Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 29 Jan 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Official Report 220KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Railway Infrastructure and Services (Inverness, Thurso and Wick) (PE894)

Item 3 is petitions, the first of which is PE894. Members will have had a chance to read the petition and some of the background information on it. We are invited to note the work that has been undertaken by the Dornoch rail link action group and the recommendation in the Corus Scottish transport appraisal guidance 1 appraisal, which it commissioned, that a STAG 2 appraisal be undertaken. That relates to some information that we requested earlier. We are also invited to consider whether we want to recommend that the Dornoch rail link action group submit a copy of its STAG 1 appraisal to the Government. We might also want to write to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, advising him of the action that has been taken and asking him to take account of the work, as part of the Government's strategic transport projects review. At that point we can consider whether we want to close the petition or take further action.

What the letter from the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change says about what the Scottish Government will do to improve rail lines is interesting. The strategic transport projects review is due to report in the summer and will cover the period 2012 to 2022. Items in that review, such as the upgrades on the Perth to Inverness line, will be essential in opening up a large part of the Highlands, as will the section of rail line from Aberdeen to Inverness. What the petition is calling for must happen—the question is, when must it happen and should it happen at the same time?

I realise that it is unreasonable to ask ministers suddenly to find the kind of sum of money that is mentioned in the STAG 1 appraisal—£100 million—but it is a reasonably accurate consultant's estimate, so it at least gives us something to go on. It is worrying that we do not yet have the figures for what it will cost to upgrade the Perth to Inverness line, as part of the papers to back up the strategic transport projects review.

Given the importance of further developments on the far north line and their value for social and economic development, which we established at our last committee meeting, we face a dilemma in relation to when the proposals in the petition should happen and how we keep them in ministers' minds, although I agree that certain aspects of the proposals are acceptable.

If the committee agrees, I think that we should send the minister the STAG 1 appraisal and thank the Dornoch group for its work. This is not the time to close the petition. Aspects of it still require answers and it needs to go back to the minister before we take that step.

I back up Rob Gibson and reiterate the points that were made at our last meeting. We have said many times that it is important to have faster and more frequent services and to upgrade the rolling stock and so on. The economic argument that we made at the last meeting was that the 2,000 workers who are involved in decommissioning Dounreay will be desperately looking for new employment in future. They keep telling me that we need good transport infrastructure, and I agree with them. That includes roads and—although I know the convener will not agree—air links, but it is crucial to upgrade our rail links. Therefore, I would be reluctant to kill off the petition, and I agree with some of the options that we are being invited to pursue. We still need to consider some things, so I ask the committee to keep the petition alive.

I commend the work of the Dornoch rail link action group; it has been interesting to be brought up to speed with the issue. We need to reduce the area's peripherality and increase its economic development, so I am keen to keep the group's work alive and ensure that it is drawn to the minister's attention. The STAG 2 appraisal is an essential part of that, but I do not know whether we should suggest that the Government helps to fund it.

I agree with all that has been said. It would be a pity to lose the work. It is about long-term planning and getting things moving for the future. I am happy with the recommendations; we should write to the minister. It would be a real pity to close the petition at this stage.

No one seems to disagree with the suggestions that have been made. However, there is a sense that we need to add something, although no one has been specific about what that is. If we are recommending that the action group should submit its appraisal to the Government, we should also ask the Government to respond to the committee on it in due course.

If the Government is prepared to find the cost of the STAG 2 appraisal—

Yes, that is really important.

Yes. We can find a way of including that.

The Government might speak to the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership, whose report has not yet been accepted.

I suggest that we ask whether the Government agrees that a STAG 2 appraisal is required and how it envisages it happening.

We could be stronger than that, convener.

The suggestion is that we call for the Government to work closely with the action group, which would involve putting some funding into a further appraisal. Such work is a very expensive process and we should be grateful that the local action group has already done a STAG 1 appraisal. We should recommend that the Government finds a way of doing the STAG 2 appraisal.

I suggest that we ask the Government to respond to the proposal that a STAG 2 appraisal should be done and tell us whether it intends to find a way to make it happen.

Yes.

Part of the problem is that the committee is not able to wave a magic wand and make the money appear to conduct an appraisal, any more than the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change is. We will underline the importance of the issue and make it clear that we expect a response on the need for a STAG 2 appraisal. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The other recommendations have been agreed, and we will keep the petition open at this stage.

---

Bridge Replacement (PE1064)

PE1064 is on the replacement Forth crossing. We have discussed the Forth crossing at previous meetings in several different contexts, but the petition is specifically on the proposal that there should be a replacement or new crossing.

The clerk's paper invites us to: note the Government's decision to proceed with a replacement crossing; note the response from the Forth Estuary Transport Authority; and consider whether, in light of the Government's decision, the objectives of the petition remain realistic and, if not, whether the petition should be closed.

From the Public Petitions Committee's consideration of the petition, the petitioner might reasonably have expected that the petition would receive some further level of scrutiny. The strong impression was given that our committee was looking into the issue, whereas we were considering only the issue of tolls on the existing road bridge. That was the nature of our visit to the bridge, but people might not have drawn that impression from the comments that were made at the Public Petitions Committee. Referring to our committee, the convener of that committee agreed that

"the debate needs to be aired clearly at that committee".—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 23 October 2007; c 215.]

Some members—including those who know him—might feel that the convener of the Public Petitions Committee made a bit of a presumption about the work of our committee, but the petitioner was clearly given that expectation.

Finally, given recent public comments in the media to the effect that the First Minister has given a commitment to the Road Haulage Association that the existing bridge will not be closed to heavy goods vehicles on the date previously suggested, some questions remain open that we could explore in considering the petition.

Do members have any comments?

I take the point that has been made, but I am reluctant to agree that we should deal with the petition in a particular way because of a miscommunication on the part of the Public Petitions Committee. The convener has clarified that we did not visit the bridge to discuss the replacement crossing so I think that we can put that aspect to bed.

We had a full statement in the chamber on the replacement crossing so, although the committee has not discussed the issue, the Parliament has discussed it at length. I appreciate that the Government's decision did not win unanimous support among all parties, but it was well supported by most parties in the Parliament. I think that the issue has had a sufficiently detailed airing to have allowed all the parties to put their points, so I am not sure that much more remains to be said. The repair work is perhaps a separate issue, on which it might be interesting to be kept up to date. I think that we decided on that when we visited FETA, which said that it would keep us abreast of what was happening. I am reluctant to take the petition further on the basis that we have not had enough debate on the issue, given that it has been considered in the chamber.

I agree. The Parliament has already agreed—albeit not unanimously—on the need for a new crossing. We will continue to need to consider issues such as access for heavy good vehicles, but we should not confuse that with the issue of the replacement crossing. We should close the petition because, in a sense, things have moved on.

Members will not be surprised to learn that my preference is for us to write to the Government in light of the First Minister's recent reported comments, which appeared subsequent to the ministerial statement and which throw a different light on the issue. Is there any support for that view?

No.

No.

I think that I will need to accept that as the committee's position. Does Alison McInnes want to make any other comment?

No.

I find myself in a minority on this. It seems to me that the mood of the committee is to close the petition, so we will close it.

That was the final item of business, so I close the meeting but ask members to stay on for a brief moment.

Meeting closed at 15:45.