Contents
New Petition
Island Lifeline Ferry Ports (Parking Charges) (PE1722)
Item 2 is consideration of a new petition. PE1722, on parking charges at island lifeline ferry ports, was lodged by Dr Shiona Ruhemann on behalf of Iona and Mull community councils and others, including the Mull and Iona Community Trust, South West Mull and Iona Development and Mull and Iona ferry committee. I welcome John Finnie MSP. I should indicate that Dave Stewart MSP has expressed an interest in the petition and that Liam McArthur MSP has provided a written note on the issues more generally and the importance of access to parking for island communities.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to island proof transport infrastructure to ensure that public bodies do not charge for parking in car parks at island ferry ports, which are essential lifeline services, and that any proposed island parking charges are subject to rigorous impact assessment. Our clerk’s note for the petition explains that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 grants local authorities the power to provide off-street car parks and to charge for their use. As landowners, harbour authorities can levy charges in car parks on their property. Our note also refers to the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 and highlights that island community impact assessments and the duty to have regard to island communities have yet to be brought into force.
Rhoda Grant MSP hoped to be in attendance for our consideration of the petition, but she is unable to be here today. In her absence, she has provided us with her views on the petition. She says:
“It is clear from the petition that the parking charges proposed are at a level that would cause financial hardship for islanders. Neither has this impact been subject to an economic or islands impact assessment.
I hope the Committee can use its influence to prevail on Argyll and Bute Council to reconsider this policy.
While I have every sympathy with the Council and their struggle to provide services with a diminishing budget, to hit already disadvantaged communities with additional charges is incredibly unfair.
It may be that the Council would consider providing those living on these islands with free parking while levying charges on visitors as a compromise.”
Members may wish to note that Mike Russell MSP was also unable to attend for the consideration of the petition, but he has indicated his support for it and the petitioners.
I ask John Finnie whether he wants to make a few comments.
Thank you for allowing me to speak, convener. I echo the views of my colleagues. This is not a party-political issue; it is an issue about communities. Communities rightly look to their local authority to look after their interests but, unfortunately, as my colleague Rhoda Grant said, that is not what has happened in this case. Had Argyll and Bute Council done any meaningful assessment, particularly the economic impact assessment that Rhoda mentioned, it would have shown that the measure would have a significant detrimental effect on many people in the islands. It is important that the council understands the implications of the decisions that it makes, including the wider implications, which we have heard about from Liam McArthur. Clearly, people in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles will keep a watchful eye on the issue.
I support all the proposals in the clerk’s paper. The irony is that Argyll and Bute Council maintained an interest in the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. Notwithstanding the fact that the provisions that the convener referred to have not yet come into force, the council had an opportunity to have regard to them, so it is extremely disappointing that it has not done so. I am sure that the communities will be keen for the committee to take the issue on board.
As a regular visitor to the Isle of Mull—in fact, I got married there five years ago—I know it very well. I have regularly used all the car parks where the introduction of charges is proposed; I am particularly familiar with those at the ferry terminals at Craignure and Tobermory. I have a lot of sympathy for the petition, and I can understand the anger of islanders and visitors to the island.
It strikes me that, as the petitioner highlights in her submission, Argyll and Bute Council has not paid any heed to the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, which requires councils and other relevant authorities to carry out island community impact assessments. Unfortunately, as we know, the ICIAs are not yet in force, but I understand from our briefings and from media coverage—I have been following the issue closely—that not even a basic impact assessment was undertaken by the council. In my view, that is simply not good enough. The proposal will have economic impacts, because the car parks in question—especially the one at Craignure and possibly the one at Fionnphort—are part of the island lifeline services. The petitioner has raised other issues, including displacement in Tobermory, which will create even more difficulties. It is hard enough to get parked in the back streets in Tobermory as it is.
I am very supportive of the petition, and I definitely think that we should take it further, although I am happy to hear other members’ views.
I support everything that my colleagues have said. It strikes me that the islands are unique in Scotland when it comes to travel to a transport facility. We would expect to be able to travel to an airport by public transport, whether rail or—in Edinburgh—tram. In this case, the alternatives are limited. On the islands, I cannot imagine that there are many alternatives to the private car. In other words, it is a closed shop, if you like. The community has little option.
I have great sympathy for the petition, and I think that we should take it on.
My colleagues have summarised the position very nicely. I think that we are all in agreement, although I am not sure about David Torrance—
I am in agreement.
—that some sort of assessment should be done and that a consultation should be held, to find out about the economic impact and the cost to people who rely on ferry transport.
I have two questions. The first is why the island community impact assessments have not been brought into force. The legislative provision in question, which is contained in an act that was passed last year, does not seem to be very complicated. We should ask the Scottish Government why there has been a delay. This is the second time that we have dealt with a petition relating to a failure to carry out such an assessment. When we considered the petition on rural general practitioners’ pay, it was clear that an island impact assessment had not been done on that.
My other question is for Argyll and Bute Council. If we work on the assumption that no one wilfully does something that will cause people problems, we need to find out what pressures on the council have led it to consider introducing charges. As someone whose family comes from the islands and who travels to the islands regularly, I know how important it is for people who have hospital appointments to be able to leave their car at the pier. The petitioner’s concern about that is evident. I am interested in discovering what has brought Argyll and Bute Council to this point. Like equality impact assessments, island community impact assessments are important in understanding whether a policy will have a disproportionate impact.
It has been mentioned that a possible solution might be to identify the difference between the local community and the visiting community, but even charges on the visiting community would have an impact on tourism. There are many issues to explore, and I think that we should afford the council the opportunity to explain what brought it to the conclusion that the introduction of such charges was appropriate. We should also ask the Scottish Government why there has been a delay in bringing into force what seems to me to be the most straightforward part of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018.
I add that my colleague Donald Cameron wrote to Brian Whittle and me to express his support for a consultation, which we have concluded would be a good idea.
It is possible to consult, but we need to find out what the force of such a consultation would be. There should be legislative underpinning for that, but there does not seem to be.
We recognise that the petition raises significant issues that we would like to explore further. We will write to the Scottish Government and Argyll and Bute Council. Is there anyone else we should write to?
Given that at least two of the car parks are right beside ferry terminals, I think that we should contact CalMac Ferries and Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd to get their views.
We could write to Transport Scotland, too.
I wonder whether there might be any benefit in the committee hearing from the other island authorities on how they would deal with the situation.
I think that there was an islands alliance, but I do not know whether it still exists. Before the Islands (Scotland) Bill was introduced, there was a campaign group, which might have a view, too. It would be useful to contact the other island authorities.
We thank the petitioner for bringing the petition to our attention.
09:26 Meeting suspended.09:27 On resuming—
Next
Continued Petitions