Petitions
Road Equivalent Tariff (PE421)
Members will recall that petition PE421, from Alasdair Nicholson, was originally scheduled for consideration, along with some other petitions, at a previous meeting of the committee. However, because that meeting overran considerably, we delayed consideration of those petitions.
PE421 calls on the Scottish Parliament to promote and trial a road equivalent tariff for ferry services between the Western Isles and the mainland. Road equivalent tariff is a method of price setting that relates the fare charged for ferry transport to the cost of driving the equivalent road distance.
The petition has already been brought to the attention of Maureen Macmillan and Des McNulty, the appointed committee reporters on Highlands and Islands ferry services. Before seeking other members' views, I offer the reporters an opportunity to comment on the petition and on the recommendation that is made in paper TE/02/17/7.
It is appropriate that the petition be discussed in the light of the draft service specification when that is published. Des McNulty and I—and the committee—will consider all the proposals for fare structures. That would be the appropriate place to deal with the matter. A road equivalent tariff has been suggested for a long time. It is not a new suggestion; it comes up often. We have a good chance to consider it properly.
The draft service specification will drive us into considering ferry issues. Arguably, the road equivalent tariff is a different principle to the one that generally applies to the way in which ferry tariffs are set. We could ask the various community organisations about the road equivalent tariff as part of that process. It might also be interesting to speak to the various public authorities about the operational issues that are associated with moving down that route.
We should also ask them about the financial issues, as there would be financial implications.
We will presumably be in a position to report back on the matter following the consultation.
I have every sympathy with anybody who wants to reduce the cost of travelling by ferry. Apart from anything else, it is a relatively environmentally benign form of transport. However, I have a problem with the idea of a road equivalent tariff. I would prefer a rail equivalent tariff, not only because travel by rail is more environmentally acceptable, but because the real costs of road transport are considerably greater than the simple cost of putting a gallon of petrol in the back of a car. The real costs are hugely greater than that. That is the danger of accepting a road equivalent tariff as a way of calculating ferry fares. I would be happy to use rail equivalents as a guideline for setting ferry fares, but I would be very unhappy with a road equivalent tariff because of the environmental and real cost implications.
What do we mean by a road equivalent tariff? Would it include the cost of providing the road and all the ancillary costs, such as depreciation of cars—would it be a real road equivalent tariff? My other point is the general one that we do not calculate fares for other forms of public transport on the basis of a comparison with what it costs to drive between two places.
I am pleased that the reporters think that they should consider a road equivalent tariff and that it should be considered seriously. I note that the Executive response is basically, "RET? No thanks." I note also that CalMac considered RET as part of its fares review. We must satisfy ourselves that that evidence is being properly weighed in the balance. I look forward to the reporters doing that.
I suggest to the reporters that it may be worth speaking to Professor Neil Kay of the University of Strathclyde, who does a lot of academic work on the subject of ferries. I am sure that you have spoken to him already in other contexts, but the issue may be another one worth exploring with him.
I am sure that the reporters would be more than happy to talk to Professor Kay. He has sent us several items of information in the course of our work on the issue, and I am sure that he has done the same for the reporters.
I have two brief points. When Maureen Macmillan and I visited Orkney earlier this year, we talked to people about NorthLink Ferries. The Finance Committee will go to Orkney tomorrow and I have a meeting with representatives of NorthLink Ferries. Further information will be available about that.
I say to Robin Harper that all kinds of radical options should be considered in drawing up the service specification. Attention should be given to a number of environmental options and to the road equivalent tariff or other viable alternatives. We have only one chance to get the matter right. It is important that we do not simply replicate existing unsatisfactory systems.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I think that the equivalent tariff should be based on a set of environmental criteria for what is the best method of transporting people from one place to another. That would be to the advantage of sea travel.
Do members agree to the recommendation in the paper and to refer the matter to the reporters for consideration?
Members indicated agreement.
Telecommunications Developments (Planning) (PE425)
The next petition is PE425, from Anne-Marie Glashan, on the siting of mobile phone masts. At this stage, we are not being asked to deal with the petition, but to consider whether the committee is content with the Executive's reaction to the recommendations of our "Report on Proposals to Introduce New Planning Procedures for Telecommunications Developments". The Executive introduced a new NPPG, which responded to a number of points in the committee's report. The Public Petitions Committee wants to know only how content we are with the action that the Executive has taken.
I understand that we must give only our views on the Executive's response to our report, but I want to highlight two items in the Executive's letter to the Public Petitions Committee on the matter. I think that members will not be entirely satisfied with them.
Recommendation 21 of our report stated:
"local authorities should establish a hierarchy of preferred locations"
for mobile phone masts, but the Executive's letter states that the committee did not recommend exclusion zones. That is playing with words. The committee was not entirely happy—at least I was not—with NPPG 19, given our recommendation 21.
I also want to mention the part about scientific research in the Executive's response to the Public Petitions Committee. All that it contains is a one-paragraph answer laying out the research and the dates. Both the committees must ask why the research is taking so long. The initial invitation to submit research proposals was not made until nine months after the Stewart report and 11 months after the committee's report, which recommended that research had to be done.
Why did it take nine months to put out the call for research? Twenty-six full proposals were requested. That was nearly a year ago. What is happening? What is the status of the research? We are 18 months down the line. Is the research being conducted yet? Why is it taking so long?
We were not particularly happy with the Executive's initial response to our report. I have never been happy with the idea that planning permission was not required for all masts, whatever their height or location.
Three issues that arise from the implementation of the Executive's approach strike me as worthy of further investigation. First, how far have the Executive and local authorities gone in preparing planning guidance? Is that being implemented consistently throughout Scotland? Secondly, is any updated information available on scientific research that has been produced since we conducted the inquiry and since the Executive reached its view? Does an updating process exist whereby the Executive relays appropriate scientific advice to the planning agencies that must make the decisions?
Thirdly, it was central to our initial recommendations that authorities should engage in planning forums with operators, with a view to rationalising masts and co-ordinating the roll-out of masts. My gut feeling is that that has not happened. Individual operators continue to make individual applications to planning authorities, which make one-off decisions. We argued for a more co-ordinated approach. That issue would be worth consideration. I am not sure whether the petition is the vehicle for doing that. We might want to examine the issue as part of post-legislative scrutiny, which we should consider seriously.
The Executive went a long way towards addressing the recommendations in our report. The introduction of planning procedures for most masts was to be welcomed, although, from the committee's point of view, adoption of all our recommendations would have been preferable.
I am entirely comfortable with our encouraging the updating of the research position. On health issues, it is important to note one conclusion of the Stewart report, which is mentioned in the Executive's response, that
"the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines."
We should be cognisant of that. I am unaware of more recent research that contradicts that.
Some members' comments concern the recommendations that the Executive did not implement. It would be fair to draw them to the attention of the Public Petitions Committee. I agree with Des McNulty's view that, at some stage, the committee should consider post-legislative scrutiny, how the guidelines have worked and whether they need to be improved. I am not convinced that we have sufficient evidence from local authorities and others to gauge that adequately yet. That is for further down the road.
I draw to the Public Petitions Committee's attention the introduction to our report, which said:
"Based on the evidence received the Committee considers that there is reasonable doubt about the health risks and recommends that health should be viewed as a material planning consideration and a precautionary approach should be adopted".
It is important that the petitioner understands that that was the view in our report, which backs up the need for further timeous research.
I suppose the best way for us to deal with this would be to correspond with the Public Petitions Committee and draw its attention to the extracts from today's Official Report. Members of the Public Petitions Committee will then be able to see our views that members have expressed about the petition and that can inform their decision. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Transport Infrastructure (Aberdeen) (PE357)
The final petition is from Aberdeen City Council, on investment in transport infrastructure. I do not feel the need to make any introductory remarks given that we have dealt with the issue and taken evidence on a number of occasions. I am sure that all members are aware of the issues.
I welcome Brian Adam MSP to the committee. He is here to address the petition. I have received an e-mail from Elaine Thomson MSP, expressing her apologies for not attending the meeting because of her travel arrangements for the meeting of the Finance Committee in Orkney. However, Elaine asked me to make a brief statement on her behalf, which I am happy to read out because it is only two sentences. In response to the petition, she wants the committee to consider her view that she wants the committee to support
"the urgent need to progress the Aberdeen Modern Transport Strategy as proposed by NESTRANS and that full support should be given to completing the transport studies currently in progress as soon as possible."
She goes on to say that she welcomes
"the recognition from the Scottish Executive of the need to tackle congestion in Aberdeen as one of Scotland's top 10 transport priorities."
She urges that those priorities be ranked, and mentions
"the need to improve Aberdeen's transport to be given urgent consideration during the discussions around the Spending Review".
I have put that on the record, as she asked me to.
We have taken a considerable amount of evidence so I ask members to indicate how they believe the committee should address the petition and bring the issue to a conclusion with any recommendations for action. Do any members want to contribute?
Everyone seems to be keeping their powder dry and waiting to see what everyone else says.
The way forward is to go through the north-east Scotland transport partnership's six key requests. By and large, the committee would endorse them all. We might write back to the petitioner and say that.
We acknowledge the transport problems of Aberdeen and the north-east and the need for those to be addressed in the national economic interest. We also recognise the need for upgrading of the strategic road network in the north-east and the Executive's responsibility for this. By its actions, the Executive has demonstrated that it accepts responsibility.
I do not know whether we want to undertake a specific review of the public transport and integrated transport funds to include measures that contribute to modal shift, on top of the review that we undertook in our consideration of the budget. My view is that the committee would be quite happy to indicate its support for the regional transport strategy and the fact that it was done in a constructive and integrated way that involved all the stakeholders. We have called on the Executive to provide significantly increased funding for transport in Scotland. We could therefore endorse all six key issues that the petitioners ask us to endorse.
I echo what Nora Radcliffe said about the six recommendations. I do not see any particular problem in endorsing what has been asked for. I would like to highlight two or three of those points.
The first recommendation that NESTRANS has made to the committee is to recognise that solving the transport problems of Aberdeen and the north-east is in the national economic interest. It is not a local problem; it is a national problem. That is important.
NESTRANS seeks the Executive's acceptance of responsibility for the strategic road network for the north-east. The committee could recommend, or press the Executive to accept, that a new road would become the trunk route.
For those who are not all that familiar with the history of the trunk routes in the area, in late 1996 the ring road in Aberdeen—Anderson Drive, South Anderson Drive and North Anderson Drive—became the trunk route. I hope that Mr Scott will forgive me for saying this, but it was almost one of the Tories' death throes to stop the building of the western peripheral route, which changed the trunk route to the ring road. That road has never been suitable as a trunk route, because it goes through areas of housing and has 17 crossings. That is not the sort of thing that we want for trunk routes. The ring road became the trunk route only in 1996, and I think that the designation of the western peripheral route as a trunk route would be a useful marker.
I am not so sure that the wording of NESTRANS's request (c) is quite right. The steps that have been taken so far have concerned modal shift, which that request involves. They have comprised bus lanes, park-and-ride schemes, cycle tracks and improvements for pedestrians. Some money has been spent on those, which I am willing to acknowledge. Not everybody in the north-east has said that the NESTRANS's request is the priority, but some moneys have been made available.
The moneys that have been available for delivering the changes in rail and road have, until now, largely been for studies—I am concerned about the amount of money that has been spent on studies. Some of my colleagues suggest that at least £12 million has been spent on studies. We have reached the point at which we need action on the results of those studies.
I note from the Executive's latest pronouncements on its plans for Scotland that the western peripheral route is not mentioned as one of the missing links. It has not yet accepted the fact that there is a need for that route as a key element of the modern transport system. I find that disappointing.
As for a response to the petitioner, we should endorse the petition and highlight the committee's feeling that that the peripheral route should be the trunk route. It would be useful to draw that to the minister's attention.
We should commend the work of NESTRANS in trying to develop a regional transport strategy for Aberdeen. I regard its work as a good model for other areas of Scotland to follow, because it draws together the various interests and tries to work through a specific solution.
I point out that the strategy is for Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
Sorry. Would it be safe to say "the north-east"?
Yes. The strategy covers not just the city of Aberdeen.
The committee must be careful not to be seen to state that the city is the most important area for investment relative to other areas. To be blunt, we do not get all the information from everywhere. We have a good case in Aberdeen with regard to—
And the north-east.
Yes—the case of Aberdeen and the north-east demonstrates what can be done. We should be entirely consistent in our arguments. As recently as last week, we discussed the budget and argued that, ultimately, the political decisions about the allocation of resources need to be driven by systematic expert analysis through the Scottish transport appraisal guidance—STAG—system. That analysis should inform the decision-making process. It is not necessarily that the numbers decide—ultimately, the politicians decide—but the numbers have to be transparent. That is the basis on which we have to make decisions.
The other point that I wish to highlight from the work that we have done is our concern about the clarity of much of the debate on congestion management. In our work, we saw a shift from congestion management towards traffic reduction, but we were not clear whether the Executive was clear that it could achieve the aims that it set itself, in terms of its approaches and the policy instruments that it was using. That is a general issue throughout Scotland.
I am not an expert on congestion management in Aberdeen—on which, I accept, a lot of work has been done—but that does not mean that the committee can endorse the entire bid for £275 million and say "That's just great" without examining the bid in terms of delivery, priorities and whether it meets national as well as regional criteria. All we can do is say, "This case has been brought to us. Good arguments are associated with what has been proposed. We would like the case to be put through evidence-based systems to ensure that the criteria are properly met, and that the basis of the proposal is sound." We can let ministers deal with the situation in that context.
To be honest, Aberdeen City Council cannot ask for more than that from the committee. The committee can do only what is consistent with the approach that it has recommended should be applied generally. It is important to put what Aberdeen City Council says in that context, and to say that the matter should be dealt with in that way.
I can see that some people—
To be fair, on that point—
Excuse me, Brian.
That is all that the petitioners are asking for.
Brian, please keep in order. A number of members wish to speak. I will give you another opportunity to come in, but please wait until you are given the opportunity to speak.
I hope that I am not expressing a minority view, but the M74 extension seems to be going ahead without sufficient research to justify it. I would be unhappy if the necessary research, in particular research on modal shift, was not completed before going ahead with any road construction in the north-east. It is important that the solutions to the traffic problems of the north-east should be set within the overall framework of their being acceptable environmentally and socially, as well as economically. That is vital.
I disagree with Des McNulty's observation that the Executive is moving towards traffic reduction, because that is exactly what the Executive did not say. The Executive's aim is to control traffic growth. I am not particularly happy with that, but even if we control the growth in traffic, any policy for the north-east has to be seen in that context. I am from Aberdeen; I am very fond of it and I would like the problem to be solved, but it must be solved in context.
I, too, want the problem to be solved, and that has been the consistent position of the Scottish Conservatives since the Scottish Parliament came into being. Like Des McNulty, I would like proposals to be STAG appraised. As a committee, we cannot just provide a blank cheque, or say that the proposal is necessarily the best option. It might be, but it must be evaluated properly.
I am sorry, but I take exception to Brian Adam's remarks about Conservative transport policy. The comments were gratuitous, and that is not the way in which the committee normally functions. I leave him with a question; what effect has SNP policy had on road traffic policy in Scotland?
I wish to make a personal comment, but later I will bring in members who have spoken before and wish to come in again. I agree with some of the comments that Des McNulty, Robin Harper and John Scott made. We need to ensure that the proposals are STAG appraised. One of the recommendations that the committee made last week in its budget report was that the Executive should STAG appraise robustly and that it cost every part of the transport delivery report. It should then prioritise on the basis of informed judgment. It would be correct of the committee to remain consistent with the report that we approved just last week. That should form part of our response to the consideration.
Robin Harper's point that we should await the completion of the multimodal study is also appropriate and should form part of our response. Building on what Des McNulty said, I think that we should commend NESTRANS for the work that it has carried out. It has put forward a persuasive case on transport issues in the north-east. We should also note that the Executive has acknowledged some of the transport problems in the north-east with the reference in the transport delivery report.
We should build from those comments a response that commends NESTRANS for the development of the strategy. I do not think that we should necessarily endorse every single part of it, because that would be inappropriate, given our report last week. We should ensure that we await the outcome of the multimodal study and ask for the STAG appraisal to be completed robustly, but we should acknowledge that the Executive needs to address urgently the issue of transport in the north-east over the coming years, for the economic, social and environmental reasons that we discussed. The way forward for the committee is to base our response to the petition, including a letter to the Executive, on those points.
Before I bring in members who have spoken already, do any members who have not spoken on it want to come in?
I just want to emphasise that infrastructure in the north-east should be considered in a national context. The roads are not local any more than is the M74.
Did you say that the M74 is a local piece of road?
No, I said that the infrastructure in Aberdeen is not local infrastructure any more than the M74 is local infrastructure. We have to see Aberdeen's infrastructure as part of the national road network.
I want to answer some of the remarks that were made. Even if we endorse all the six key requests that the petitioners have made, we are in no way saying that action should be taken other than in the context of overall priorities. The petition does not ask to be treated as a special case; it asks us to acknowledge the problems.
We have not picked up on request (c), which asks that the committee
"undertakes a review of the Public Transport and Integrated Transport Funds to include measures which contribute to modal shift".
I do not know whether the committee wants to consider doing that; perhaps we do not want to consider it as a particular piece of work. I see no reason why the committee should not endorse all the other key requests and give a particular answer to that point.
I acknowledge the fact that I made a party-political point earlier, but I also acknowledge that the Conservatives, since the setting up of the Scottish Parliament, have supported consistently the general scheme for the north-east and I believe that that support is welcome in all parts.
Many of the aspects of dealing with multimodal arrangements and modal shift have been set in place already. I welcome the fact that the cross-rail element, which is important, is back on the rails again, following the difficulties with Railtrack. I want to ensure that the point that I made earlier and which Maureen Macmillan endorsed, that the problem is a national rather than local problem, is emphasised in any letter to the minister and the petitioners. I appeal to the committee to take on board the point that I made on the trunking of the route, irrespective of any party-political point that I made about it. Flagging that up would address the underlying situation.
I do not think that the petitioners are asking for preferential treatment. They are asking for fair treatment and support for what they are doing. They are not saying that they should be number 1 in the list, although many of us believe that that is the case, given what else is on the go. We would be quite happy to accept any fair and reasonable assessment of the petition. I do not see any problem with endorsing the requests that the petitioners have made.
Perhaps Brian Adam and Nora Radcliffe are pushing the issue a bit further, but the majority of members seem to be more comfortable with commending the petitioners, recommending that the projects be subject to full STAG appraisal and stressing the importance of the modal study before approval is reached. Perhaps Brian Adam and Nora Radcliffe want to nudge us further than that, but I do not think that their view is the committee's general view. Do members agree with that approach?
We recognise that a real issue has been identified in the north-east and we are trying to argue a process through which that issue can be addressed, which is fair enough.
I do not see any inconsistency in what Nora Radcliffe and I said and what the rest of the committee said. Against the background of a national appraisal, we are simply asking that the particular points that we made should appear in the letter and the report. I am not arguing against what has been said, but perhaps the detailed points that Maureen Macmillan, Nora Radcliffe and I made can be included.
I do not think that I would want the committee to endorse the trunking of the road here and now until the proposal has been robustly appraised. There should be such appraisal before the committee gives a view one way or the other, although I do not rule out endorsement. We can certainly incorporate some comments by members into the response.
That is a judgment call for the committee. I do not see a problem in what I have recommended, but I must accept whatever the committee decides.
Do members agree with the overall response that I outlined and that the clerk and I should prepare a response on that basis to the petitioner and the Executive?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank members for attending.
Meeting closed at 13:12.