I declare an interest as a member of the Dornoch link action group.I question the substance on which the Government's advice is based. Paragraph 5 of the committee's paper states:"The Committee agreed to write again to the Minister to raise concerns regarding the methodology used to calculate the benefit to cost ratio for a new rail link. Members also questioned whether the full social and socioeconomic benefits of the Dornoch rail link project to the north of Scotland had been included in the calculation of the project's benefit to cost ratio."I have some freedom of information material that is relevant, which I would like members to have a look at. It will be helpful to pass round copies of it so that I can refer to particular paragraphs.Members will receive a copy of three e-mails, which start at the bottom of the second page and continue up the page from there. They were all written on 9 January 2006. Initially, a request was made to find out what the remits of the Halcrow and Scott Wilson studies were. That e-mail is in Arial type and was sent from a parliamentary e-mail account—the names have been blocked out. The next one is in Roman type and starts, "Gents". Discussions were held over Christmas 1995 about the proposed rail link. Near the top of "Page 2 of 3", the author of the e-mail, who I think was the chairman of the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership, says:"What this all boils down to is that we don't have any vaguely authoritative information (that I'm aware of) on the likely costs with which to comment or respond to this continued campaign.As you'll know we, as a steering group, decided that Scott Wilson shouldn't look at the Dornoch Costs under Room for Growth. This was a pragmatic decision, based on common sense, and almost certainly the correct one. However when we release the study briefs to Mr Gibson's office (as we'll have to) and they realise that the Dornoch issue was not specifically ruled out there, then we'll need to fall back on the minute of the steering group meeting and explain our thinking."The e-mail goes on, and the final paragraph says that there are "dedicated campaigners" and that"The bottom-line is that this issue isn't going to go away".What worries me is that there is no sense of any detailed cost benefit analysis, although one paragraph suggests who could be asked to do such an analysis.If members look at page 1, they will see an e-mail from a"Rail Policy & Projects OfficerArea 2-G DocksideScottish Executive".The first sentence is:"Identifying the costs is only half the issue."A section of the next sentence has been blocked out, but it ends:"whatever figure you come up with, as long as they don't have to quantify the benefits."I am extremely concerned. The information in these e-mails suggests to me that there has been agreement in the steering group involving Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Highlands and Islands transport partnership, and agreement among civil servants in the Scottish Executive, that they would not consider the petitioners' proposal. The e-mails probably reveal that no detailed analysis of the benefits was done. It therefore seems to me that the minister—whose answers we are now considering—may well have received information that is far from accurate. In other words, he is not misleading us but has been misinformed in respect of the detail that would be required in considering a major transport project.I ask that we discuss this material with the minister, and ask him to tell us in detail what work was done, so that we can accurately estimate the costs of the proposal that the Association of Caithness Community Councils has made. I also ask that we keep the petition open to ensure that the committee receives the information that it requires. The e-mails that I have discussed appear to me to be an attempt to suggest that it would be common sense not to consider the proposal because it would cost far too much, and to suggest that a cost of £100 million would be outrageous.We have to compare the proposal with other transport projects. Analysis is not done on the basis of the approach that is described in those e-mails. In this age of climate change, it beggars belief that we can ignore the potential of railways in any part of the country. The proposed link ought to be part of the modernisation that we hope for in the rest of the network, but it seems to have been ruled out on the basis of rather limited—indeed, scanty—information.
link