Glasgow to Barra Air Link
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3758, in the name of Duncan Hamilton, on the Glasgow to Barra air link public service obligation. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite those members who wish to contribute to the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the decision to announce a one year contract for the Glasgow to Barra air link; recognises that such contracts are normally awarded for the three years of a public service obligation (PSO) order; recognises the unanimous view of the community that any loss of the direct air link would result in damage to the local economy and tourism and create hardship for those attending hospital and receiving life-saving treatment in Glasgow and beyond; notes that the Deputy Minister for Transport, Lewis Macdonald MSP, attended a meeting on the island of Barra and assured islanders that their genuine concerns would be taken seriously and fed into the Scottish Executive review; further recognises that this proposal is undermining confidence in the long-term viability of the air service, and considers that the Scottish Executive should ensure that the review is completed on or before the end of March.
I am delighted that the minister has finally found his seat—not something that he would be able to do on the new Barra service if he got his way.
There has been considerable notice in the press and a lot of discussion of the issues surrounding the future of the Barra to Glasgow direct air link. Today presents an opportunity for the people of Barra, through their representatives, to have their day in their national Parliament.
I start by recognising the cross-party nature of support for the motion. In particular, I mention Alasdair Morrison, John Farquhar Munro and Jamie McGrigor, who attended this morning's handing-over of a petition. It has added considerably to the case that support exists on a cross-party basis.
I also want to make the point—
Did the member not notice that Rhoda Grant and I were there too?
With the greatest respect, I will carry on. Self-promotion is not a problem that the member usually has.
The point of the debate is not to get into that kind of SNP-Labour division. It is rather to emphasise the difference between the view of the Parliament and the view of the Executive, because we are discussing an Executive decision.
I want to reflect the anger and the frustration of the people on Barra and I want to examine the Executive's case for why the air link should be under threat. We should highlight the inconsistencies and, in particular, the lack of transparency at the heart of the Executive approach. I want to make the case for the long-term viability of the service on Barra and not just for getting us through the next few months.
First, we should consider the arguments raised by the Executive in favour of its proposal. The first argument is worth knocking down quickly. The argument is that somehow it is a requirement of the European Union regulations that the Executive should act as it does in this regard. Emphatically, I say that it is not; that is a bogus argument and we do not want to hear any more of it today or in future discussions on the matter. The definition of the operation of a public service obligation that is contained in European Council regulation 2408/92 makes absolutely clear what the Executive is required to do and what it is not required to do.
It is interesting to go through that regulation. Paragraph 15 of the explanatory memorandum says that the Executive has the option of reviewing the continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing of services. Those are operational matters that the Executive can look at if it wishes. Indeed, that is a sensible thing to do. However, there is nothing in the regulation about a requirement to review the very existence of the PSO on a route, and that is where the debate has become more polarised. Peripherality is the only basis on which a PSO should exist and, as far as I am concerned, the island of Barra is not getting any nearer. Any argument from the minister that the European Union is making him do it is simply not true. It is the minister's decision and it is an Executive policy and an Executive proposal. At the very least, we should have the honesty in this debate to say that that is the case.
The second and main argument that the Executive put forward is that we should consider the matter on the basis of value for money. That is nearer the truth, but even that aspect is shrouded in mystery. The question that we are all left with is why we are doing this. At no point in the process has the Executive sought to give Parliament or the people of Barra any definition of the phrase "value for money". We do not know whether it includes the costs of future unemployment as a result of that measure, the future costs of depopulation or a tourism downturn, or the additional costs of travel. There is no document and there are no parameters to the debate. There is no objective measurement of whether the measure would be positive or negative, other than the consultants' report, to which I will turn later in my speech.
There should be an objective appraisal under STAG—the Scottish transport appraisal guidance. The civil service describes it as required practice that the Executive should conduct such an appraisal to examine the economic benefits or damage resulting from Executive action. There is a need for appraisal, but I am not sure whether that appraisal has been done by the Scottish Executive. If it has been done, will the minister publish that report? There was also supposed to be a transport economic efficiency report, to look specifically at the key benefits of the development of infrastructure such as airports. That is precisely what the minister should have been doing. Has he done it and will he publish it so that we can have the informed debate that we need to have? At the moment, what the minister is asking is that those of us who oppose his measures somehow go in to bat with one hand tied behind our backs. We need to see those statistics and that appraisal to have the proper analysis.
Another aspect of the value-for-money debate was revealed in a letter of 14 January, which I got sight of only this morning. In that letter, the Executive, in the guise of its aviation policy branch, says:
"The Scottish Executive wishes to ensure that the Glasgow-Barra air service and Barra Airport"—
and that is important—
"continue to be tenable given our substantial investment in enhanced ferry operations."
That lets the cat out of the bag. The Executive is forcing the people of Barra into an either/or choice. The argument is that if there is an improved ferry service, the case for a vital direct air link is somehow diminished. That is an idiotic approach, which builds in the perverse view that to improve one area of transport must inevitably lead to a reappraisal of the other areas of transport. That is no way to conduct a transport or economic development policy.
Let me give an example. If the road to Campbeltown, which is also the subject of an air PSO, were improved, would that mean that the air link to Campbeltown would be revisited? It should not. If we want to encourage more visitors and more business viability, the point is to have the maximum capacity for transport and infrastructure.
If the minister is now using the argument that the improved ferry service should mean a diminution of the air service, why did he not tell the community? Why did he not tell the people on Barra that that was the appraisal and that that would be the rationale? Had he done so and had he given them the choice, he would have found that the unanimous view on Barra was for the direct air link to be kept. The people of Barra have been kept in the dark. If the minister wants to dispute that, I would be interested in hearing his argument. It is only now that he is saying that both the air link and, which is important, the airport are under threat.
The minister hinted recently that there may be a stay of execution and that there may be a further period of a year, or maybe two years, in which to have a full evaluation. That is not good enough either, because there must be certainty for tourism businesses, and people who want to know whether to make their lives on the island of Barra need to know that the Executive and the Parliament are committed to the future maintenance of those links. All that the Executive really has the opportunity to do is to review the technical requirements of the route. What is really being called into question is the very future of the principle of PSOs on lifeline routes. Today it is Barra. Maybe tomorrow it will be Campbeltown, then Tiree. What we need to hear from the Executive and from the minister today is a categorical guarantee that this is not the start of a review of the principle of PSOs and that the Executive is committed to those routes. If we do not get that assurance, this debate is about much more than a little local difficulty, although the minister might think of it as such; it is a national debate about the future of Scotland's islands.
It is important that we do not get lost amid the statistics but remember that there is a real human cost. A report has been produced by SQW Ltd, economic and management consultants, which has tried to reflect what it would mean for the people on Barra if they lost the service. I shall cite some of the statistics in the report. If people have to travel via Benbecula, that will mean a five-hour return journey in addition to their journey at the moment. If they go by public transport, it will take 12 hours longer than at present. There is also a cost to businesses of the increased travel time, as the additional cost for each return journey would be £230. I quote the conclusion of the consultants' report, which was passed to Western Isles Enterprise:
"Nevertheless, improved intra-island linkages should not be seen as a replacement of the air route."
It goes on to say:
"From being one hour from the largest city in Scotland, Barra would become one of the most isolated communities in the UK, placing the island at a competitive disadvantage against virtually every other community within Scotland."
That is simply unacceptable.
What would the loss of the route mean to people in terms of health care? People currently have to travel to the mainland for paediatric care, orthopaedic care, surgery, gynaecology and oncology. The people on Barra understand that they may have to travel to the mainland, but they should not have to make a potential 12-hour round trip. What would it mean for ill people who would have to go through that? What would it mean for relatives who wanted to be with their loved ones? What would be the real human cost? What would it mean for people who wanted to have their kids educated on Barra? What would it mean for the retention of staff? Every area of island life will be under the microscope.
We need to hear from the minister that there will be a guaranteed three-year service. We need him to end once and for all the uncertainty surrounding the air link and the airport, and we need a guaranteed secure future for the island. I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech. The minister chose to start this review; today, or in the very near future, the minister can end it.
As Alasdair Morrison is the constituency member, I will allow him five minutes.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I extend a warm welcome to my constituents from Barra who have travelled down over the past two days to attend this debate and present a petition to the Public Petitions Committee. I hope that they will take up the welcome invitation from the convener of that committee to come back to give oral evidence to the committee.
I firmly believe that this debate has come just at the right time. Since the announcement of the review a few months ago, I have had the privilege of attending priority meetings with the 14 workers at Barra airport. I also attended an excellent public meeting involving 300 islanders on Barra. A week ago yesterday, Lewis Macdonald visited the island and flew back to Glasgow using the air service. It is worth stating that at no time did Lewis Macdonald or any other minister state that we were going to lose the air service. All that we have is the review, and I see it as my duty to inform that review process. With due respect to all members and to this evening's debate, I firmly believe that Lewis Macdonald's visit to Barra last week was the most significant development in the review to date, and I will refer to that visit later.
I could cite many reasons to support the air service. I could mention the oil workers, the deep-sea mariners—of whom there are many in Barra—the fishermen, the students and the tourists, all of whom are frequent users of the service. However, I shall focus on the health service dimension. My constituents in Barra need a direct air service to get to hospital for life-saving treatment in Glasgow hospitals and beyond.
Since the Western Isles Council was formed in 1975, it has had a strategic objective to link all its islands. That has happened. It is no accident that the momentum of establishing the links between all those islands increased after the election of my colleague Calum MacDonald in 1987. Our dreams were realised on the day that the Eriskay causeway was completed and on the day that the Eriskay causeway was opened. Many benefits followed. It is important that, since the opening of the Eriskay causeway, none of my constituents in any part of the Western Isles has had to travel by ferry to catch a plane to usher them in comfort to Glasgow hospitals and on to other national health service centres of excellence.
Eriskay causeway represents greatly improved internal communications, but it was never seen as a replacement for or a viable alternative to the direct air link. Without a direct air service to Glasgow from Barra, patients would have to cross the sometimes turbulent waters of the Sound of Barra by ferry. A further car journey to board a plane in Benbecula would be required. That journey would take many hours and would not represent progress. I know that that will never be allowed to happen.
There was a notable incident during the minister's visit last week. We took the ferry to Barra with the minister and his civil servants. The day was moderately calm, but a fit young person was seasick. I am not referring to the minister or the MSP for the Western Isles, but to a civil servant. The sight of the contents of a civil servant's stomach being projected across a car deck reinforces my argument. However, to be serious, that person could have been an expectant mother en route to the Queen Mother's hospital in Glasgow or a patient en route to Glasgow for life-saving chemotherapy or other procedures. Currently, such an ordeal is not part of the service that the national health service provides and that my constituents in Barra receive.
It is worth recording in the Official Report that since the Western Isles temporary car ferry started to run on 5 March last year, it has not made a blind bit of difference to the numbers who use the Glasgow to Barra air service. The Western Isles Enterprise economic appraisal that I gave to the minister last week—which will be a public document as of tomorrow and will be available in Barra—is an important document. It and other data will help to inform the minister's review.
The minister's announcement last week on Barra that he would come back to the community with an opinion about the possibility of extending the review period—and, by definition, extending the tender period—was welcome. Indeed, the first voice of welcome was that of the Barra councillor, who does not as a rule praise or welcome announcements from Labour ministers. I hope that the minister will announce an extension of the review period—as he indicated and which was clearly understood by those in Barra last week—and extend the tender period to the same cycle as the Tiree and Campbeltown tender. An extended review would allow us to examine the entire Barra to Glasgow and Barra to Benbencula transport package and the issue of Tràigh Mhòr, which is the current landing area. An extended review will allow calm, informed and sensible discussion at local and national levels about long-term arrangements. We all know that the wonderful beach landing is not the long-term option.
I thank the minister for his response to date and for agreeing to meetings at short notice. I also thank him for the way in which he has seriously engaged with the community in Barra and for making his visit to Barra his first ministerial engagement of the new year.
I congratulate Duncan Hamilton on securing the debate and the people of the isle of Barra air service campaign group on their good organisation. It is obvious that those people are worried about their air service and they will be glad to hear Alasdair Morrison assuring them that the air service will continue.
Barra is a famous and historic island and transport issues have always ranked highly there. In fact, there is a local legend that, before the great flood, Noah was good enough to put out an early equivalent of an e-mail that asked various parties whether they would like to come on board. The Macneil of Barra is reputed to have replied, "Thank you, but I already have my own vessel."
During the recent inquiry into integrated rural development—the report of which has just been published—the issue of transport links was raised again and again. While we were on Colonsay, local people suggested that there was a two-tier policy for islands and that Colonsay was in the second-class section. I hope that that is not the case. If it is, I hope that the same does not apply to Barra, although that unfortunately appears to be so.
I want to make several points. There is no requirement from Europe for a survey to justify a public service obligation. The issue is down to the Scottish Executive. It is necessary only to have a review to fix ticket prices, seating capacities and the regularity of flights. Such matters need to be discussed between the member state and the carrier, which in this case is Loganair. There would be no need to review the PSO unless there was evidence that the peripherality of Barra had been removed. However, how a 50-minute passenger ferry link in a flat-bottomed boat between Barra and Eriskay could possibly be seen to make up for the loss of an hour-long flight that links Barra directly to Glasgow, which is Scotland's biggest city, is beyond me and beggars belief.
The vast majority of people on Barra would prefer to keep the air service, but the question has never been asked of them. They have certainly not had the chance to respond to any consultation. If Lewis Macdonald or anyone else is saying that the impact of the extra ferry service changes definitions of peripherality and lifeline services, there could be huge implications for air services to other islands and to peripheral mainland areas such as Campbeltown and Wick. It would be unreasonable if a consultation exercise on this subject did not include people from those areas.
The building of the Eriskay causeway and the new ferry link to Eriskay, for which I remember campaigning in 1997, are good for Barra and the Uists, and fit in with the sensible policy of linking island archipelagos. However, if the result of those projects is the loss of Barra's air service, which would make Barra the most peripheral island in Scotland, the price is far too high to pay.
We are trying to support rural communities. Barra is a strong community and it is valuable in relation to saving the Gaelic language. It is important to stress the fact that the school has a Gaelic-medium unit. I cannot believe that a backroom deal was done whereby the loss of Barra's airport was traded for the construction of the Eriskay causeway, but I have heard that suggested. If that were true, it would be scandalous. I ask the minister to confirm that the rumour is untrue.
The Barra air service has existed for 80 years. It provides great value for businesses in Barra and to the health and education services of the island. It certainly provides value for money, which seems to be the other criterion on which the Scottish Executive is judging the case. The service is costing £340,000 a year, which is easily justified if one considers the alternative expense of bringing in helicopter ambulances at five times the cost of an air journey at the moment. Of course, the other alternative is forcing sick people, who are often in pain, to make a ferry journey, possibly in bad weather, followed by a long drive to Benbecula and a flight to Glasgow or Stornoway to get to a hospital. The psychological benefit of being only one hour from Glasgow is most reassuring to residents, businessmen and holiday visitors, who know that they will be able to leave quickly in the event of any emergency.
Barra's 1,200 residents have a propensity to fly that is double that of the rest of Scotland. I will fight to keep Barra airport and the air service, even if that means that a new airport has to be built for modern air traffic.
I know Barra well. It can be a paradise, a jewel set in deep blue sea, one of Scotland's finest possessions. There is a wonderful community on Barra that should be encouraged to prosper. The Scottish Executive makes much of an inclusive Scotland, so I say to it that it should not isolate Barra by removing the vital air service. It would be ironic if the advent of devolution and a Parliament in Scotland heralded the demise and the exclusion of an island such as Barra.
John Farquhar Munro advises me that, unfortunately, Jamie McGrigor got the punch line to his story slightly wrong. Apparently, the line is that the Macneil of Barra thanks Noah, but says that he has a boat of his own. I am sure that Mr Morrison will want to reflect on that.
I welcome the opportunity to comment on the wider issue of public service obligations, but I also applaud the work that has been done on the subject that we are debating—air links are important for any island community. Alasdair Morrison, the constituency member, and others deserve credit for the work that they have done to progress the matter and to push ministers in the direction in which they should be pushed. That is the role that everyone who represents a constituency has a responsibility to fulfil. I see that the SNP members are giggling away at that idea, but I note that SNP members who represent constituencies also play that role. No one should get sanctimonious about that.
The debate serves to emphasise the importance of islands' air services, especially at this time of year with the pertaining weather circumstances, and it offers us an opportunity to raise the issue of integrated transport. I was envious of the causeways that Alasdair Morrison talked about. I wish that my constituency had as many causeways as his does. People's ability to travel safely to an airport by car or another form of motorised transport without having to go on a ferry is a serious issue for those travelling for medical treatment in Glasgow, Aberdeen or Inverness.
It is sometimes difficult for those who do not live on islands to appreciate the cost of island life. One of the essential features of PSOs is that they can take into account not only the frequency and standard of service, but the cost. The cost to individuals is high, particularly for those booking at the last minute, perhaps because of a bereavement and the need to travel quickly to attend a funeral. The cost to a family of four people travelling between, for example, Sumburgh and Aberdeen can be as high as £1,200. No family can treat such a sum lightly.
The cost to the public purse is also high. My research indicates that the health boards that serve the island communities of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles pay the lion's share—about £4 million—of the costs of air services for the kind of journey that Alasdair Morrison described. I believe that there are ways in which we can use PSOs effectively and I hope that ministers will come back to the matter in the future.
In the case of Barra, the fear is, as members have said, that the PSO will be lost. Many island groups still look to the day when PSOs can be introduced to tackle the problems that have been mentioned. In these days of cheap budget airlines, why are island fares so high and why do they compare so badly?
The solution is made up of two parts. The first relates to the regulations that apply to airports. The operational rules that apply to Heathrow should not be the same as those that apply to Barra or to Sumburgh or Tingwall in my constituency. I hope that the operational standards will be considered in representations that the minister makes to his colleagues south of the border. There is no question about the need to ensure appropriate safety standards, but standards should be appropriate to the island context rather than to the situation that pertains to Heathrow.
The second part of the solution is to use PSOs on main routes for the specification of fares, standards and services. That would be a considerable step forward for many island areas.
I support the sentiments that have been expressed and the way in which the issue has been brought to the chamber today. In that spirit, I very much support the motion.
I congratulate my colleague Duncan Hamilton on securing the debate. The issue is crucial to Barra and significant to other remote and island areas in Scotland. Duncan Hamilton has ably dealt with the specifics relating to Barra; I will deal with the generalities and, to some extent, the principles.
It is said that a society can be judged not by how it treats its most powerful or wealthy, but by how it treats its poorest and weakest. The corollary may be that a nation can be judged not by how it treats its wealthiest or most powerful areas, but by how it treats its most peripheral and marginal ones. Barra is not big in size or in population and it is most certainly not big in political clout or muscle. If the Parliament is to look after it and represent it, we must ensure that it is treated with every courtesy and dealt with on equal terms with Bathgate, Baillieston or any other area.
Recent history shows that islands in Scotland can be evacuated. I recall that my grandmother's neighbour was an evacuee from St Kilda. Unless the Parliament ensures that there is a strategy to deal with remote and peripheral islands, members can probably take it as read that at the start of the 21st century we will see evacuations as living islands die because the lifeblood to their communities is stopped.
This is not special pleading. There is no giro or dependency culture in those areas. The issue is about islanders' rights as citizens. Those rights are taken for granted in other areas. However, just because the island areas are on the extremity geographically does not mean that they must be so socially or economically. Nations such as Norway and Sweden ensure that their peripheral areas are brought into the hub and fulcrum of society. Hence, Sweden has the concept of making Sweden round—irrespective of where someone resides in that country, they are entitled to participate in the fruits of that society's benefits and labours. I believe that the concept of and term "lifeline services" is somewhat pejorative. It conjures up images of medevacing out the wounded and the sick, as opposed to providing a service that entitles the communities concerned to participate in the social and economic centre of society.
The community of Barra seeks little. People there do not have what most of us take for granted, such as a railway station within a reasonable distance by car if not on foot. They do not even have the systems that people in urban areas take for granted, such as street lighting everywhere. However, to some extent the perception is that the Barra community is asking for another bale-out or dole-out. The fact is that the transport link is their right and entitlement.
It is unacceptable that the PSO is lasting only a year. The situation must be treated as it was before, and with good reason: if we undermine the service in Barra, we will undermine other services. As my colleague Duncan Hamilton said, the provision of an alternative, improved and enhanced boat service should not result in the removal of the air service. If we were to complete a rail link to the Borders, there would be no suggestion of removing or undermining the equivalent road links; as we improve road and rail links elsewhere in Scotland, we do not do down the ones that already exist. Barra does not have the alternative road or rail links that other places have. Therefore, we must ensure not only that we maintain the ferry service, but that we enhance and improve the air service to the island.
Kenny MacAskill has spoken about peripheral areas being brought into the hub. I draw to his attention the fact that members of the Health and Community Care Committee—Duncan Hamilton, Margaret Jamieson and I—visited Barra, where we had the pleasure of landing on the beach and where we heard about the health care needs of the people of the island. We were later met by the member for the Western Isles, Alasdair Morrison, in Stornoway, where we discussed our findings from the other islands. We made much use of our experiences on Barra during all stages of our consideration of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill. Many committees attach great importance to island communities and that has particularly been the case with the Health and Community Care Committee in relation to health care.
Although I do not just want to talk about the impact of transport links on health care, I point out that the Arbuthnott formula is based on equality of access to health care. It takes eight hours to travel from Barra to Glasgow over sea and land, whereas a flight takes an hour. Given that, and given the time that it takes to travel to Stornoway or to Raigmore hospital in Inverness, the inequality of access to health care is obvious. The difficulties that people who live on remote islands face in accessing cardiac and maternity services or services for elderly people—not to mention the provisions that we aim to secure under the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill—are quite worrying.
There were 300 return trips to Glasgow for medical reasons in 2002 and 120 return trips on the Benbecula to Stornoway route. As the minister is appraising and reviewing the air service, he should also appraise and review those cases and consider the health hazards and loss of life that might occur if travel time is increased. [Interruption.] If there is an increase in the travel time for health professionals working in podiatry, for example, those professionals can spend less time with patients and the provision of health care in the Western Isles becomes more expensive. [Interruption.]
Order. I have been hearing steady chattering throughout the debate. Please continue, Ms Scanlon.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. That takes me back to my time as a teacher—but I am glad that you dealt with it.
Increased travel time also makes employing new staff more difficult. The expense and difficulty of travelling are a disincentive to prospective employees, who will require higher expenses for getting to interviews on Barra.
My final point is about school pupils. I noted in the survey that was brought to our attention that school pupils in Barra are absent from school for longer and more often than children elsewhere are. That is not because they are more ill than other school pupils, but because, when they have a medical appointment, they require to spend more time outside the classroom. I ask the minister to take that issue into consideration, as well as the fact that the air ambulance was used 86 times in 12 months.
I congratulate Alasdair Morrison and Duncan Hamilton on securing this important debate on the future of the lifeline air service to Barra. However, it was most ungallant of Duncan not to recognise that Rhoda Grant and I were also present to receive the petition in the black-and-white corridor at lunch time. I thought that he had an eye for the ladies, but obviously I was wrong.
I will not rehearse what other members have said about the crucial importance of the air service to the economic and social future of Barra, as those arguments are self-evident. I want to talk about two issues. One arises from a conversation that I had with Jessie MacNeil at lunch time about how many people in Barra have served in the merchant navy. I remember that, in my younger days, all Barra men were either fishermen or served in the merchant navy; they were probably the most travelled community in Scotland. Of course, the merchant navy went into decline. I must point out to Conservative members that that happened as a result of Mrs Thatcher's policies.
However, I have been told that, in the past few years, between 60 and 70 school leavers from Barra—men and women—who have obtained qualifications at places such as Lews Castle College are working in the merchant navy but still have homes in Barra. That is possible because Barra is accessible quickly by air. Modern shipping companies require their personnel at short notice. Without the direct air service, those young men and women might no longer be able to make Barra their home. That would be a tremendous loss to the community.
The same applies to those people who work offshore in the oil industry. It is very important for them to have an air service directly to their homes, as that enables them to access their work while keeping their homes on the island where they were born and brought up.
The other matter that I want to discuss is the provision of a new runway. That issue must be addressed to secure the long-term future of the service. I remember discussing the subject with former Barra councillor Captain Roddy MacKinnon at a family wedding well before the Parliament was established. As a councillor, he had tried hard to get agreement locally to have a new runway built. However, the plans came to nothing because of difficulty in accessing land. That was the situation a number of years ago. I want to know what is now being done to provide a new runway, as the beach is beginning to deteriorate and the Otter aeroplane is obsolete. How much life is left in the aircraft and the beach?
When the minister replies to the debate, will he give some indication of his thinking about the way ahead as regards provision of a new airstrip? I know that it is romantic to land on the beach and that visitors love it, but we cannot continue in that way—we must consider the long term. The community must accept that a new runway is inevitable and work out how to make available the land that is needed for it.
We should consider enhancing our island air services, not only in the western and northern isles—to which Tavish Scott referred—but in the islands of Argyll and even on John Farquhar Munro's isle of Skye.
And in Wick.
I must inform Jamie Stone that Wick is not an island. As he is the constituency member for Wick, I thought that he realised that.
Communities in remote areas must have direct access to air services if they are to prosper and, indeed, survive. We must do everything that we can to ensure that the air service to Barra survives.
Before I call the next speaker, I point out that we will need another 10 minutes if we are to get everyone in. With the minister's agreement, I will consider a motion to extend the debate until 6 pm.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.00 pm.—[Mr Alasdair Morrison.]
Motion agreed to.
I apologise to Mary Scanlon for interrupting her flow. I was very interested in what she had to say, but Jamie Stone was so enthused by his visit to Barra that I had to listen to him at the same time.
I am sure that as they sit here in the relative comfort and security of the chamber, it is difficult for many members to appreciate the problems and hardships that are a daily feature of life in the Highlands and Islands. This morning, communities in the Western Isles woke up to Radio nan Gaidheal announcing that no ferry services to the mainland and no inter-island ferry services were operating because of the adverse weather conditions. That was quickly followed by an announcement that the majority of schools in the Highlands and Western Isles would be closed until further notice, because of the extreme conditions.
Today's circumstances are not unusual; they occur quite frequently and they are not confined to our winters. Atlantic gales do not respect seasons; they can strike at any time, causing incalculable disruption to already fragile communities, public services and vital transport links. Communities that live with and overcome those difficulties are to be admired and supported in their valiant daily efforts. We must ensure that every possible means of encouragement is directed at the long-term viability and sustainability of those remote areas.
This evening's debate centres on the remote island of Barra, and I am obliged to Duncan Hamilton for bringing the issue to the Parliament. It is ironic that, owing to improved transport infrastructure in the neighbouring islands, Barra might lose its long-established air link with mainland Scotland. That would have a devastating effect on all aspects of island life and it would particularly disadvantage those attending mainland hospitals for consultations and specialist treatments, which in many instances involve the very young or the more elderly in the community. On top of that, there would be a direct impact on the viability of the business community and on all aspects of island life.
I am pleased to support Duncan Hamilton's motion, but we must ensure that we are able to secure an air-link contract to Barra that extends, I would suggest, for a minimum of three years, as is and has been previously enjoyed. That is the very least that we can do for our island communities. Accordingly, I urge the Scottish Executive to complete its review and to announce its findings at the earliest possible date so that the population of Barra can look forward to a prosperous and confident future.
I welcome Duncan Hamilton's securing of this debate. I have a great affection for Loganair, which stems first from its being the airline that transported my wife and I away on our honeymoon in 1969. Members might be interested to know that the aircraft that carried us on what was our first flight is now to be seen in the Museum of Flight at East Fortune. Secondly, I have sat in the co-pilot seat of the Twin Otter that operates the service between Glasgow and Barra. I believe that another member in the chamber has also done that. The Twin Otter is my favourite type of aircraft because of its ruggedness and capability.
The situation that the islanders of Barra appear to face is not a matter for light reflection—it is deadly serious; indeed, it could be deathly serious. We are debating what is literally a lifeline service.
Some members might have noticed the Scottish Executive's pride in launching the Traveline Scotland website a month ago, which is a multimodal look at transport options in Scotland that can work out journeys across the country. I hope that the launch of the website did not presage a decision that has already been taken. Curiously enough, every possible combination that I entered had me travelling from Barra to Glasgow by getting on the ferry, travelling to Benbecula and coming into Glasgow that way, rather than having me go up to the other end of the island to fly directly from the airport at Tràigh Mhòr. It was interesting that the website showed a travel time of 16 hours 26 minutes.
I will give some facts and figures about the air service. The Barra to Glasgow service has a 70 per cent load factor. For such a service, that is an enormous year-round figure. Two thirds of passengers are visitors and 30 jobs are directly dependent on the existence of the airport. That represents a significant contribution to a community of some 1,200 people. Many more tourists are brought in. This year, the fly-in for private aircraft attracted 100 bookings for the 45 places. We understand that one company would leave the island if the air service were to be terminated.
Reference has been made to London Heathrow rules applying to Barra. That is true—they apply to an unacceptable extent.
It is worth noting that Loganair, which has existed for some 40 years, has an excellent safety record, in spite of the challenging air services that it operates throughout Scotland. A passenger has never been killed, although there have been three accidents in 40 years and crew members have not always been so lucky.
I put it to the minister that the Parliament is limited in its powers to deal with some of the issues that affect lifeline air services in Scotland. For example, aircraft statistics show that although single-engine turbine-powered aircraft of similar size to the Twin Otter have a better safety record than the twin-engine version, the Civil Aviation Authority will not allow them to be used. That is not the case in most of Europe. The minister might want to talk to people elsewhere about that.
We have an important duty to Barra. Let us not forget that Barra has made a significant contribution to the wider community. If one walks up the hill from Castlebay to the magnificent new war memorial, one will find 135 names on it from a population of 1,200. We owe it to Barra—it needs our support.
I, too, congratulate Duncan Hamilton on securing the debate and I also congratulate Alasdair Morrison, who was heavily involved in drawing up the motion.
The debate is extremely timely, given that the community of Barra and Vatersay has come to the Parliament to petition it on the subject. I was glad to meet members of that community at lunch time to hear again about their concerns. The Parliament is about providing access for Scotland's communities, so that they can bring their concerns to the Parliament and have a platform for airing them.
I am concerned that the review has given the community the impression that the Executive wants to diminish services. Anyone who knows the area knows that the review could not possibly conclude that that is the case—the lifeline service to the island is essential. It is essential for existing businesses on the island, as they need fast links to the mainland, and it is even more important for attracting new business to the island. We must attract new business, because the community in Barra is very young. We must give young people the choice of staying on the island when they leave school. To give them that choice, we must create jobs for them.
The need to take people to hospital and back, which Alasdair Morrison referred to, is more important to the community. Asking people who are seriously ill, and who require to make many visits to hospital, to take a ferry to Eriskay and then travel to Benbecula would be inhumane and would put treatments at risks if the weather did not permit the ferry to sail. I am talking about people who need to receive chemotherapy and mothers with new babies, who could be stranded in Eriskay.
The review will not affect the lifeline service; if anything, it will underline its importance. Nevertheless, it is important that the community is proactive in putting forward its case for protecting the service. That is what it is doing here today.
I must say that I am disappointed in the behaviour of the nationalists, who have sought to whip up concerns and mislead people. They have put party-political point scoring above the needs of the community that they purport to serve. Today's motion has been changed so often that I am left thinking that Duncan Hamilton's only aim was to lodge a motion—any motion—for debate. Had he investigated the situation properly and come to Barra, he would have lodged a competent motion in the first place.
I am disappointed that the posturing has continued today. The community has been misled by being told that lodging its petition this afternoon would put tonight's debate at risk. That is rubbish.
Duncan Hamilton should sit down. I urge him to stop abusing the people of the Barra community. He should stand beside them if he wants to support them. If party-political point scoring is his only interest, he should leave them to fight their own battles. They are well able to do that, as they have shown today.
I fully support the people of Barra's campaign. I ask the minister to address their concerns by giving them the reassurances that they need, so that they can leave here happy today.
I am grateful to Alex Fergusson, who has graciously withdrawn from the debate. That allows the minister eight minutes to conclude the debate.
I am grateful to Duncan Hamilton and to those who have allowed today's debate for providing the opportunity to discuss the Glasgow to Barra air service. The debate also allows me to set out to Parliament the main thrust of the dialogue with the Barra community in which I took part last week. There is also an on-going dialogue with the Western Isles Council, with Alasdair Morrison, who is the constituency MSP, and with those others who have talked to us on the community's behalf.
As I said when I was in Barra last week, the starting point for any discussion of air services that are tendered under a public service obligation is to consider the relevant European regulation that allows a member state to impose a PSO and to offer subsidy for the operation of a service that could not produce a profit if it were run on a purely commercial basis. That regulation requires us to show that air services are essential for the community's economic development and that other transport modes would not adequately meet the community's needs. The Executive supports three air services in that way—Glasgow to Barra, Glasgow to Tiree and Glasgow to Campbeltown.
It is worth recording that our support for the Barra service over the years has been based on demonstrated need. Furthermore, that support has responded to change. For example, in the current three-year franchise we introduced a requirement for a back-up aircraft in order to ensure greater reliability and continuity of service.
It is not the case that we are required by the European Union to take a particular course of action in considering lifeline services to Barra. However, any subsidy that we provide to transport services must be well founded and in conformity with European regulations. The reviews of frequency, capacity and pricing that were referred to simply involve specifying what the operator who wins a PSO service must deliver. Under the same European regulation—that is, regulation 2408/92—we are also required to consider adequacy of the service with regard to whether there is
"recourse to other forms of transport",
which the regulation mentions particularly in the case of island communities.
We have therefore advertised the next PSO for Glasgow to Barra for one year only. As has been said, that was a ministerial decision, not a European one. It is critical to stress that we have made no decision regarding the future of Barra air services, but we recognise our obligation to have regard to European requirements. It seems to us better that the review should be instituted by Scottish ministers and that it should be undertaken in partnership with our local and Scottish partners so that we can reach properly informed conclusions about the way ahead.
In essence, the minister is saying that the air link—and, according to his letter, the airport—may be under threat because of the potential of other means of transportation. Was the Executive aware of that when the improvements to the ferry came through? Were those concerns shared with the community? If not, why not?
It is always the case, it has always been the case and it is well known to any who take an interest in public service obligations that there is a requirement to justify any such public subsidy in the context of the transport infrastructure that is serving those communities at the time. Kenny MacAskill suggested that the creation of a rail service to the central Borders might in some way result in the withdrawal of trunk road status or road services. Of course, that does not apply. We are talking about a public subsidy to a transport service that might, under other circumstances, be provided on a commercial basis by a private company.
That gives us certain obligations with regard to the way in which subsidies are provided and it would be remiss of us not to take those obligations into account. The European regulations ask us to consider recourse to other forms of transport when deciding upon the need for a PSO. As has been said, within a few months there will be a step change in the ferry service that connects Barra to Eriskay and onwards to the Western Isles, including Benbecula and Stornoway.
Of course, when ministers are taking any funding decisions, it is incumbent on them to consider those decisions in the wider context of value for public money.
Is the minister aware of any action taken by the EC on the PSO imposed on the Derry to Dublin service in view of the significant improvement in the road infrastructure in the Irish Republic and north of the border?
I am not aware of any such step, but I am sure that the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Administration are both aware of the need for them to conform with European regulations in the provision of public subsidy.
The enhancement to which I refer is not the ferry to which Alasdair Morrison referred and on which I and others travelled last week, but the introduction of a new, larger and, I trust, more stable vessel that is expected to arrive within the next few months. That ferry will make a material change to the connectivity of Barra with the Western Isles. That change has been made possible by significant recent investment in ferries, causeways and harbour facilities.
I am delighted to hear about the new ferry, but does the minister agree that it could not possibly compensate for the loss of the air service?
It requires that we review the provision of that PSO in the context of the wider transport infrastructure. Our continuing investment in the provision of air transport cannot be considered in isolation. That is why we are conducting a review in the context of a one-year continuing PSO with public support for the air service. That is also why we are working in partnership with the local authority, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, and with Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.
We have made it clear that we are committed to an open and transparent review that will be conducted with the involvement of those local parties, and that we will listen to the community's views.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I am conscious of the time.
Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd is owned by Scottish ministers but, as operator of Barra airport, it is a partner in the review in its own right. Clearly we have invested in the airport through the subsidy that we provide to HIAL. Current capital expenditure schemes for the Western Isles alone amount to £1 million.
Of course, we will continue to work with local partners and to take their priorities into account. During my visit to Barra last week, I was made well aware of the concerns that have been expressed by the community. I also received a report that was commissioned by Western Isles Enterprise on the economic aspects of any change to the PSO service.
The issue is complex. Executive funding of the airport is even more substantial than our funding of the Glasgow to Barra air services. The rising costs of operating that airport and the continuing viability of the beach airstrip and of the aircraft operating there are all issues with which we have to grapple, as Maureen Macmillan said.
Previous discussions on proposals for a hard airstrip in Barra failed to deliver local consensus and the proposal for a hard runway was rejected by the community. Clearly those issues will have to make progress if the air services to Barra are to be retained and the financing of any such proposals would be critical. The review will tackle all those matters. Last week, I visited Barra to give my personal commitment to the openness and transparency of that review. I undertook to reach a decision within the next few weeks on whether a one-year review will be sufficient to allow an in-depth consideration of the future provision of air services to Barra.
I assure members that the issue is being considered as a priority by my officials in partnership with the local authority, and that we will seek to reach a decision in order to agree a basis for future lifeline services to Barra at the earliest possible date.
Meeting closed at 18:00.