering to cause that to happen. In addition, there should be more working at night, where that is consistent with not causing unacceptable nuisance to neighbours. Much of the work that we are talking about is not in urban settings but between cities.

The Office of Rail Regulation has suggested that, in the next control period, Network Rail must achieve a 21 per cent efficiency saving on its present operation by adopting good practice from elsewhere in Europe. Even if it does so, it will still be 30 per cent behind broadly comparable railway networks elsewhere in Europe on efficiency. A range of steps can be taken to enable us to develop new railways or upgrade existing railways in a less disruptive way. That is part of the refrain from this minister and Administration and, increasingly, from the Westminster Administration. We do not see matters differently in that respect.

In Scotland we have a lot of experience of running trains both ways on single tracks, especially on 60 per cent of the line from Glasgow to Inverness and beyond, so we may be able to help Network Rail quite a bit in that regard. However, I want to get a firmer idea of the early development of the Scottish section. Giving us a steer on how to get that in place might help our inquiry considerably because it would at least give us a start.

We are all aware of the example of the two sections missing each other on the American transcontinental railway. We have to be clear that what we propose connects with what eventually emerges on the DFT side of the border. The minister referred earlier to the difference of emphasis and perspective. We must understand that the DFT will look at the issue in a slightly different context. It will look at a network that suits the whole of England, whereas we will naturally concentrate on the connection south. It would be good to have certainty, but we cannot reach it in isolation from the DFT.

It would be fine if, similar to the driving in of the golden spike in the Rockies in Canada, the golden spike was driven in at Craigellachie on Speyside, which would mean a slightly extended but nevertheless welcome high-speed rail service.

The committee has heard a lot of evidence that the development of a high-speed rail network would bring significant benefit to businesses in Scotland. You touched on that in your first answer. Would you elaborate on what you think the economic benefits to Scotland would be?

Work that we have done between Edinburgh and Glasgow shows that reducing journey time has a significant economic value. We think that shaving a minute off the Edinburgh to Glasgow route gives an economic benefit of £60 million. That is a high-density route and there are agglomeration benefits from making Glasgow and Edinburgh essentially one community for economic and travel purposes. The model is different, of course, for connecting Edinburgh and Glasgow to London. Nonetheless, it seems clear to us, in advance of doing rigorous analysis, that the same kind of benefits will apply for that route.

If we get down to the magic three-hour figure for the journey time to London, we will unambiguously have a surface transport system that fundamentally changes people's decision about whether to fly or go by train. Choosing the train will have a huge carbon benefit, but it also happens to be cheaper and safer for people to travel by train. There is therefore a range of ways in which business can derive economic benefits from a high-speed rail network.

I would argue, as I am sure others in the room would, that one can work in the train environment. One can sit with a laptop computer at a table or have a meeting around it, provided that it is not one that requires privacy. Flying in an aircraft simply does not give us that kind of opportunity. There will therefore be business benefits at that level as well. Moreover, remaining roughly at sea level when travelling by train means that we do not suffer from the mild effects of anoxia or from dehydration, as we can when travelling in an aircraft. One ends the day rather fitter when travelling by train than when travelling by aircraft.

There are comprehensive benefits, then, Mr Stevenson. You touched on the benefits of high-speed rail and of encouraging modal shift to it by getting the timing right. What are your views on the development of high-speed rail as an alternative to airport expansion?

We must protect the ability of airports to expand. However, it is clear that, if we have high-speed rail and a journey time of three hours to London, the rational choice will be to travel by rail. If I remember correctly, it was an Alastair Dalton article in today's or yesterday's Scotsman that made city centre to city centre comparisons for rail and aviation travel to London. It was suggested that the journey time for aviation is three and a quarter to three and a half hours. My personal experience would suggest that it is probably longer than that, but that is what he came up with. It is clear that the advantage will shift fundamentally to high-speed rail, and people will then want to use the railways.

There is also the psychological barrier of pricing to overcome. People think that flying is cheaper than rail, but it is not. If someone is prepared to book the same time ahead for their rail journey as for their air journey, they find that rail is competitive. We must ensure that that remains the case. As rail benefits from economies of scale—as more people use it and there are more trains on the network—we must contain prices and ensure that there is no economic disbenefit to travelling by rail compared with travelling by air. If we do that, I suspect that rail will be the winner.

One of our panels of witnesses focused on the business arguments in favour of high-speed rail, including increased connectivity. In effect, the argument was to have more of everything rather than just an alternative to aviation. I will leave aside pricing, as the business traveller does not always have the option of booking far in advance and may pay hundreds of pounds for a rail ticket if they choose to go first class at short notice, but what is the guarantee that if we invest decades and a substantial amount of money in high-speed rail we will see fewer flights rather than just more of everything?

The convener asks for a guarantee that cannot be given. In business in particular, people respond to a rational analysis of the opportunities and choices. That is part of what we do. As a minister, I seek to make the appropriate travel choices to the extent that I can, recording what I do and bearing in mind the balance between my need to discharge ministerial responsibilities and my climate change duties. People will increasingly do the same.

No rational person would go through the hassle of getting to an airport in one transport mode, perhaps finding somewhere to park, going through security and check-in facilities, stooging around waiting for the plane—with the uncertainties with aircraft schedules, which are dramatically less reliable than train schedules—getting on the plane, being seated for an hour to an hour and a half, and going through the same hassle at the other end, when the alternative is, if they work in the city centre, to walk down to Waverley station, get on a train, perhaps have lunch on the way down, arrive refreshed and walk or get the tube to their destination. It really is a no-brainer. If we take away the current time advantage that aviation has, I do not see how any rational person will do anything other than travel by train, provided that we give them the schedule and the services on the train that they need.

My brain works that way already. Even given the existing services and prices, I far prefer to take the train than go through the rigmarole that you described, but many people disagree. Unless we are willing to squeeze aviation, what is the guarantee that we will have less aviation? Surely the danger is that, as our panel of witnesses from the business community suggested, we will have more of everything—which those witnesses were more than happy with.

Fundamentally, we will squeeze aviation if we provide high-speed rail. Any rational person will make the appropriate decision. For my part—I have done a quick calculation—since becoming a minister I have made 30 times more rail journeys than flights. As people engage and consider the economy and the efficient use of their time, the rational business traveller will use the train.

An individual who is making a choice between two transport modes might well think in that way, but if aviation capacity and rail capacity grow and rail times are reduced, surely there is a danger that there will be increased use of both modes, which would lead not to a carbon saving but to a continued increase in emissions.

I would be surprised if anyone wanted to increase their flying if there were a substantially better transport option that took less time and was more effective—which would be rail. I do not think that senior management in major companies would allow their staff to do anything other than travel by rail if it were the better option—the one that would get the business done more effectively. By the same token, I think that leisure travellers will make use of the railways. There are all sorts of incentives that are working quite satisfactorily. For example, kids travel free at off-peak times if they are with their parents—that is terrific—and I know from personal experience that the over-55s discounts have been extended throughout Scotland. There are huge incentives that people are picking up in huge numbers. The incentive of a three-hour rail journey to the south would very substantially change the transport choices that people make.

There are now very few flights between London and Paris, between Paris and Lyon, and between Paris and Marseilles. Why? Because the TGV has fundamentally changed the travel choices that people make. I would be astonished if we did not see the same modal shift if high-speed rail were expanded in Great Britain.

I will ask one more question in this area before we move on. I am trying to elicit a response to the evidence that we have heard. The witnesses whose objective in supporting high-speed rail is increased business connectivity—not the replacement of one mode with another—were enthusiastic about high-speed rail. The witnesses whose objective is explicitly to take oil out of transport were cooler about, although not hostile to, high-speed rail. Their arguments seemed to be much more evenly balanced. You will recognise that those two objectives might result in different attitudes towards high-speed rail. Which is the more important objective?

Those are both important objectives.

That is an easy answer. Which is the more important?

I will develop my answer, convener, if I may.

Transport is the biggest user of oil by a country mile. It is clear that any new rail network would be powered by electricity. With 60GW of tidal energy sitting off the north coast of Scotland, there are huge opportunities.

The issue that one should consider in connection with high-speed rail is the energy efficiency of a particular implementation. If, for the sake of argument, we went for 400mph trains, which would make the journey in one hour rather than three hours, the energy required to propel a train at that speed would rise dramatically. However, as I understand it, there is a sweet spot in terms of energy consumption at around the speed that is needed to make the journey in three hours. The journey would be speeded up, but not to the point at which we would hit the square law regarding the amount of energy that is required to propel a train. As a train's speed is increased, the energy requirement increases—you will be well aware of that.

I will not make a distinction between the two objectives as I think they are both important. High-speed rail gives us the opportunity to address both, which is one of the key reasons why we should promote it.

Okay. Let us move on.

You mentioned connections with Westminster. Will you confirm that you have had preliminary discussions with Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport minister, and with the shadow secretary of state for Scotland?

Theresa Villiers called on us a couple of months ago. I am pleased by the engagement of a range of political parties at Westminster on the subject that we are considering.

Thank you. What financial commitment is the Scottish Government ready to make towards the development of a UK high-speed rail network?

As I said, the budgets and the responsibilities—with the exception of the sleeper service—are currently matters for the DFT. Like some members of the committee, I would welcome moves to enable us to integrate infrastructure and the operation of the railway system more tightly. Of course, if we got the budgets that went with such an approach, we would be able to take initiatives. Malcolm Reed made the point well: we cannot develop a railway that crosses the boundary between two Administrations without there being co-operation between both Administrations.

We are given a fixed pot of money under the current arrangements—I would change the arrangements, but that is a matter for another discussion—so, in a sense, the issue does not matter because the money must come from that pot, albeit that we expect Network Rail increasingly to raise private money from the market.

If we progress towards a high-speed rail service, what support or direction will the Scottish Government provide to Network Rail to ensure that improvements to Scotland's conventional rail network maximise the benefits of high-speed rail developments for people who live not just in the central belt, but throughout Scotland?

We are particularly interested—even in the current environment—in ensuring that people can get to Edinburgh or Glasgow to catch the first train to London. Timetable changes to services from Perth and elsewhere have enabled people to catch earlier trains.

By the same token, if we had high-speed rail we would want to ensure that people whose journey did not start with the high-speed service could make the transition in a way that would enable them to have a whole business day in London or to get back to Edinburgh for a business afternoon, if that was what they needed. That is a challenge. It is not just about getting new metal on the ground and new trains on the metal.

Does the Scottish Government intend to update "Scotland's Railways", which was a supplement to the national transport strategy, to reflect growing support for high-speed rail development?

Your question takes us back to a previous discussion. As part of the next franchise we will almost certainly want to consult on the content of "Scotland's Railways" and we will expect high-speed services to be mentioned during the consultation.

What type of technology should use the high-speed lines? The committee has received submissions in support of magnetic levitation.

As minister, I am technology blind; the important point is what the technology delivers rather than what the technology is. There have been successful implementations of maglev, but there has also been a drawing back from completion of the maglev network in Shanghai, in China. Advocates of maglev think that through innovative funding they can provide options that might relieve central Government of funding difficulties that might otherwise be encountered.

Although I am technology blind, I am interested in ensuring that the choice of a radically different technology does not create difficulties for interchange. That is the challenge for a range of technologies that are not based on the traditional model of iron wheels on iron rails. We certainly do not discount maglev. Ministers have had several meetings about maglev and we are fully engaged in keeping track of what is going on and of the opportunities.

Will you ensure that trade unions have early and continuous involvement in developing any high-speed rail projects?

I make a point of meeting the trade unions fairly regularly. I most recently met the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the relevant unions to discuss a range of rail industry issues two weeks ago. I expect high-speed rail to form part of discussions in the future. I think that I am correct in saying that, three meetings ago, we briefly discussed high-speed rail, but it was not as high up the agenda south of the border then as it is now, so greater opportunities now exist.

The unions are enthusiastic about anything that will increase opportunities for the railway. Unions and staff have been significant players in ensuring that Scotland's railways have been successful in recent years.

We have received evidence, and we have the paragraph that I quoted from the new national planning framework, about the possibility of not just high-speed rail services from central Scotland to London, but onward rail travel on the high-speed line to the continent. Do any impediments to that exist?

There are some impediments to international rail journeys in Europe. At its behest, I have had discussions with Deutsche Bahn, which is experiencing difficulties moving freight trains from its Daventry depot to Spain, where it has interests. The European rules say clearly that operators of international services should have access through countries, but the practical implementation of that might not be at the level that we want.

Of course, international high-speed rail services operate from London, and we would certainly like to have such services from Scotland. If I remember correctly, international goods trains run from Daventry to Poland and to Germany—perhaps Poland is an aspiration; I do not quite remember. Such traffic is beginning to happen and we encourage it.

The relocation of the high speed 1 terminal, so that it is adjacent to where trains from Scotland arrive in London, at least makes the swap from the traditional train to the high-speed train somewhat simpler today than it was before the new terminal opened. It also brings closer the point at which we could run the service all the way through. However, at the moment if a traveller wants to stay on one train, they must take a high-speed train that stops at London or a traditional train that travels the whole journey. Perhaps sleeper services will offer the first opportunity.

Does through-running to the continent still face security impediments? Some years ago, the UK authorities took the view that domestic and international passengers could not be mixed, although that happens on the continent quite a bit. What is the current operational scene?

I cannot give you an informed answer, but it is clearly possible: one terminal at Manchester airport satisfactorily mixes domestic and international travellers in one departure lounge. The system photographs domestic travellers and compares them with their photographs as they depart. I experienced that a couple of years ago. However, I am not briefed to give an informed answer on whether that would apply to railways and I do not think that my officials have an answer—I am sorry.

I thought that Malcolm Reed was about to try to give one.

Perhaps he is.

I am sorry; I do not have any more up-to-date information, but we can ask our colleagues at the DFT and get an answer for you.

It is a crackerjack question.

It is perhaps unfortunate that we did not manage to get a UK minister to give evidence to the committee, but we have the option of discussing issues in writing after we complete the inquiry.

The upgrade of the west coast main line has been completed at a cost of £9 billion. Are there any lessons to be learned from that process that can be expressed quickly, or would a letter be required?

There will be a range of lessons to be learned. To be blunt about it, most of them will be for Network Rail and its contractors. We are not the ones who did the project. However, I think that the member is asking me whether we can learn things about the limits to what can be achieved and what it is practical to do within certain timescales. We will certainly seek to learn those lessons.

I do not think that there has yet been a post-implementation review, which might produce a document from which we might learn, but I would be surprised if something that informs us is not produced at some stage, whatever it is called. I am not sure that we have any more substantial information with which to write to you at present, Mr McNulty, unless you insist that we go and look.

I suppose that there are two sets of issues: one is about the technical implementation of the project, the other is about framing the intentions of the project and identifying suitable financial frameworks for it. The second is probably the more relevant area to pursue within the Scottish Government. It would certainly be interesting to hear in due course what lessons have been learned in that context.

That is a fair comment. I know that you were absent from the meeting briefly; it might have been while you were out of the room that I made some observations about some things that we are seized of and have been discussing with Network Rail, such as the seven-day railway or 24-hour railway. You might read in the Official Report some things that touch on your question.

Thank you for your time in both of the evidence sessions that we have had with you today. I also thank your officials. You mentioned that a high-speed railway might be a good place to hold meetings. As we are reaching the end of a session of almost three hours, we would be arriving at King's Cross about now. I just ask that you put in a bid for big tables on the trains.

Agenda item 4 is an opportunity for members to consider the evidence that we have heard in our inquiry. We have already agreed to discuss items 4 and 5 in private.

Meeting continued in private until 17:15.