Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 26 Jan 2010

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Official Report 264KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

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.

The order is an affirmative instrument. Therefore, the Parliament is required to approve it before its provisions come into force. Under item 4, we will be invited to consider a motion to approve it but, under this item, we are simply taking evidence. I invite the minister to make any introductory remarks that he wishes to lead the evidence on the order.

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.

The ferry operations from the south-west of Scotland to Northern Ireland are an important part of our infrastructure and are equally a vital part of Northern Ireland's transport infrastructure. They are a matter on which, from time to time, we have discussions with our colleagues across the water.

I am happy to take the committee's questions.

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.

Stranraer is, of course, distant from many of the centres of Scotland. Associated and running in parallel with the development are a range of road interventions to improve connections from Carlisle and Glasgow to Stranraer—basically the A75 and A77—because we recognise that the project will increase traffic. That is why the strategic transport projects review referred to our activities in the area and the national planning framework also referred to the project.

It is clear that there is substantial local support for the project. Local people certainly hope that it will proceed.

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.

Clearly, the waterfront project is designed to bring more people to Stranraer, and I am absolutely clear that a continuing rail service will be an important part of assisting that process. After all, the savings that might be made by closing or reducing the rail service would be minimal by comparison with the costs of creating new services and new stations. Therefore, it seems very likely that we will wish to sustain the existing service—I certainly wish to do so.

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.

Indeed, given that the ferry service will have a greater capacity to carry passengers, goods and lorries, I assume that the marginal cost of providing the ferry service for passengers will diminish. In addition, given that both P&O and Stena operate from Cairnryan, the ferry service operates in a competitive environment. I would expect more passengers to travel on the route and, hence, that there will be increased opportunities for rail to gain additional patronage.

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.

I know that that is an anorak question.

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.

I accept that that does not answer directly the question how often we would have to dredge to keep the port going—

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 know that I am answering the question indirectly by reference to something else, but I think that I have done so in a way that should give us a reasonable degree of comfort that the environmental issue to which you refer has been addressed, albeit that I cannot pinpoint the answer that you asked for.

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.

This very morning, I was at a meeting that the Freight Transport Association hosted at which some of these issues were discussed. One early idea that is actively under consideration is for freight to go to by rail to Stranraer. It is at an early stage—Government officials are not involved thus far—but it is clear that there is a view that there are commercial opportunities to transport freight by rail to Stranraer.

The industry has not yet raised with me the idea of connecting Stranraer and Carlisle, but I would of course be happy to talk to anyone about that. Cross-border issues would arise, but Andrew Adonis, the Secretary of State for Transport—for the time being, at least—and I are pretty much of a shared mind. The huge and effective co-operation from the DFT during the bad weather indicates the good relationship that we have. If we feel that such a connection is the sort of thing that we need to discuss, we will be able to discuss it.

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.

The only issue that arises at Stranraer is the possible provision of an extra siding. A proposal for that has yet to be made to us, although we stand ready to react to it. We have freight facilities grants, which the people who are potentially interested in taking freight to Stranraer are aware of. We have already ensured that they know of our enthusiasm for such developments. At the moment, the proposal is with the people who are actively considering it. We stand ready to support such measures, and I would not wish anyone on the committee to imagine that I have anything other than enthusiasm for them.

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.

Officials have not yet been approached. It was only because I was at an industry forum that I heard about the proposals. No one has actually approached Government officials or the minister on the subject. I took the opportunity today—as I would always wish to do—to assure those concerned that I want us to make our decisions as quickly as possible and that we are enthusiastic in encouraging the proposals to be progressed.

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.

As there are no further questions, we move on to agenda item 4, which is formal consideration of motion S3M-5468. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion.

There is probably no more that I should say at this stage.

I move,

That the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee recommends that the Loch Ryan Port (Harbour Empowerment) Order 2009 be approved.

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.

I will, of course, be happy to respond to members' questions about the project or requests for further information. I point out that we commission the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change to answer our questions and take the lead on monitoring carbon emissions in Scotland. No intervention, whether it is the one that we are discussing or another, will escape having its carbon impact measured. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 has 100 sections, of which 21 provide for extensive reporting and targets that we must meet. It is clear that the Loch Ryan project, like other projects, is covered by the provisions of the 2009 act.

I am very unclear about the effect of attempting to attach a recommendation to the motion, and I do not know in what form you would do so, but that is a procedural matter for the committee and its advisers as much as it is a matter for me. However, if the committee wants to write to me, I am always willing to respond to its requests.

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.

First, the question is, that motion S3M-5468, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division

For

Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)

Abstentions

Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)

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.

Secondly, do members agree to write to the minister to seek further information on outstanding issues?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the witnesses for taking the time to answer questions on the order.

Meeting continued in private until 17:15.