Petitions
Railway Infrastructure and Services (Inverness, Thurso and Wick) (PE894)
Item 2 on the agenda is consideration of petitions PE894 and PE1035. We have a paper on PE894, which was submitted by the Association of Caithness Community Councils. The petition—a copy of which has been provided for members—calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider investment in infrastructure, rolling stock and timetabling as part of a strategic root-and-branch review of the provision of rail services between Inverness, Thurso and Wick.
We have received a response from the Scottish Government, in which we are asked whether we would like to receive an informal briefing from officials on the Scottish transport appraisal guidance. We can also consider any other action that we wish to take. I invite comments on the petition or on the Government's response.
I declare an interest as a member of the Dornoch link action group.
I question the substance on which the Government's advice is based. Paragraph 5 of the committee's paper states:
"The Committee agreed to write again to the Minister to raise concerns regarding the methodology used to calculate the benefit to cost ratio for a new rail link. Members also questioned whether the full social and socioeconomic benefits of the Dornoch rail link project to the north of Scotland had been included in the calculation of the project's benefit to cost ratio."
I have some freedom of information material that is relevant, which I would like members to have a look at. It will be helpful to pass round copies of it so that I can refer to particular paragraphs.
Members will receive a copy of three e-mails, which start at the bottom of the second page and continue up the page from there. They were all written on 9 January 2006. Initially, a request was made to find out what the remits of the Halcrow and Scott Wilson studies were. That e-mail is in Arial type and was sent from a parliamentary e-mail account—the names have been blocked out. The next one is in Roman type and starts, "Gents". Discussions were held over Christmas 1995 about the proposed rail link. Near the top of "Page 2 of 3", the author of the e-mail, who I think was the chairman of the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership, says:
"What this all boils down to is that we don't have any vaguely authoritative information (that I'm aware of) on the likely costs with which to comment or respond to this continued campaign.
As you'll know we, as a steering group, decided that Scott Wilson shouldn't look at the Dornoch Costs under Room for Growth. This was a pragmatic decision, based on common sense, and almost certainly the correct one. However when we release the study briefs to Mr Gibson's office (as we'll have to) and they realise that the Dornoch issue was not specifically ruled out there, then we'll need to fall back on the minute of the steering group meeting and explain our thinking."
The e-mail goes on, and the final paragraph says that there are "dedicated campaigners" and that
"The bottom-line is that this issue isn't going to go away".
What worries me is that there is no sense of any detailed cost benefit analysis, although one paragraph suggests who could be asked to do such an analysis.
If members look at page 1, they will see an e-mail from a
"Rail Policy & Projects Officer
Area 2-G Dockside
Scottish Executive".
The first sentence is:
"Identifying the costs is only half the issue."
A section of the next sentence has been blocked out, but it ends:
"whatever figure you come up with, as long as they don't have to quantify the benefits."
I am extremely concerned. The information in these e-mails suggests to me that there has been agreement in the steering group involving Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Highlands and Islands transport partnership, and agreement among civil servants in the Scottish Executive, that they would not consider the petitioners' proposal. The e-mails probably reveal that no detailed analysis of the benefits was done. It therefore seems to me that the minister—whose answers we are now considering—may well have received information that is far from accurate. In other words, he is not misleading us but has been misinformed in respect of the detail that would be required in considering a major transport project.
I ask that we discuss this material with the minister, and ask him to tell us in detail what work was done, so that we can accurately estimate the costs of the proposal that the Association of Caithness Community Councils has made. I also ask that we keep the petition open to ensure that the committee receives the information that it requires. The e-mails that I have discussed appear to me to be an attempt to suggest that it would be common sense not to consider the proposal because it would cost far too much, and to suggest that a cost of £100 million would be outrageous.
We have to compare the proposal with other transport projects. Analysis is not done on the basis of the approach that is described in those e-mails. In this age of climate change, it beggars belief that we can ignore the potential of railways in any part of the country. The proposed link ought to be part of the modernisation that we hope for in the rest of the network, but it seems to have been ruled out on the basis of rather limited—indeed, scanty—information.
I appreciate your bringing us the information that you received via a freedom-of-information request, but I do not want members to feel that we have to respond right now. It would be reasonable for committee members to have a more detailed look at the e-mails. We can then consider our response.
Which organisation received and responded to the FOI request?
The FOI request was made—I can give members the papers—by Mark Norton, who is the convener of the Dornoch link action group. The letter to him was delivered on 13 May this year, and it was from Transport Scotland. The letter details the information that Transport Scotland was prepared to release, and it also says that other information exists that Transport Scotland was not prepared to release because it concerned the organisation's professional ability to give advice to ministers.
We have to consider whether matters had moved on after those e-mails were written and before the minister responded to us. The Government response that we have just received may take account of recent developments. Obviously, the question will have to be explored; it cannot be answered through speculation alone. Do members have any comments on how we should explore this matter further?
I have no problem with holding back and taking another look. The point has been well made that, in this time of climate change, basing a decision on whether to go ahead with a railway line simply on costs is not the best way forward. I do not think that the minister's letter helps at all, particularly in the light of the e-mail that Rob Gibson has just put before us, which I would like more time to consider. We have to decide what to cover in our inquiries; we could consider the issue as part of our rail inquiry.
Without wishing to pre-empt any discussion of our work programme, I think that if it is possible to have a face-to-face discussion, we should build that into the meetings that have already been scheduled instead of trying to set up a specific meeting. Are members comfortable with exploring the issue in writing with the minister before we get to that stage? I suspect that any face-to-face discussion with him will have to take place after the summer recess. Are members content with the general approach?
Members indicated agreement.
I am content as long as it keeps the petition alive and as long as the intention is to get a proper analysis of the costs.
The petition will remain open for the time being.
I also suggest that we accept the offer of a briefing on STAG. I do not think that would do any harm.
I do not think so, either.
Ferry Service (Gourock to Dunoon) (PE1035)
The next petition is PE1035, by John Rose, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to withdraw direct and indirect support for CalMac Ferries on the Dunoon to Gourock ferry service and to ensure full transparency of Government subsidy of ferry services. The issue clearly relates not only to our current work but to on-going matters in Europe. Do members have any comments?
You have predicted what I was about to say, convener. The fact is that we are carrying out a comprehensive inquiry into ferry services throughout Scotland. Some work has been done on the Gourock to Dunoon service. Shirley-Anne Somerville, the clerk and I were also present at a meeting at which we met the boards of CalMac Ferries and Western Ferries.
The petition raises a specialist issue. As members will be aware, there is a long history behind the service, which I am not—you will be pleased to hear—going to rehearse. A Dunoon constituent said to me that it is like the Schleswig-Holstein question: only three people have ever understood it, and one of them is dead, one is mad and the last one has forgotten it.
I am very reluctant to arbitrate in a debate over whether public is bad and private is good: we have to take a more sophisticated approach. I have asked a number of parliamentary questions on issues such as frequency restriction which, as we know, applies to CalMac and which the Government has said it has no plans to change. I have also asked about European state aid issues, but it appears that nothing is going to happen in that respect until the European Commission investigation into ferry services is concluded.
We should put ourselves in the shoes of people who live in Gourock and Dunoon. I appreciate that members have other views on the matter, but my feeling is that many people in the area want a good service with good frequency and prices. In other words, they want two services. It will not help for us to make a particular judgment on the petition. Instead, we should note the specific requests but cover in our inquiry the issues that are raised in the petition and that we are currently investigating. The issue might well arise in any chamber debate that we might secure.
As we have not examined all the details, it is not really fair for us to carry out a complete analysis of the matter. Equally, given that we do not have all the evidence, it would be a mistake to make a hard and fast ruling on the petition. In any case, the petition raises a much wider question that requires much more debate, not least with the European Commission, whose response will not be known for another 18 months.
I start from a slightly different position but come to a similar conclusion. People may be aware that my opinion—some might say my prejudices—tend to take me with the petitioner. However, it would be inappropriate for us to prejudge the position that we will take in our inquiry. Although I agree with the vast majority of the points that the petitioner makes, I do not support the suggestion that we should urge the Scottish Executive to withdraw direct funding from the service at this time.
I would not urge the Scottish Executive to withdraw funding from the service at all—I take the opposite view. It is scary to see that my notes on the petition are almost identical to those of Neil Kay. I have real problems with some of the information that the petitioner has submitted. We will await the conclusion of our ferry inquiry, but I am concerned that a private company has submitted a petition to the committee. What is to stop private bus companies submitting petitions against Lothian Buses, or other private sector operators submitting petitions against local authorities in relation to service bids? I have a problem with the nature of the petition but, like other members, I am prepared to await the outcome of our inquiry and the Commission's investigation.
Members do not seem inclined to agree to the terms of the petition; at the present time, I do not agree to them, either. We may want to explore the issues that it raises with the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. Some may arise in the normal course of our ferries inquiry, but there may be issues that we have not explored in great detail. It is reasonable for us to seek from the Scottish Government information on the timetable for the Government's work on the matter and on the European Commission process. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Do members want to keep the petition open and to return to it in the future, after we have received information in response to our letter to the minister?
We should close the petition formally but treat it as evidence in our broader ferries inquiry.
That is a useful suggestion.
I agree.
Do members agree to close the petition and to consider it as evidence during our ferries inquiry?
Members indicated agreement.
We will write to the minister in the terms that I have suggested.