Petition
Railway Infrastructure and Services <br />(Inverness, Thurso and Wick) (PE894)
Item 3 concerns PE894, on the provision of rail services between Inverness, Thurso and Wick. We have received a response from ministers, which has been provided to members. I invite comments.
I draw the committee's attention to the fact that I have written to Transport Scotland on behalf of some constituents in the area and have asked to be kept up to date with any developments.
Thanks for mentioning that to members.
I am pretty sure that I have also written to various people on behalf of constituents in the Highlands and Islands. I am concerned that the minister's argument relies on the "Room for Growth" study, which was published by Highlands and Islands Enterprise. There is now sufficient evidence of disquiet about the curious procedures used by the Halcrow consultants in their production of the poor benefit to cost ratio. I do not know whether there is a predetermined agenda, but when you look at how the documents were drawn up, it shows that the cost benefit ratio of only one option out of the three that could have been considered was looked at.
The first option was to retain the Lairg loop intact and cut across at Dornoch. The second option was to retain only the Tain to Lairg section of the Lairg loop and cut across at Dornoch. The third option was to have none of the Lairg loop served by train and cut across at Dornoch. The cost benefit ratio was calculated only on option 1. It is clear that if one tries to make a shorter route to the north, far fewer people on the loop section will be able to use the train. The question is, why was only one option considered? It has been commented on before, but the Highlands and Islands transport partnership has somehow accepted that strange approach.
It is a fact that the Halcrow study took no account of the fuller social and socioeconomic benefits from changes to rail services of this kind, such as reducing peripherality to the north mainland and Orkney, or making a positive contribution to the Highland Caithness economy as Dounreay is run down. Only in the past couple of years have such potential benefits come into focus.
Because the minister's remarks were based on the "Room for Growth" study, they do not give an up-to-date picture of what people are thinking. I suggest that there is good reason to think that if a proper cost benefit analysis were made, the cost benefit ratio could be increased to 1 or above. The Borders railway ratio is 1.21; the Lairg loop ratio is noted as being 0.2. It is important that we seek information about achieving that. It is obvious that the reason why the Caithness community and others put money into the MVA Consultancy study was to try to do some of that work. That study has not been taken on board by the minister, HITRANS or HIE because of their previous stance and the evidence already gathered.
It is interesting to compare the Lairg loop with other routes, to which notional figures were attached when they reopened. For example, trains on the Edinburgh to Bathgate line, which was reopened in 1986, carry four times as many passengers as the estimate. With work to reopen the Bathgate to Airdrie missing link continuing, there will be yet more passengers. Although previous estimates suggested that use of an adjacent rail line would be negligible, Prestwick international airport rail station now carries more than 30 per cent of all surface arrivals and departures to and from the airport, and there are other examples like that.
We are talking about a benefit to cost ratio for an option that does not meet the requirements of the line today. I suggest that we cannot really accept what the minister says in his letter as being the final word. We should make further representation to him based on the arguments that I have been trying to draw out about different options reaching potentially different outcomes, and on the evidence from the reopening of other rail lines, the use of which has been far greater than was estimated at the time of their production.
I have two concerns. First, if we make further representation to the minister, we will get the same response. It seems to me that the Government has made a decision and the way in which we question that decision must get to the core of how cost benefit ratios are calculated in general. My second concern is about whether this is a general or a specific question. As an individual member and a party representative, I have views on different projects around the country—that will not be news to members—and on whether the cost benefit ratios include factors such as social harm, as well as social benefits, and the financial and economic costs of climate change in the long term.
At some point in our future work programme, we should consider the general issue of cost benefit ratios and how such calculations are made. There would be space within that to consider some specific examples, but I would be a bit concerned about considering this specific example in isolation rather than in the wider context of how the costs and benefits of transport projects are calculated throughout the country.
Are there any other views?
I am happy to support Rob Gibson's suggestion that we ask the minister to re-examine the issue in the light of the points that he made.
I agree. We need to ask the minister to look at the issue again. Rob Gibson has raised some very interesting issues and we should have them addressed.
I do not want to divide the committee between what Rob Gibson and the convener have just said, although what the convener has just said might be of more general use to the committee in its future work.
Rob Gibson mentioned the original cost benefit ratio for the Borders rail link, but Transport Scotland looked at the project again because it is taking over as the promoter of the link. It found some errors in the original calculation and the cost has been revised upwards. That raised some interesting issues about methodology and the consistency of benefit to cost ratios. I wonder what the outcome would be if Transport Scotland were to re-examine all the options that Rob Gibson mentioned.
Although I am sympathetic to Rob Gibson's argument, I take the convener's point that we are likely to receive a rebuff from the minister and to be told that he has already answered us and is giving us the same answer. If we make an approach that is linked to the general issue of benefit to cost ratios, we will still have an opportunity for Rob Gibson's points to be pressed home, but within a wider context that might stand us in good stead for the future. Does that make sense?
That would give us more opportunity to control the process by which we engage with the Government rather than our sending a letter, getting a response, sending another letter and getting another response. We could undertake some work on how the calculations are made, whether they are robust and whether the committee should just accept them when ministers come and explain their decisions. On occasion, the committee has noted such calculations and has not questioned them and it would seem strange to take a very different attitude to a specific example. We should work out what is going on with the general approach.
The two are not mutually exclusive. If specific concerns are being raised about this, we can perhaps raise them with the minister. I understand what you are saying about the possibility of our getting the same response back, but if there are detailed points that we want to raise on the issue, it is important that they are raised. Because it is a public petition, I feel that we should take the matter as far as we can. You raise an interesting point about the process in general, which it might be useful for us to come back to, but I do not see why that would preclude our writing another letter to the minister.
In this instance, it would be bad for it to be inferred that the Halcrow study that was completed in 2006 is the last word on the subject. I have raised enough evidence just now to suggest that other options could be considered. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask the minister to do that. He could tell us that he had considered all the other options, and his opinion would not be based on the Halcrow report, which did not look at them. There is enough doubt in this particular case for us to consider some of the other options and ask the minister whether it would be possible to pursue any of them.
I agree that the way in which the cost benefit ratio is worked out is pretty important. We know that appraisals under the Scottish transport appraisal guidance do not include environmental issues, and we know that the way in which the cost benefit ratio is worked out needs to be altered to meet the requirements of the climate change era. We are dealing with a railway that requires some of that to be taken into account, especially given the distance that is covered.
Finally, the minister's letter says that he is considering
"improving journey times and connections, reducing emissions and improving quality, accessibility and affordability."
It is utterly contradictory for him to say that the Halcrow study and the "Room for Growth" report are the last word, yet he is doing those things—because he ain't.
I found it interesting that those issues, which were identified in the transport strategy, have been given strong emphasis in the minister's letter but less emphasis in evidence that has been given to us by the minister on other issues. However, that is perhaps not a matter for here.
There seems to be a clear willingness to keep the petition open. If members have specific points to be included in one further letter to the minister, they should communicate with the clerks in the next few days to ensure that whatever points we want to put to the minister are captured. The minister should have the opportunity to take account of all the points that we want to raise with him. Whatever reply we get from him, any future consideration of the matter might have to be pursued face to face with the minister, through questions in the chamber or via other routes, depending on what sort of response we get. Is that acceptable?
Members indicated agreement.
I put on record my thanks to all the Parliament staff who dealt with the problems with the previous committee room. It is appreciated that people managed to get the matter sorted out quickly. Our next meeting is on Tuesday 15 April—we will have a bit of a break until after the recess.
Meeting closed at 16:19.