Official Report 291KB pdf
Our final item is consideration of a draft approach paper on the freight transport inquiry that we have agreed to undertake later in the session. The paper sets out the agreed terms of reference for the inquiry and highlights a number of issues that we need to decide on, including the timetable and the question whether we meet outwith the Edinburgh area to visit relevant agencies or facilities either in a fact-finding capacity or formally as a committee. I also want to sign off paragraphs 8 and 9, which set out the inquiry's terms of reference. I will open up the discussion to members before I try to pin things down.
I have only some relatively minor comments on the paper, which is helpful and clear. The terms of reference appear to be fine. They encompass the points that Michael McMahon and I heard when petition PE876 was presented to the Public Petitions Committee and members' comments that we should look at all modes of transport—which is good—and find out what the Executive is doing. Paragraph 9 mentions
You would like to add the words "the present and future contribution".
On the timescale for submissions, I thought that eight weeks might be better. I say that because I mentioned the inquiry to several people in the industry and they expressed great interest in it. It is the first time that freight will have been studied in the Scottish Parliament. A fixed period of eight weeks for submissions of evidence might allow us all to spread the word and to give local businesses, not just the usual suspects, their say.
We could suggest that we think that it would be useful to have such visits. Members could e-mail suggestions to Martin Verity, who will collate them and bring them back to the committee as options.
Yes. I was thinking that we could do that now, but we might also want to see what comes from the submissions, which might give us other leads.
We can take suggestions at the moment without concluding the issue.
My final point is about the timetable. I suspect that we will have to take a considerable volume of oral evidence because we want to cover all modes. There is the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, employers, unions, economists and the Scottish Executive and we will want to consider the economic impact, road, rail, sea and air. We might be into March before we stop taking evidence, although much will depend on the feedback that we get. The remit is fairly wide, so, although the approximate timetable is fine, we might need a bit longer for taking oral evidence. We could discuss that again when the written submissions are returned.
Absolutely. The paper contains only a draft outline of the timetable. We will not agree on the witnesses whom we want to see until the meeting in December. If it then becomes clear that we need a couple of additional sessions, we can make that decision at that stage.
I am glad that the terms of reference will now mention potential. I am particularly interested in the potential for ferry routes other than the Rosyth to Zeebrugge route, particularly into Scandinavia and Germany. It would be useful if, as part of the terms of reference, we acknowledged the contribution of ferries to getting freight off our roads, to which the Rosyth to Zeebrugge route is beginning to make a substantial contribution.
I take your point about ferries, but I am not sure that we need to change the terms of reference. The point about the
I have just come back from speaking at the northern maritime corridor conference. The next stage of the project is a northern motorway of the seas. I met eight ferry operators, whose names I will be happy to give to the clerk. They are considering combined efforts to set up new channels of communication. I would like to think that we could ask those people, although they may not be Britain based at the moment, to speak about their plans and how they can come together.
Fergus Ewing has suggested eight weeks and I am perfectly content with that. If someone makes an informative and interesting submission after that, I am sure that we will look at it. However, setting an initial deadline of eight weeks would be fair.
It is important that we have eight weeks. The effect of freight transport on the environment is extremely important and I know from my constituency work that environmental considerations have involved a community input. When we are contacting businesses to get their input, will we also be communicating with community councils to make them aware of our inquiry?
The convener asked us to let the clerks know about places that we might visit as part of our inquiry. I think that it would be useful for the committee to visit my constituency, which contains the Eurofreight terminal, where the environmental and the transport network issues that Sylvia Jackson mentioned come together. It would be worth the committee's while hearing from those who are already operating with the support of the Scottish Executive to get from road on to rail. We should also hear from companies that are finding it difficult to do that, because of the existing transport networks. We will hear the problems, but we will also see possible solutions.
I hope that that gives the clerks sufficient guidance. If the committee is to make external visits, we must seek approval from the Conveners Group for costs. If members have suggestions for external visits, they should throw them in as soon as possible to enable the clerks to cost them so that we can put in a bid.
Meeting closed at 16:44.
Previous
Regulatory Framework Inquiry