Official Report 139KB pdf
When committee papers were circulated, members were reminded that the options for our inquiry into rail services are not intended to be prescriptive and that, if they want to throw other ideas into the mix, they should present them in a well-developed, concrete and specific form at this meeting. That is the main issue that we need to resolve today. Would members like to comment on the options that are suggested in the paper?
The inquiry must include one item that deals with the rest of Scotland. At the moment, the options to be considered are the intercity express programme, central Scotland electrification and links to the rest of the United Kingdom. The glaring omission with which we will eventually have to deal is services in the areas south of Glasgow and north of Perth and Aberdeen. If those are not included, we will never have a rail network throughout the country. I understand the point that the convener makes, but we must add a further element to the inquiry. If we do not, people will think that it is biased towards one area.
The paragraph that sets out the options for the inquiry asks us to consider only one option. It gives alternatives, rather than a list to be worked through comprehensively in one inquiry.
I know that, but the list is not complete. We might want to draw up our proposal in a form that enables us to include most parts of the country.
Perhaps I can suggest a compromise. If we consider increasing electrification throughout Scotland, our work will not only cover the whole of Scotland but link in well with our responsibilities on climate change. There is a good crossover point in that regard.
It is no secret that option 3 in paragraph 4 is based on a suggestion that I made in an earlier meeting. We should try to take account of Rob Gibson's concerns—I am in favour of rail links between continental Europe and Dornoch.
Or even Thurso.
I agree with Charlie Gordon. Option 3 is fine, but we need to consider services Scotland-wide, too. I have suggested that we include petition PE894 and the Dornoch issue in an inquiry on rail services, but the current proposals are not written in a way that would allow us to do that. The principles are fine, but we need to add something about services in wider Scotland.
Option 3 is of particular interest, given recent media reports about aviation. Consideration of how we might encourage a move to rail would fit with our remit on climate change. Perhaps we need to widen the proposal slightly to include connections to the rest of Scotland. It would be interesting to consider how we could promote the rail network for transport initiatives in the longer term.
I am instinctively sympathetic to considering longer-distance rail links. My only concern is whether the Scottish Government can do anything about the issue without the co-operation of the United Kingdom Government and therefore whether the committee can usefully prompt the Scottish Government. We might be able to seek witness evidence from UK Government representatives. I do not think that such requests are prohibited.
You have a point, but only to a degree. The overnight sleeper services to London from various parts of Scotland are part of the ScotRail franchise, which is wholly under the control of the Scottish Government. There are ways and means by which we can extend our aspirations across the border and beyond.
It would be interesting to hear from the rail companies about why things are not working, so that we can find out where the barriers are and where we should apply pressure.
Do members have further comments on the options in paragraph 4?
We have an opportunity to consider the rail network from Thurso to Penzance in Cornwall—that is the longest rail journey in the UK. We have an interest in the matter and we could at least act as advocates in relation to cross-border matters. The issue is worth exploring. We should bear in mind that the whole network in Scotland involves long-distance travel—the journey from Inverness to Thurso is one of the longest, at more than four hours. Scotland is a big geographical area with a small population. I would be happy if we could encapsulate such issues.
Is the general preference for option 3? We can ask the clerks to come back with a more detailed paper.
Option 3, but liberally interpreted.
I never thought that I would hear you say that.
We will ask the clerks to interpret option 3 as liberally as they can. I should point out that, in the annex to the paper on our work programme, it is noted that we will have the opportunity to consider taking evidence on the strategic transport projects review, if that is necessary. I imagine that members will broadly welcome such an approach.
Yes.
Okay. You need to say yes if you want me to hear it.
The proposal is to invite relevant stakeholders from various sectors to start talking to the committee about their views on the appropriateness of the proposed targets and to flag up any challenges that they may face in meeting them. They could also talk about existing examples of good practice in the various sectors. The aim is to continue the awareness-raising programme for members as we move towards the introduction of the climate change bill. We see that as an opportunity for fairly detailed dialogue, which will not be possible in a short debate in the Parliament.
As the timetable for the bill's introduction gives us a bit more time than we expected, we should use that time as constructively as possible.
It is important that we speak to stakeholders and the wider community and that we consider good practice, not only in Scotland but elsewhere in Europe or wherever. The committee has gone on visits, which were helpful but, given the nature of the proposed legislation, it is important that we are aspirational in our vision for how the bill should progress. A wee bit of lateral thinking would be helpful, and it is vital that we know what is happening elsewhere.
Informal discussions are helpful. The informal meeting that we had with a Californian adviser was first class. I am not sure that all members attended so, for those who were not there, I endorse the hour-long lecture that she gave—it was superb.
We will certainly consider that as we work up the more detailed proposals.
I have a suggestion, although I am not sure whether this would fit in with those informal discussions or later in the process. Through contacts that I have with WWF Scotland, I am aware that the Children's Parliament is considering climate change in great detail and I presume that the Scottish Youth Parliament is doing something, too. The Children's Parliament is keen to fit in with the committee's work and is holding an event in the Parliament during the festival of politics. It would be interesting and innovative for the committee to link with the work of the Children's Parliament and the Scottish Youth Parliament, if it is doing work on the issue. That would give us different ideas and would be a different way of working with a key stakeholder group that will be left to deal with the mess that we are perhaps making of the planet. If we could fit such work in at some point during the process, it would be useful.
That is a useful observation. We are aware that the festival of politics event is in the pipeline—it is mentioned in the work programme paper. It is worth noting that several non-governmental organisations will want to hold events in the lead-up to the introduction of the climate change bill. We will try to have a discussion about how best the committee can take part in that series of events, to ensure that we complement the process, rather than duplicate anything. Are we content to go ahead with the series of events suggested?
On our ferry services inquiry, the recommendation is that we bid for chamber time for a committee debate on our report. Is that agreed?
We have to complete our inquiry and publish our report. The paper does not refer to the fact that the committee might want to spend more time on regulation and the maritime strategy. I want to ensure that our work programme allows sufficient time for that.
I take the point, but it is difficult to see where it fits in. Does any other member have a view on the matter?
I am not sure of the timescale within which the clerks expect us to plan ahead.
We are looking for members to bring forward realistic proposals for the next six months and beyond. The committee should also bear in mind that transport is only one element of a wide-ranging maritime strategy.
Given the long-term nature of that, perhaps we should not put it into our current work programme. We can look at the matter when we come to discuss the subsequent year's work. That said, we will need to bear in mind the overlap with the remit of other committees.
I also mentioned regulation, which has cropped up a lot in our inquiry. We need to ensure that we have time to consider regulation in detail. We should not simply recommend better regulation; wider implications are involved.
That is very much the case. Professor Kay's evidence made an impression on the committee in several respects. We have to face up to the fact that regulatory issues will form a substantial part of our ferry services inquiry report.
Certainly, there is nothing to prevent us from looking at issues that are relevant to the current inquiry. They will be reflected in the report. I guess that the question relates to the need to build anything further into the work programme. I propose that any further additions to our work programme should be considered when we look at the subsequent year's work programme. Is that agreed?
There is also the issue of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee holding an inquiry into determining and delivering Scotland's energy future. Obviously, the remit of our climate change inquiry will overlap with that inquiry remit. How do we want to build that into our work, and to what extent? Do we want to track the other inquiry or appoint a committee member to take it on?
We are trying to find a bridge between the two inquiries. Those committee members who went to Brussels picked up on the important issue of carbon capture and storage. Obviously, that is the bridge between fossil fuels—including heavily polluting coal—and reducing emissions. The issue is an extremely useful one for us to pursue, either by appointing a reporter or by other means. I am happy to take advice on the best way of doing that. Carbon capture is the link between energy and climate change. I think that there are 15 pilot carbon capture projects throughout Europe. The technology is not yet totally proven, but it is a fantastic and valuable future resource for the UK.
I probably agree with that, but the question is how far we have to look into the future.
I agree with most of what has been said. Perhaps it makes sense to appoint a reporter who could form part of the other committee inquiry and feed back to us. That would ensure that we keep on track of the work that is being done.
I wonder whether, at some point, we could have a joint meeting with the other committee to review some of the work that it is doing and see whether it understands how its inquiry fits into our climate change material. We should recognise that, sometimes, it is a good idea to have a round-table debate. We need to find the appropriate time to do that, before the other committee has made up its mind what it is going to report.
Okay. Are we agreed that we want to take account of the inquiry that the other committee is running and have some level of engagement with it? We will put the matter on the agenda of a subsequent meeting to discuss whether to have a reporter on that committee or some other mechanism for tracking that work.
Thank you. Are we agreed that our work programme should be updated to reflect our discussion and our decisions today and that a revised version should be published on our web page?
Previous
PetitionsNext
Annual Report