Official Report 264KB pdf
Loch Ryan Port (Harbour Empowerment) Order 2009
Item 3 is subordinate legislation. We will take evidence on the Loch Ryan Port (Harbour Empowerment) Order 2009 and hear again from Stewart Stevenson, who is still with us from the previous item. He is joined by officials: Alastair Wilson, who is deputy director for aviation, ports, freight and canals at the Scottish Government—he must have a very large business card for that job title—and Jacqueline Pantony, who is principal legal officer for justice and communities at the Scottish Government. I welcome them to the committee.
I will make some brief remarks. In view of our previous interactions, I start by saying that Stena Line Ports (Loch Ryan) Limited estimates that the new operation and proposed new vessels will result in a 22.5 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions for the journeys that are made across the channel to Northern Ireland. It is an investment of some £200 million over the long term, which safeguards 500 local jobs and is expected to bring in 100 additional jobs during construction.
You spoke about new jobs that the new terminal would create, and I recognise the benefits of increased freight capacity and reduced journey times that it will bring about, but I am concerned about the impact that it might have on Stranraer town centre. Has the Government considered mitigation measures to assist Stranraer to cope with the loss of visitors that might result from the project? Scottish Enterprise originally had plans to invest in the town centre but, with the changes in the agency that your Government has brought about, it now considers that to be a local investment, not a national one. Will you talk about that?
I understand that the local council is anxious for the project to go ahead because it will free up space in the centre of town. Rather than considering it to be a commercial development that prevents the development of the town centre, the council regards it as beneficial to Stranraer's economy.
Following on from Alison McInnes's question, I want to ask about the train service to and from Stranraer. Can we be assured that there will be no diminution in the service? With regard to the future shape of the ScotRail franchise, will the minister keep an open mind about opportunities to improve the service?
Currently, the number of people who arrive at the port by rail is of the order of 53,000. Stena is looking to ensure that there is a bus connection between the rail head and the new port so that rail can remain an important part of the transport infrastructure that supports the ferry operation.
If the development goes ahead, a future Scottish Administration will need to look at the economic viability of the existing rail service when deciding whether it should continue to be allowed to decline as part of, for example, any subsequent changes to the franchise. Has any modelling been done on the expected impact on the demand for the rail service to Stranraer? Might that calculation result in a different conclusion in future from what we might wish today?
I am not aware of our having modelled that, but I can check. However, I expect the traffic figures to move in an upward rather than downward direction, given that Stena's investment in larger vessels will increase capacity—
Perhaps I did not explain my question properly. I was talking about the rail service to Stranraer, and I think that the bulk of its passengers currently travel to the port.
That is correct, but I do not think that there is any suggestion that the people who travel to the ferry by train are likely to cease travelling by train. A bus connection to the ferry port will meet the trains and ferries, so the rail service will still be a very good way of getting to the ferry. Clearly, a substantial proportion of those 53,000 people are making a relatively long train journey, so a bus journey at the end will be relatively incidental for them. I see no particular reason why we should fear a diminution in patronage levels.
The people who live in Stranraer will also be concerned about the rail connections that they enjoy at present. If the bulk of that rail traffic no longer needs to go to Stranraer, is there not a danger that the people of Stranraer will face a reduced service in future?
No, I suggest quite the opposite. I would expect the number of passengers who use Stranraer railway station to increase rather than to diminish.
I am interested in article 7, "Power to dredge", which appears in part 2 of the order. I appreciate that the order deals with the initial construction, but I want to ask whether the viability of the project relies on a power to dredge regularly. I understand that dredging powers are an issue in the Marine (Scotland) Bill, and I know that an opportunity to dredge regularly is required in some areas. Is there is any stipulation about that? I note that ministers have approved procedures for dredging.
Let me give you a slightly anorak answer, while others look for something of another character. One of the original objectors was the gentleman with the oyster farm, which is the oldest natural oyster farm in Scotland and perhaps even further afield. He has now withdrawn his objection because of the work that has been done to diminish the environmental impact of the whole build and operation. The fact is that we have been able to satisfy the various regulators and the individual whose commercial interests are affected; that tells us something about the wider environmental impact.
Yes, because of the environmental impact.
I am not sure that I have a direct answer to the question. Given the environmentally sensitive nature of the area, the whole issue of the environment, including the matter you raised, has been considered fully. The fact that the oyster farmer has withdrawn his objection and expects to remain in business is a pretty clear indicator that materials will not be thrown into the water. That is the important thing for him, as his oysters require quite clean water.
I return to the issue of rail. I understand that, in their submissions to the strategic transport review, the local authority and local transport partnership called for the reopening of the Carlisle to Stranraer line. That cannot be done immediately, but it has the potential to be a goer in decades to come. Indeed, the proposal might allow modal shift in transporting goods to Northern Ireland.
Yes, the port of Stranraer is important for the north of England—Carlisle and the area beyond. It is also important not only for the whole of Scotland but for Northern Ireland and traffic to the Republic of Ireland.
In previous sessions, you have made commitments on the emphasis that the Scottish Government places on rail freight, but some questions appear to remain unresolved. The Government seems to be pushing ahead on the proposal before us without being able to answer questions on the future of rail freight in this area.
I would not wish you to go away with that view, convener. For example, it is clear that, unlike other parts of the rail network, there are no gauge restraints on the line to Stranraer. Governments have been addressing those constraints over a period of time—the previous Administration cleared the constraints between Dundee and Aberdeen, for example—but it is not thought that there any gauge constraints in this case.
And also for the new development at Loch Ryan.
Yes. Remember that both P&O and Stena are involved. The proposal is a commercial matter for the rail operator and whoever it will be—I do not know at this stage which company the freight will be carried by. It has been established, however, how the rail freight will be linked to Cairnryan. That has already been taken account of, and indeed the P&O ferries—
Is that what is currently proposed to be done?
No—in that it is a commercial proposal that is being worked up, and it has not yet been put to Government. I learned of it this morning.
That takes us back to the point that I raised earlier. I would have welcomed some clarity around the issues before the proposal for the development was made, rather than simply the Government noting the potential and using phrases like, "It remains to be seen."
It would make no sense for us to invest in infrastructure that will not be used. Operators may apply for the freight facilities grant to create the infrastructure that they require to support modal shift. For example, investment has been made at Needlefield in Inverness, which has taken 44 Tesco lorries a day off the A9. When that proposal was presented for Stobart Rail to take Tesco dry goods off the road and on to the railway, the appropriate response was made to invest in developing the Needlefield yard. Exactly the same process will apply at Stranraer when there is a viable proposal.
In your opening remarks you spoke about a 22.5 per cent reduction in carbon emissions. That is presumably in the emissions that are directly related to the operation of the Stena boats.
Correct. That figure derives from a number of factors. There will be newer boats—albeit bigger—so there is a benefit there. The distance steamed will be reduced because the route will start further up the loch. The vessels will be steaming at a lower proportion of the maximum speed, and thus their operation will be more economical. There is a range of ways in which the project will deliver a carbon benefit. I hope that you recognise my point: in this project, as in others, an appreciation and understanding of the carbon impact are a key part of the project.
Can you put a figure on the other carbon impacts with respect to onward journeys and the levels of freight and all other kinds of traffic? The emissions that relate directly to the boat are significant, but surely we should also calculate the emissions relating to the rest of any passenger or cargo journey.
I cannot do that. I have told members what Stena has informed us. It has told us what it believes the emissions reduction will be from its project, and we have no reason to disagree with what it has said.
So there has been no attempt to assess the wider impact.
No.
Okay.
There is probably no more that I should say at this stage.
I suggest that, if members are minded to approve the motion, we should agree to append a recommendation that the Scottish Government produce an assessment of the global carbon impact of the proposal and modelling of future traffic demand. Committee members have asked questions about those matters and the minister has not been able to provide answers to them.
I have a point of clarification, convener. It is perhaps disappointing that you did not ask the minister about the changes that that recommendation would make to the timescale of the project and the delays that it could result in, so that we could get a full understanding of the implications of what you are asking us to approve.
The minister will have the opportunity to make a closing statement. Do members have any other comments?
The exercise that the convener has suggested would be useful, but it should not necessarily be attached to the order. It would be suitable for us to ask the minister about those matters separately, because the bounds of what the convener suggests that we append to the order are very wide. Shirley-Anne Somerville argued that there could be a slowdown in delivery, which could be a problem for the Parliament. We want such a national project to go ahead as soon as possible.
I am not minded to delay such a significant project, but I do not necessarily disagree with the convener. In a sense, the issue is procedural. A lot depends on whether, in his summing up, the minister acquiesces in the convener's suggestion and proceeding by that or other means. The process of acceding to the request is secondary, in a sense. I am not saying that the procedure that has been suggested is not proper, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.
It is within our discretion to approve the order and, in so doing, to request, perhaps by letter, that the minister provide information about a global carbon assessment and traffic modelling. Members have raised those issues.
I would like clarity, if you do not mind, convener. Would the committee's approval of the order be conditional on receiving that information or would the information be additional? I would be concerned if the committee's approval of the order was conditional on that information coming forward. That could cause a delay.
I would be content for the order to be approved if the minister could provide that information.
I would be deeply uncomfortable if the process that is being described were to delay in any way a project that creates jobs. I understand that the company has contractors teed up to start, although I do not know the exact timetable. I am not sure of the practical and legal effects of attaching a recommendation to the motion or indeed the procedure for doing so, but I am sure that the committee clerk will provide appropriate advice.
In that case, I will put two separate questions to the committee, in recognition of the fact that they address separate matters: what recommendation on the order the committee wants to make to the Parliament; and whether we want to seek more information from the minister on the issues that I raised.
No.
There will be a division
For
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Motion agreed to,
That the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee recommends that the Loch Ryan Port (Harbour Empowerment) Order 2009 be approved.
The committee's report to the Parliament will confirm the result of our debate.
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the witnesses for taking the time to answer questions on the order.
Meeting continued in private until 17:15.
Previous
Active Travel Inquiry