Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will make a final point to follow up what David Avery said about not having a particular concern about where radar surveillance jobs are based. I understand that, and that the primary concerns are that jobs are secure and well paid, and that training is in place. As representatives of the various communities that HIAL serves, we have an interest in where the jobs are based. If there are not overwhelming arguments for their being based centrally as is proposed, rather than being dispersed round the network, HIAL needs to explain why that is happening. The expectation should be that, as far as possible, HIAL and other public bodies disperse jobs around the region. Peter Henderson has also set out real concerns about the practicability of what is proposed.

I will make a couple of observations before I turn to the issue on which Rhoda Grant was pressing Mr Avery.

I still cannot get my head round the fact that we were told for years by HIAL management that its air traffic management strategy project was the only show in town and the only credible option. It has backed off from that much later in the day than I and many others hoped it would. Mr Avery’s assessment that that is the result of a number of factors is probably fair, but the cost and delivery of the project were always seriously under question, which might well have driven HIAL back to the negotiating table.

However, there has been no reckoning with those who marched us up that hill then marched us back down again. The earlier point about Audit Scotland casting its eyes over the matter seems to be entirely sensible and reasonable. The cost is one component; another aspect is how decisions were made. The cost to the public purse is a real concern. I have had discussions with Audit Scotland, which suggested that that is more a matter for Transport Scotland to deal with. However, in a sense, Transport Scotland has skin in the game, given its responsibility for HIAL. I am keen to understand the extent to which Audit Scotland could provide satisfaction that due process was followed and that public money was not needlessly wasted, as appears to have been the case.

On centralising radar, which Mr Henderson mentioned and Rhoda Grant pursued just now, similar concerns, although they are a little different, are now being raised. Mr Henderson spoke about those concerns. The issue seems to fall into the same category—that is, it concerns a review or a decision that has been predetermined. Although it appears to be consulting more, HIAL is asking how to deliver what it has already determined that it will deliver. I wonder whether work needs to be done to get HIAL almost to go back to first principles.

HIAL might have delivered on that, but the matter is not completely alien to it. If the concerns that Mr Henderson raised are legitimate—they seem to be borne out by evidence—I would hope that the committee and Prospect, in its discussions with HIAL, might be able to persuade HIAL to go back to first principles and determine whether a centralised model for radar surveillance is more practicable and in the interests of the island communities that rely on the lifeline services. Does Mr Avery agree with that? Might Prospect be able to carry forward that approach in its negotiations?

I think that that must be the motivation. We are at an impasse where, in a sense, HIAL was suggesting that installing remote towers was the only way of achieving the modernisation that everybody accepts is necessary for future air traffic services in the region. Having reached an agreement that lifts that immediate threat to jobs, perhaps Prospect feels that things have been moved on. However, there is certainly an anxiety among staff at the local level that HIAL is buying the time that it was always going to need to achieve the remote towers.

I would be interested to know whether Prospect believes that that remains the case, but a number of its members, including staff in Orkney and, I understand, at other airports, remain anxious about the longer-term intentions of HIAL management.

I will be extremely brief, convener. I very much welcome the comments from the deputy convener and Alexander Stewart.

As Rhoda Grant said, local recruitment is essential. HIAL almost made the process an exemplar when it last recruited locally. Since then, it has moved away from that model and sought to hire ready-made air traffic controllers. That was always a short-term fix, and it has left the company with some retention issues.

It would offer staff at various airports some reassurance if HIAL were to embark on a local recruitment drive. The approach has proven to be the best way of not just recruiting but retaining staff. If HIAL management gives evidence to the committee, that is a point that could be very usefully put to them.

I will try to be as brief as possible, convener.

The petitioner has set out very well some of the remaining issues. For example, it is not at all clear where the idea of radar surveillance has come from. It certainly begs some questions about the £3.5 million that was spent on New Century house, which now seems to be a rather expensive white elephant in relation to ATMS. That speaks to the concerns that both Rhoda Grant and I, and, more importantly, the petitioners raised about the incremental costs that have been incurred through the process on an objective that was seen as the only show in town but which has miraculously now been temporarily dumped. There is an on-going concern that HIAL may simply dust down the remote tower proposals four or five years down the line and seek to reintroduce them.

The other point that I stress is about the extent to which HIAL is relying on co-operative surveillance. There have been some suggestions from HIAL that that was up and ready to go, but that has been refuted by the CAA. It would be interesting to hear HIAL’s response to that challenge, because, fundamentally, if the CAA is not convinced, it will not get off the ground.

There are many questions that remain to be answered. The immediate risk to jobs on the islands and at the other airports is to be lifted, but there is some deep anxiety about the medium to longer term. There is also anxiety about HIAL’s handling of a project that seems to have been calamitous and which looks set to rack up more and more costs at the public’s expense.

If the committee were minded to hear directly from the petitioners and had time available in which to do so, that would be very valuable, in that more detail could be laid out on some of the issues that the committee could usefully continue to keep under review.

I was talking about the deputy convener and Alexander Stewart, rather than the deputy convener being Alexander Stewart.

Absolutely.

In correspondence with HIAL, it would be helpful to tease out what alternative options it is actively considering. It has talked about delaying a final decision on remote towers but no alternatives.

I thank the convener for allowing me to participate in these discussions.

I do not have a great deal to add to what Rhoda Grant set out, which was comprehensive and which I agree with in its entirety. The five-year delay was almost inevitable anyway. The deadlines that HIAL was working to were always heroically overambitious. We therefore would have been at this point at some stage in the future anyway; alongside—as Rhoda touched on—an inflated budget, given the problems that the project has already hit.

I recognise that, from the perspective of the committee, building in that five-year hiatus makes it difficult to pursue lines of inquiry, because the response that the committee will get back is that it is all under consideration and that they will take a view in four to five years’ time.

However, given the investments that HIAL is making in a remote tower in Inverness and the reputational investment that the senior management has made in remote towers, the fact that they are not talking about alternatives to the remote tower model reinforces the impression that they have bought themselves a little bit of time. They have bought themselves a little bit of breathing space from the criticism that they were receiving from across political parties and, more importantly, the communities that are most directly affected. Therefore, I hope that there is some mechanism whereby the committee can make it clear that the matter remains in the crosshairs of scrutiny, however that pans out over the next few months and years.

Thank you, convener, and thank you for inviting me to participate in the committee’s discussions. I put on record my gratitude to your predecessor and to the predecessor committee for the work that they did on the petition, which was pretty forensic. As you have outlined, they did some fairly detailed work, which included holding a number of oral evidence sessions. Those were very helpful, not necessarily in getting to the conclusion that I was looking for, but in exposing some of the fundamental issues that are involved in the project.

I urge the committee to keep the petition open. I think that HIAL’s management have been unwilling to accept the deep concerns that exist across all the communities that are served by the air traffic services that are to be centralised in Inverness. Those concerns extend across the political spectrum and to people who have no political affiliation at all.

There is no question but that modernisation of air traffic services is needed—that is not contested at all. What is fiercely contested is that the remote tower model is the only viable model that will achieve that modernisation and meet the current regulatory requirements and those that are coming down the track.

Since the predecessor committee took evidence, the most substantive development has been the publication of the delayed island impact assessment. Certainly in the Orkney context, it identified no positive benefits and a range of significant negative impacts of the centralisation proposals. Therefore, there is a feeling in the community that I represent that, if the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 and the island-proofing concept are to mean anything, simply setting aside that island impact assessment is not a sustainable position.

In response to written questions, ministers have confirmed that they have had no engagement with HIAL’s management on the outcome of the island impact assessment, which seems wholly unjustified and unsatisfactory. At the very least, I hope that the committee agrees that that needs to be addressed.

The other point to reinforce is that the proposals predate the pandemic and the impact on air services generally. There is a real concern that the commitment of hundreds of millions of pounds of public money to the rolling out of the programme will be compounded by further investment before proper due diligence and audit is conducted on that expenditure. We can all draw on examples of when that process has led to fairly unpleasant and regrettable outcomes in other areas of public expenditure. I hope that the committee agrees that the audit process needs to kick in earlier on, because we do not want to be told, “You really didn’t want to do that” some way down the line when the money has already been spent and we are well past the point of no return.

I am not sure that I can add much more at this stage. As I said, the island impact assessment has exposed many of the concerns that Rhoda Grant, our former colleague Gail Ross and I articulated at previous committee meetings. Those concerns were shared by many committee colleagues at that stage. It might be useful for this committee to follow that up with the cabinet secretary and HIAL.