Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Do you mean the island impact assessment?

It was aware that the assessment had taken place.

The assessment’s undertaking was delayed; that might have, quite legitimately, been due to Covid. Its publication was significantly delayed after it was handed to HIAL’s management, before it was shared more publicly. As far as I am aware, the predecessor committee did not have an opportunity to look at the detail of that in the context of our work on the petition.

Such assessments are provided for in the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. The coming into force of the provisions was slightly delayed, so there is a question as to whether the proposals were legally bound to be subject to an island impact assessment, but given the nature of the programme, HIAL undertook the assessment, the conclusions of which—