Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 24 Feb 2009

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Official Report 265KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Rural Fuel Prices (PE1181)

We move on to agenda item 2. Members will have a copy of the paper; are there any comments?

There is an impasse here. Although it seems that the Scottish Government will go on asking, the UK Government is not going to address the substance of the petitioner's interests. The issue of unfair fuel prices will not go away.

I wonder whether we might take the petition forward in other ways, in light of our concerns about climate change and given that transport is one of our responsibilities and that there are ways in which transport being made more carbon friendly could reduce the costs for people in rural areas. I would like us to give a response—although not right now—that says how people who have to travel greater distances can be helped in future. The petitioner is saying that people in the Western Isles have a problem, but the same is true in much of rural Scotland, and the more far flung they are, the more people complain about these things. Rather than just say that we cannot help, can the committee do something to take the petition forward?

You are talking about something within our remit rather than that of Westminster.

Yes.

I have considerable sympathy for the problem that the petition highlights, and for that reason alone I would like the committee to do all it can, within its remit, to progress the petition.

There are weaknesses in the ideas that the petitioner has proposed, and they perhaps extend beyond our remit. For example, I am concerned about demands that fuel prices should achieve parity with mainland city prices. That is perhaps unachievable and undesirable in a two-market economy that is important to the success of all Scotland, including its peripheral areas. However, fuel prices in peripheral areas and the islands are sometimes set on an exploitative basis. For that reason, we could consider regulatory alternatives that ensure that pricing is competitive, even when limited access to fuel makes that difficult.

The Scottish Government has made representations to the UK Government about the issues, and we have seen the exchange of correspondence. If we look at the things that are within the committee's remit, two issues come to mind. One is to do with the definition of island communities as opposed to rural communities. One thing that defines an island community is that it is reached by ferries, although there are some peninsular ferry journeys. We could ask the Scottish Government to examine the ways in which fuel is conveyed to the islands and to consider island-specific pricing, in order to establish whether something can be done. That is an additional issue in how the companies set prices, particularly for islands.

Dialogue could perhaps take place between the Scottish Government and the major oil companies. It is not just a question of prices, as there are issues of fuel availability in some locations and the sustainability of petrol stations in some rural communities and islands in particular. There is scope for us to raise those issues with the Scottish Government and to report back to the petitioner on what is happening.

The petitioner's case has some merits, and it is interesting that Alistair Darling did not reject the argument in principle. He entered into a dialogue in correspondence with John Swinney and said that he did not see a practical way to meet the aspirations. I can therefore see why the Scottish Government wants to run with the issue.

For all I know, there might be scope for debating the matter in the chamber. I am not a great one for replicating the big punch-ups that we have in the chamber in this or any other committee, and this committee has a lot on its plate just now. Having read the report from the clerks, I think that the clerk to the Public Petitions Committee should have pointed out that, strictly speaking, the matter is reserved.

Somebody has decided to bat the issue to this committee because we have the word transport in our title. It is fine if people want to come up with a practical suggestion on where else we could bat the issue to, as we have a lot of other stuff to pursue. John Swinney has plenty of opportunities to pursue the argument, which—I repeat—has some merit, but I do not want to get involved in the substance. I would like to get my life back once we get through the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill and everything else that we are supposed to be doing.

I support the concern at the heart of the petition, which, as everyone else has said, involves the exorbitant fuel costs in remote areas and the islands in particular. We are right to consider the petition to establish whether there is a way through the issue.

I am disappointed at the inflexibility from the Treasury. Although Charlie Gordon has said that the Treasury has not completely ruled out the argument, it seems to be putting a lot of barriers in the way of moving forward. We need to do something and consider the issue further.

Some of the responses—for example, that the Scottish Government intends to meet with representatives of Scottish Fuels—tie in with Des McNulty's suggestion. Perhaps we can have an advocacy role with Westminster and the Treasury, saying that we have heard the argument and are happy for the Scottish Government to raise it whenever it has the opportunity but that we ask the Treasury to examine the matter seriously. Alistair Darling did not close the door, so perhaps he can take a little time out and think about how he might help the far-flung parts of the United Kingdom.

I do not want to be seen to be unsympathetic to rural areas other than islands, but I think that islands are a separate case. Some of the arguments that the Treasury has made about rural areas other than islands would not necessarily apply to islands. We could offer a different argument by narrowing the issue—which is a bit blurred in the way that it is stated in the petition—to focus on the specific issues that islands face.

I offer that as a suggestion alongside my other two suggestions: that we ask the Scottish Government to speak to the oil companies and that we look at the arrangements for conveying fuel to islands to establish if any mitigating measures can be taken in that context.

There has been quite a discussion on the issue. Might it be worth writing to the minister so that he can consider issues that the Scottish Government can deal with? I am reluctant to take on board an argument with Westminster—that is not our job or in our remit—but there are issues that are relevant to the folk whom we represent. Should we write to the minister?

Concerning the conveyance of fuels to islands?

Yes—on matters that the minister can take forward and report back to us on.

I suggest that we write to the minister and ask him to take up the issue of the conveyance of fuel to and the availability of fuel in the islands. If he wants to continue the correspondence with Westminster, there might be some value in specific correspondence about the position of islands as distinct from other rural areas.

We could ask the minister to raise that in his discussions with Westminster, as well as the issue of what can be done in Scotland.

Given Alistair Darling's close knowledge of Scotland, we should ask the minister to address some of the issues that he has raised and build a case to take back to the Treasury rather than get into a wrangle. A genuine dialogue should be developed to make the case. I do not want the issue to be viewed as a stand-off—some effort should be made.

Do members agree with my suggestion?

If you decide not to go with the clerk's view, that is fine—I will not gainsay it—but strictly speaking the clerk is right.